Do you believe what you claim to believe?

[Resha Caner]

No, these are not synonyms. They have the same root derived from latin "Materia", which means substance. Matter is a noun. Material is adjective. Like color and colorful. You wouldn't think that usage of both color and colorfoul is circular? It's just how we use English language.

Material can also be used as a noun. I use it that way all the time in my engineering work. And the two words are synonyms. Check the following link, which lists them as synonyms.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/matter?s=t

But this is not a semantic issue about how we use words. I was looking for a definition that wasn't circular, didn't exclude the possibility of the immaterial, and was testable. Mine is not the only definition of the material/immaterial. In fact, it isn't what you would find in your average dictionary. But I've never been given a different definition that suits the purposes of a conversation like this.

So, you are saying that we have the ability to detect immaterial using our senses? How?

If we're heading toward the use of my definition, let me introduce "fundamental" as a synonym for immaterial. Many are used to thinking of the immaterial as something that is non-existent, and that often causes problems. It makes my statements appear nonsensical. I only used the word "immaterial" to highlight the dichotomy with the material. Going forward, I'll call it fundamental to give it a "positive" sense.

It is possible we could detect the fundamental with our senses. However, it is more likely we would need an instrument to aid our senses. It also depends upon if you are restricting the word "sense" to the typical seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching. We can "feel" things in many different ways - such as the sense of falling, the sense of sickness, the sense of fatigue, the sense of hunger. The list could go on, or you could lump that all together as "feeling". Regardless, whatever the means, yes, it is possible for us to perceive the fundamental. How would we know it exists if we couldn't perceive it?

 

[devolved]

Material can also be used as a noun. I use it that way all the time in my engineering work. And the two words are synonyms. Check the following link, which lists them as synonyms.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/matter?s=t

You understand that in a context of our discussion, Material and Matter are adjective vs noun? When we are talking about material as a noun, we are generally talking about building blocks, which is likewise relevant and isn't inherently circular. One describes functional use, and the other describes a general label that we describe a certain property of observable objects. Matter, just like the "Universe" is not a thing. It's a concept. Concepts point to what we are talking about. Thus, "Material" is likewise a concept that describes certain attribute that we ascribe to visible universe we GENERALLY experience. The definition doesn't discount spiritual. It namely generalizes.

For example, if I gave you a black box and you'd have to shake it and figure out what's inside... all you could do is give some adjective properties that would describe that object. It has weight, it seems solid since it doesn't pass through walls. That's what the label of material is. It's not a comment on "all there is". It's a comment on things that we consistently experience as the label describes them.

For example, the label like "apple" as a fruit, doesn't exclude the possibilities there are other fruits .

I think you are taking your semantic argument when it comes to definitions to an unwarranted level.

But this is not a semantic issue about how we use words. I was looking for a definition that wasn't circular, didn't exclude the possibility of the immaterial, and was testable. Mine is not the only definition of the material/immaterial. In fact, it isn't what you would find in your average dictionary. But I've never been given a different definition that suits the purposes of a conversation like this.

1) See the above

2) There's nothing inherently circular in giving labels to things. When I label something a yellow, I merely label a recognizable property. When we label something as "material", it's likewise a recognizable properly.

Defining "spiritual" as non-material, and material as "not spiritual"... that would be circular, because it doesn't give a clearly recognizable property of either.

If we're heading toward the use of my definition, let me introduce "fundamental" as a synonym for immaterial. Many are used to thinking of the immaterial as something that is non-existent, and that often causes problems. It makes my statements appear nonsensical. I only used the word "immaterial" to highlight the dichotomy with the material. Going forward, I'll call it fundamental to give it a "positive" sense.

Wouldn't the attribute of "theoretical" and "imaginary model" have to be squeezed in as a disclaimer?

My mom is a physics professor, my dad is a philosophy one... and you could imagine the table-side conversations they'd have.

The reason why physics turned away from "aetherial" concepts and more towards particle physics is precisely because aetherial concepts are very difficult to quantify and describe in a consistent framework that doesn't fall apart. Growing up I was fascinated by Tesla, and theoretical models of his followers that would describe "aether" in a very similar manner that you would describe "immaterial" as fundamental.

In that model, that immaterial "perfect liquid) has disturbances that spin into vortex pattern and form matter that then recombines into more complex patterns of vortexes that push that immaterial aether around much like a spinning wheel circulates water in some receptacle. Thus, we have electric current, we have matter and we have gravity... etc.

It's a very interesting model. The problem with this model is that there's no way to confirm that it's valid. We can whip up all sorts of imaginary models and "fundamental" stuff, but it actually has to show some congruence with what we observe. If it doesn't, then what's the point of it all? It's just an interesting concept.

+ If you give "spiritual" the idea of "fundamental", by implication you actually saying that material reality is made up of "spiritual fundamental one". Thus, you are merely equivocating here, or so it seems without actually demonstrating the a-priori assumption. You merely re-labeling physical and attempting to define "spiritual" and by extention "God" into being by making it synonymous and vague.

It is possible we could detect the fundamental with our senses. However, it is more likely we would need an instrument to aid our senses.

So you are speaking about this "spiritual fundamental" as a hypothesis, right?

It also depends upon if you are restricting the word "sense" to the typical seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching. We can "feel" things in many different ways - such as the sense of falling, the sense of sickness, the sense of fatigue, the sense of hunger.

Ok, that's where your logic completely breaks down as you seem to misunderstand how our nervous system works. Please look it up . There's nothing mysterious there. It's all about electrical impulses traveling from our nerve endings when these are triggered by certain organ states.

We likewise have hormonal endocrine system that tends to signal and induce certain states of our organs that would be difficult via nervous system alone.

Please explain how is that in any way related of sensing something "fundamental immaterial".

Again, you are equivocating and re-labeling concepts and attempt to define something into existence.

Regardless, whatever the means, yes, it is possible for us to perceive the fundamental. How would we know it exists if we couldn't perceive it?

The question is not whether it's possible... but what such experience is like, and how is it different from hunger or a state of fear or stress, if you equivocate it with a "feeling"?

Likewise, "Possible" is generally an imaginary state. It's possible that I could win a lottery from the first try... but that's not the likely reality. Possibility doesn't dictate the scope of reality. It's merely a mental projection of "things that could be".

 

[devolved]

In short, we don't begin to describe what we experience from a perspective of hypothesis that we don't observe. You seem to have objections to that, but you don't really provide any viable framework as to how we can even describe or experience your "fundamental spiritual" when it seems to be a hypothesis in terms of whether we can consistently test and validate the reality of what you are talking about.

Why should we describe known from the standpoint of unknown or lesser known? How can that be even possible?

 

[Resha Caner]

Defining "spiritual" as non-material, and material as "not spiritual"... that would be circular, because it doesn't give a clearly recognizable property of either.

You're making some odd twists and turns again. Claiming a "clearly recognizable property" seems an attempt to beg acceptance of what you can't demonstrate. What may be clear to you is not necessarily clear to me. As such, whatever definition might be given needs to be measurable. Further, you were the one who included the senses in your attempt at a definition. It is not part of my definition, but I was merely answering your question regarding whether we can perceive the fundamental. Then suddenly you think discussing the senses is an attempt to define something into existence. Finally, you are tying together "spiritual", "fundamental", and "immaterial" in word pairs in ways I would not use them. If you don't understand what I've said, ask a question. Long posts dismissing what I said won't be very productive.

The reason why physics turned away from "aetherial" concepts and more towards particle physics is precisely because aetherial concepts are very difficult to quantify and describe in a consistent framework that doesn't fall apart. Growing up I was fascinated by Tesla, and theoretical models of his followers that would describe "aether" in a very similar manner that you would describe "immaterial" as fundamental.

In the end, I think you are doing what I feared. Though you asked for my definition, you are responding based on aspects of your concepts of immaterial. If you're going to ask for my definition, you must have the ability to wipe the slate clean and only use the words as I defined them. So, I'm not using "fundamental" to describe the immaterial. Rather, for the purposes of this conversation I am making then exact synonyms. To that end, I sometimes wonder if it would be better to use a more unfamiliar word like "basal" ... or even make a new word so that people don't drag along all kinds of baggage.

Regardless, this is where we are at. I've given 3 definitions:
material: Something that can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible.
fundamental: Something that is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.
spiritual: The fundamental part of a person.

In doing this I'm not defining things into existence. I'm describing my impression of what these things are. That's what you asked for. Though I must say your reaction is like one who presupposed that what I would define doesn't exist rather than one who considered those definitions for what they mean.

If you give "spiritual" the idea of "fundamental", by implication you actually saying that material reality is made up of "spiritual fundamental one". Thus, you are merely equivocating here, or so it seems without actually demonstrating the a-priori assumption.

Though you've not used the terms properly, you are close to recognizing one consequence of my definitions. The material is made up of the fundamental. However, you need to drop the "material reality" thing (and we're not really ready to add "spiritual" back into the discussion). If you would acknowledge being a physicalist/materialist, it would be a phrase consistent with your views. But as long as you're going to say you are an agnostic who remains open to other possibilities, you can't close your definitions to insisting that reality is made of only the material.

I don't understand your objection, however. Doesn't a material like hydrogen consist of elementary particles (electrons and quarks)? I'm saying much the same thing.

You merely re-labeling physical and attempting to define "spiritual" and by extention "God" into being by making it synonymous and vague.

I highlighted the word "physical" in order to caution you. I've not used that word yet, and would not use it as a synonym of material. Rather, in this context, I would use it to mean things that can interact. In that context, both the material and the fundamental are physical.

Please explain how is that in any way related of sensing something "fundamental immaterial".

Again, per the definitions I've given, the phrase "fundamental immaterial" is redundant. It's like saying, "fundamental fundamental". But to answer your question, you would sense the fundamental in the same way you sense light (e.g. photons ... an elementary particle).

 

[devolved]

You're making some odd twists and turns again. Claiming a "clearly recognizable property" seems an attempt to beg acceptance of what you can't demonstrate. What may be clear to you is not necessarily clear to me.

You don't believe that objects have consistently recognizable properties? I gave you some examples, like a color yellow. Yellow is a label for a property, just like material is a label for a property.

You certainly can be free to include whatever other properties you want in the scope of "yellow" or "material", but it results in communication issues in scope of our society.

Regardless, this is where we are at. I've given 3 definitions:
material: Something that can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible.
fundamental: Something that is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property.
spiritual: The fundamental part of a person.

Again, the problem is that you can't demonstrate that fundamental and spiritual exist. All you can point to is what we'd call material, and then claim that it's made of something fundamental and spiritual.

Do you understand the semantic problem?

I don't understand your objection, however. Doesn't a material like hydrogen consist of elementary particles (electrons and quarks)? I'm saying much the same thing.

No, you are not saying the same thing. "Electrons" and "Particles" are scientific concepts that only exist as a model of EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVABLE processes, output of which are quantized as electrons and quarks, and various particles. We don't really know and understand the fundamental nature of reality, and the best we can do is to draw various models, and works through probability... and derive some consistent behavior predictions that we can put for pragmatic use.

I highlighted the word "physical" in order to caution you. I've not used that word yet, and would not use it as a synonym of material. Rather, in this context, I would use it to mean things that can interact. In that context, both the material and the fundamental are physical.

Ok, great... how does it help us to know that it's there? I've asked you whether it's your hypotheses, or is it something that you attempt to merely define into reality as general and vague term.

How different is your definition of fundamental, if we merely label your fundamental as "stuff" and define it as "stuff is everything that things are made of". It doesn't help us to understand anything, because it doesn't actually explain anything.

the phrase "fundamental immaterial" is redundant. It's like saying, "fundamental fundamental". But to answer your question, you would sense the fundamental in the same way you sense light (e.g. photons ... an elementary particle).

Have we ever sensed fundamental then? Or are you merely re-labeling fundamental as light? Again, is it your hypothesis... or is it something that we can actually confirm? If we can't confirm it... how is it relevant?

 

[Resha Caner]

You don't believe that objects have consistently recognizable properties? I gave you some examples, like a color yellow. Yellow is a label for a property, just like material is a label for a property.

Sure, I believe some objects have consistent properties. However, whether we agree on those properties is a different matter. And "yellow" is a very poor example as its colloquial use is very vague. Some shades of yellow might appear green to some people. Some shades might appear orange, some shades an off-white. Have you ever gone to the store to buy paint? There are dozens of shades of yellow. Knowing specifically what someone means can be difficult.

You certainly can be free to include whatever other properties you want in the scope of "yellow" or "material", but it results in communication issues in scope of our society.

Indeed that is true if someone already has a preconceived notion of what a word must specifically mean. Since you are continually hung up on these semantic issues, they will have to be settled before we can move on. I can't address your other comments in a meaningful way until we get this straightened out.

Do you or do you not associate particular meanings with the word "spirit"? If so, what are they?
Do you or do you not associate particular meanings with the word "immaterial"? If so, what are they?

 

[devolved]

Sure, I believe some objects have consistent properties. However, whether we agree on those properties is a different matter.

We don't have to agree on all properties. We just have to agree on commonly observed properties. Unobserved and undetectable properties make little difference, and that's what you don't seem to understand.

Some shades of yellow might appear green to some people. Some shades might appear orange, some shades an off-white. Have you ever gone to the store to buy paint? There are dozens of shades of yellow. Knowing specifically what someone means can be difficult.

That's why we define it further, and have checks and balances in a form of review and criticism to make sure that we are on the same page and not making unsubstantiated claims. It doesn't prevent misconceptions and errors, but it does minimize these.

Generally though, as a society, we have no problem defining and recognizing "yellow" when it's not a shade of it. I can guarantee you that if I put up a yellow color and ask a 100 random people, very likely a 100 of them (if not visually or mentally impared) wouldn't have problems recognizing it.

Clinging to exceptions in this case doesn't really help your argument.

Do you or do you not associate particular meanings with the word "spirit"? If so, what are they?

Please answer the question I've asked several times, first... and I'll gladly answer yours. I've asked this question three times now and you are avoiding it:

"Fundamental" or "Spiritual"... is it a hypothetical proposition, or is it something we can readily observe and confirm?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

Most people lie.

 

[Resha Caner]

Please answer the question I've asked several times, first... and I'll gladly answer yours. I've asked this question three times now and you are avoiding it:

"Fundamental" or "Spiritual"... is it a hypothetical proposition, or is it something we can readily observe and confirm?

I did answer you starting back around post #115. Are you sure you just haven't overlooked or misunderstood my answers? Shrug. OK, I'll answer again.

First of all, the spiritual and the fundamental are two different things, so the answer is different for each.

With respect to the fundamental, I gave a definition for an inanimate thing. So, yes, it can be observed and confirmed. I even gave the example of a photon. I'm not "relabeling" anything as that is exactly what physics calls a photon - an elementary (or fundamental) particle. However, physicists (in their role as physicists) aren't concerned with philosophical debates over what is material and what isn't. They are only concerned with what is physical (hence the eponymous name). Further, the photon is only an example. It's not the only fundamental thing. There are others.

A spirit is a person ... a living person. Not ghosts and zombies, but a living person. They can have a material body (as we do), but not necessarily. What all persons have in common is the spirit. We can interact with other spirits, i.e. they can be "observed and confirmed". They are, therefore, physical. However, postulating they are constituted of the fundamental is just that: postulating, speculating. It is my description of what would explain my spiritual experiences.

I am postulating an idea of spirit that could possibly be "observed and confirmed" in a scientific manner. However, it would be a very difficult experiment for a number of reasons. First, the expense and logistics would be unwieldy. Second, there's no way to know what such an experiment would do. If we tried to locate the spirit of a human, the experiment might kill them. Third, the spirit would have to agree to the experiment, which is unlikely ... but I suppose it's theoretically possible. Maybe there is some way to scan a human brain without killing the person, determine if the fundamental is at play in the brain, and then affect that activity to determine its impact.

Fourth, and finally however, I don't care whether or not I can "prove" such things to you. I'm willing to describe my experiences to you. I'm willing to explain the impact God has had on my life. Whether or not you experience God and where it goes from there is a matter for you and God.

- - -

OK. Your turn. Please answer my questions.

 

[devolved]

Ok. I think me answering your questions will help you understand why I think the above is a misconception. It will not be a short answer, so I'll split it over several posts to make it easier to read. I'll try to include as many references as I can.

 

[devolved]

I guess the first thing to point out is that as humans we have a certain progression from past to present that we went through. We take it for granted because we experience our present culture of press, internet, scientific age, medicine, etc, we take it for granted as "norm". Thus, we generally interpret concepts in context of our knowledge and not through the loooong progression that such concepts went through.

For example, we generally understand word "sinister" as evil or malicious, but the term originated from Latin meaning "left", as in left side or left hand, or left-handed. How did we progress from meaning of "left" to "evil"? It wasn't something that happened overnight, and it's a progression that snowballs certain misconceptions about human anatomy. Ancients didn't handle deviations from norm well, largely because deviations could be easy target for any unexplained problems which were generally pinned on deviants. Hence you have an association of human rights, right thing to do, right wing, right hand of God, mainly because right is a stronger hand. Thus, in some cultures it was a cultural norm to do certain things with right hand, like eating, greeting, etc. And then "unclean things" with "unclean hand" like urination, wiping, and many other things.

We've progressed beyond these misconceptions today, but in some cultures that lag behind there's still a bias against left-handed people to this day, like in Arabic countries where Muslim superstitions dominate that subject.

The point being, when we look at the meaning of certain words... we have to be able to understand how we arrived with that meaning when it comes to the progressive history behind that meaning.

To be continued after dinner

 

[devolved]

So, with that short intro, let's look at the word "spirit/spiritual".

The word is obviously not a 20th century word in its origin, and it shares interesting commonalities in many languages if you examine it.

In short, ancient people naturally didn't have a good understanding of human physiology. It's great to take that education for granted, but absent of it we can very easily have the same misconceptions that they did. Actually many tribes today have very similar misconceptions and it's not really surprising to find similar ideas across the board of human existence.

When people in the past examined the difference between people who are alive and people who are dead, the breathing would be the obvious distinction. Hence in many aboriginal tribes you have traditions like capturing the last breath of a dying chieftain in a bag of some sort, and have his successor breathe it in. Why? Because of the common misconception that breath constitutes the "soul" of the person, and once the "soul" leaves... the person dies.

You'll have this motive repeating again and again in virtually all of the religious history of the human kind. The the term that you know as "spiritual" today actually deals with person's breathing or no longer breathing.

In Hebrew the word spirit is the same as the word breath - ruah, and that actually propagates through many ancient languages and cultures and reflects in the languages today. Besides the word spiritual, we have things like "respirator", both of which comes from latin - "spiritus" or breath. In Russian it's "huh / duhovny" (yes, like in David Duchovny) which stems from the word "dyhaniye" meaning breath.

Thus this physiological misconception gave rise to the concept of "immaterial" part of the person that leaves when person dies, and person dies if that part of the person leaves.

In the ancient cultures the wind and many sicknesses were likewise associated with concept of wind, and the evil spirits would enter person's mouth... and when person sneezes that's because evil spirits or your soul leaving your body... depending on where you are geographically. In some middle eastern cultures yawning is considered "evil", because it's an act of allowing evil spirit enter one's mouth.

The point is that the meaning of the word "spiritual" is heavily tied into a misconception about basic human physiology that we have very much demystified with plentiful medical research on the subject, and we know that the "spirit/breath" leaving explanation is not a very good one... although understandable if our present research would be missing.

Thus, whenever someone uses the word "spiritual" today, they generally have very little clue when it comes to the long history of misconceptions behind that word.

 

[devolved]

J

I did answer you starting back around post #115. Are you sure you just haven't overlooked or misunderstood my answers? Shrug. OK, I'll answer again.

Perhaps, but you still didn't answer as to whether you think whether it's a hypothesis or whether it's something that was tested and confirmed.

With respect to the fundamental, I gave a definition for an inanimate thing. So, yes, it can be observed and confirmed. I even gave the example of a photon. I'm not "relabeling" anything as that is exactly what physics calls a photon - an elementary (or fundamental) particle. However, physicists (in their role as physicists) aren't concerned with philosophical debates over what is material and what isn't. They are only concerned with what is physical (hence the eponymous name). Further, the photon is only an example. It's not the only fundamental thing. There are others.

You understand that we don't observe any "fundamental" matter you are talking about directly. We observe something indirectly, we build mathematical relationships between what we observe. We quantify it, and then we build models... like particles, or photos, or electrons... etc. Science never claims to observe or detect "fundamental" you are talking about directly... especially things like quarks.

What all persons have in common is the spirit.

So, brain isn't necessary then? Why do we even need a brain then ?

We can interact with other spirits, i.e. they can be "observed and confirmed". They are, therefore, physical. However, postulating they are constituted of the fundamental is just that: postulating, speculating. It is my description of what would explain my spiritual experiences.

We can? Why can't we do that in some kind of controlled setting where we can conclusively confirm that such claim is true?

I am postulating an idea of spirit that could possibly be "observed and confirmed" in a scientific manner. However, it would be a very difficult experiment for a number of reasons. First, the expense and logistics would be unwieldy. Second, there's no way to know what such an experiment would do. If we tried to locate the spirit of a human, the experiment might kill them. Third, the spirit would have to agree to the experiment, which is unlikely ... but I suppose it's theoretically possible. Maybe there is some way to scan a human brain without killing the person, determine if the fundamental is at play in the brain, and then affect that activity to determine its impact.

I think one of the reasons that such experiment would be difficult is that you are not framing any possible ways at to how we can detect anything and conclusively say that it's a "spirit". You are talking about a danger... why? Where in person would we be looking for the "spirit"? What would detecting the spirit looks like?

You are claiming that we can communicate with the spirits... why would it be so difficult to confirm such thing under controlled conditions. Are the spirits shy?

JERF ran a challenge that would give a million dollars to anyone who can present some conclusive evidence for supernatural or super-human abilities, like communicating with spirits. Do you know how many claimed the price?

Why would it be so difficult, especially if it would help convince the world about something as important as God's existence... in the very least existence of the spiritual world?

 

[Resha Caner]

It is sometimes helpful to throw out some background to make sure everyone is on the same page. So, I suppose your latest posts served that function. To that end, let me assure you I already knew those things. Well, I don't speak Russian, so I didn't know that bit of trivia. But, I do know the etymology of the Hebrew and Latin words you mentioned. And I know quite a bit about the history of science; it was my focus during my undergraduate history work.

So, are you ready to answer my questions now? I wonder if they weren't clear, so I've emphasized the "you" in those questions. I didn't ask for a history lesson, but rather if those words mean something to you.

Do you associate particular meanings with the word "spirit"? If so, what are they?
Do you associate particular meanings with the word "immaterial"? If so, what are they?

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not unusual for people to struggle with defining a word, so I don't see anything uniquely troubling when people struggle to define "spirit", etc. People most often learn word usage through context. Therefore, if they learn to use the word "spirit" in a Christian context, it shouldn't be surprising when they can't find a way to express the associated concepts to unbelievers. On the flip side, it's not surprising that unbelievers are frustrated by that.

So maybe we need to slow things down and develop some context. Let's try a series of simple examples & questions.

A cheerleader says to you, "Show some team spirit." What does she mean?

 

[devolved]

It's not unusual for people to struggle with defining a word, so I don't see anything uniquely troubling when people struggle to define "spirit", etc. People most often learn word usage through context. Therefore, if they learn to use the word "spirit" in a Christian context, it shouldn't be surprising when they can't find a way to express the associated concepts to unbelievers. On the flip side, it's not surprising that unbelievers are frustrated by that.

Sorry for delay. I'm not having a trouble defining the word for you. Generally I spend weekend in family activities and not on the net... hence the delay.

But, in simple terms... when I would define something like "spiritual" as a concept I have to both take into account the reality of the subject matter, and the concept as how other people would imagine it to be.

I would define "spiritual" to mean the function of the living being, and especially the brain, in a sense synonymous with "life" as a function, but carrying more intellectual overtones . Thus, generally the "spiritual" is associated with seeking for "deeper meaning" of life in a colloquial sense.

Thus, material to spiritual in my definition set would be like car is to driving. I hope it makes sense.

 

[Resha Caner]

But, in simple terms... when I would define something like "spiritual" as a concept I have to both take into account the reality of the subject matter, and the concept as how other people would imagine it to be.

Yes, context is important.

Thus, generally the "spiritual" is associated with seeking for "deeper meaning" of life in a colloquial sense.

Yes, I can see that.

I still wonder if the example might help, so I'll repeat it. A cheerleader says to you, "Show some team spirit." What does she mean? ... And take all the time you need to answer. It's not unusual for people to step away for a few days here and there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I've given 3 definitions:
material: Something that can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible.

Not sure that would be widely accepted by scientists - the standard model of physics has particles considered definitively material that are massless and always travel at light speed (e.g. photons, gluons). Also, the concept of 'at rest' needs some clarification in a relativistic universe.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not sure that would be widely accepted by scientists - the standard model of physics has particles considered definitively material that are massless and always travel at light speed (e.g. photons, gluons). Also, the concept of 'at rest' needs some clarification in a relativistic universe.

In relativity, "rest" is described relative to an inertial frame. I don't think it's an issue.

I'd not be surprised if many physicists informally think of everything as material. Some, when pressed on the issue, would probably wave it off as irrelevant philosophy. Others would define themselves as physicalists/materialists (such as Wiccan_Child, who used to be active here at CF).

However, I am not aware of a formal definition of the term "material" within physics. In my experience the attempt is either arbitrary (material = everything. Why? Because that's how it's defined.) or circular (material = matter = substance = ... umm, material). There have been various philosophical discourses, but not a formal definition in physics that I am aware of. If I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear a formal definition that doesn't fall prey to one of the two issues I listed above.

 

[devolved]

I still wonder if the example might help, so I'll repeat it. A cheerleader says to you, "Show some team spirit." What does she mean? ... And take all the time you need to answer. It's not unusual for people to step away for a few days here and there.

In case of a cheerleader, that would mean "solidarity" or "morale" more than anything like what you or I would be talking about.

The problem with this concept is that the semantic meaning today has expanded quite a bit, and it would be difficult to understand the meaning without the context of what one is speaking about.

For example, when one calls someone "Spiritual" they generally use it as a more broader idea that carries the concept of "religious", but doesn't quite describe people as "religious" in the new Politically Correct culture. But religions do come in all sorts of shades and flavor, and I think that synonym has it's place...

BUT, eventually it all boils down to labeling some "transcendent quality" or meaning to one's existence or understanding. That probably hits a vast majority of the modern use of the word. For example, there's a lot of talk about "Spiritual Wellness" which is somewhat synonymous with "mental health" IMO but sounds more "esoteric" when one wraps the concept in the idea of "Spiritual wellness".

In churches you'd hear about "Spiritual warfare", which is again, if you really drill down what it means, boils down to the concept of maintaining certain belief system and engaging in certain personal rituals that deal with maintenance of the belief system... like prayer, church liturgy, charity functions in some cases, and in some rare cases ... the good old exorcism and anointing.

But, if you want my definition, I'll have to go back to what I see a more common interpretation of the above in terms of how I see it, and it's derived from false attribution of vitality and life as a function to something else other than the brain and organs. In reality it's quite the opposite, the brain and organs produce a function that we call life and consciousness, and many people then mistakenly dissect and re-label as "spirit" or "spiritual".

There is no evidence that human consciousness can exist apart from the brain, and there's plentiful evidence that brain produces conscious experience and personality as a function of brain.

Let me know if it still didn't answer your question.