Are spirits stupid?

[_Scottie]

Ok, lets add another wrench into the mix.

In LDS theology, we had a pre-existence where we were spirits. As spirits, we learned and grew in knowledge. Then we came to Earth and had a veil placed over our minds.

Now, when we die, does our Earthly knowledge meld with our pre-existence knowledge? Is the veil lifted so that we can now remember the whole of our existence?

Also, I have heard that if you die with an addiction (say an alcoholic, for example), you still retain the addiction in the spirit world. If you see a drunk, you may inhabit his body for the buzz. However, this quite likely is an urban myth in the church with no doctrinal backing.

I believe it's just a myth. LDS have no idea when, if ever, the veil is lifted. Obviously if one ascends to omniscience they will know but other then that, but it's possible that for some such a melding process would do more harm then good. Trying to reconcile two moral codes that you hold dear might lead to some form of madness. Then again, mental illness might not be a problem there either.

So what would be the point of learning anything in the pre-existence if it were all just going to be erased? Why not just start our intelligence at birth?

[_The Nehor]

So what would be the point of learning anything in the pre-existence if it were all just going to be erased? Why not just start our intelligence at birth?

I assume there are attributes that can be developed without access to your memory. Of course it's also possible that for a Spirit to be able to inhabit a human body there must be some kind of progression to a certain point in which case it's necessary just to get here, whether or not it helps. I'd put my money on the former though.

[_Scottie]

So what would be the point of learning anything in the pre-existence if it were all just going to be erased? Why not just start our intelligence at birth?

I assume there are attributes that can be developed without access to your memory. Of course it's also possible that for a Spirit to be able to inhabit a human body there must be some kind of progression to a certain point in which case it's necessary just to get here, whether or not it helps. I'd put my money on the former though.

As you stated before, there would be an intrinsic moral code within each of us. Are morals simply memory? Or are they something more?

[_asbestosman]

I wonder how the spirit enters human bodies? I know it's from pre-existence (whatever that is?) and that spirits are created, yet how do they enter a person? In the womb?

We don't know, but many think so.

I just really don't understand the idea behind it, quite frankly. The spirit is a spirit baby at first and grows larger as the human body ages? Then after death the spirit goes to one of the Kingdoms?

It is my understanding that spirits somehow "shrink" to be the same size as the baby and grow as the baby grows. After death, the spirit first goes to the spirit world before going to one of the Kingdoms.

Do the spirits shape the human or vice versa?

It is my understanding that the human shapes the spirit.

Are the spirits genderless before entering the fetus in the womb (I'm assuming this is when it enters??)? Or is the spirit the essential component of what makes the human that it inhabits what it is? I don't know if that makes any sense.

Gender is a part of our eternal identities according to the Proclomation to the World on the family, so spirits do have gender before entering the fetus.

[_SeekerofTruth]

Tarski wrote:
I always assumed that I needed my brain and its neurons to think and feel and reason. But spirits don't have brains. Or if they do then we have to ask what good do those physical neurons do? Surely they must help with thought. Well, we know they do! Brain surgery and brain lesions and so on makes that point--read Oliver Sachs. So a spirit brain (WTF?) can't think as well then I guess. Again, otherwise the physical brain isn't adding anything.

Spirits are, well, stupid. Fair conclusion?

I’m curious. Are you a computer imitating a live person or are you a person claiming to be a computer? In other words, are you just the neurons firing in your brain? If so, how do you explain consciousness, or have you ever experienced conscious awareness? How does consciousness differ from spirit? Are not both immaterial? If and when you are conscious are you stupid? How can a nothing that is stupid consciously control brain activity? Is the brain the source of consciousness? If so, how can this be? How can something material produce something immaterial? Just wondering.

[_Tarski]

Tarski wrote:
I always assumed that I needed my brain and its neurons to think and feel and reason. But spirits don't have brains. Or if they do then we have to ask what good do those physical neurons do? Surely they must help with thought. Well, we know they do! Brain surgery and brain lesions and so on makes that point--read Oliver Sachs. So a spirit brain (WTF?) can't think as well then I guess. Again, otherwise the physical brain isn't adding anything.

Spirits are, well, stupid. Fair conclusion?

I’m curious. Are you a computer imitating a live person or are you a person claiming to be a computer? In other words, are you just the neurons firing in your brain? If so, how do you explain consciousness, or have you ever experienced conscious awareness? How does consciousness differ from spirit? Are not both immaterial? If and when you are conscious are you stupid? How can a nothing that is stupid consciously control brain activity? Is the brain the source of consciousness? If so, how can this be? How can something material produce something immaterial? Just wondering.

Consider that you might be making a category mistake. Consciousness in not immaterial in any stronger sense than is the meaning in the words you are reading. The idea or intuition that consciousness is something ghost-like with a separate but substantive ontological status is common, maybe irresitable, but almost certainly mistaken.
Read "Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett" and Matter and Consciousness" by Paul Churchland.

Even without that we know from experiment that every aspect of consciousness that we can explicitly identify can be tied to brain function--include color sense, emotions, sense of self etc.

1. What EXACTLY do you think needs explaining than cannot be explained by physical processes? (Read Dennett as many times as it takes to get the point).
2. How in the world does positing a new kind of stuff ("spirit") help anything at all? Whatever property this spirit matter has that you think so amazing, why can't it be that matter already possesses it?
3. If you are a TBM consider that Joseph Smith said that spirit was refined mater. Well then if is a kind of matter then I suppose we are back to explaining how that kind of matter can produce something immaterial like consciousness (but as you will recall, I think "immaterial" is a misleading and empty way of talking about consciousness).

[_harmony]

So what would be the point of learning anything in the pre-existence if it were all just going to be erased? Why not just start our intelligence at birth?

I assume there are attributes that can be developed without access to your memory. Of course it's also possible that for a Spirit to be able to inhabit a human body there must be some kind of progression to a certain point in which case it's necessary just to get here, whether or not it helps. I'd put my money on the former though.

1. what are you using to establish that a veil exists? The fact that we don't remember our pre-earth lives could be because there was no such thing. Isn't it entirely possible that the concept of the veil is simply man trying to explain what he doesn't understand?

2. how does anyone know what a spirit looks like? Does my spirit have gray hair, blue eyes, and red-painted toe nails?

3. can a spirit learn? or are we just relearning what we already knew?

[_SeekerofTruth]

Consider that you might be making a category mistake. Consciousness in not immaterial in any stronger sense than is the meaning in the words you are reading. The idea or intuition that consciousness is something ghost-like with a separate but substantive ontological status is common, maybe irresitable, but almost certainly mistaken.
Read "Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett" and Matter and Consciousness" by Paul Churchland.

Even without that we know from experiment that every aspect of consciousness that we can explicitly identify can be tied to brain function--include color sense, emotions, sense of self etc.

1. What EXACTLY do you think needs explaining than cannot be explained by physical processes? (Read Dennett as many times as it takes to get the point).
2. How in the world does positing a new kind of stuff ("spirit") help anything at all? Whatever property this spirit matter has that you think so amazing, why can't it be that matter already possesses it?
3. If you are a TBM consider that Joseph Smith said that spirit was refined mater. Well then if is a kind of matter then I suppose we are back to explaining how that kind of matter can produce something immaterial like consciousness (but as you will recall, I think "immaterial" is a misleading and empty way of talking about consciousness).

Dennett and Paul Churchland, along with his wife, are all materialists. What do you expect them to say? Their position on consciousness is not the only one. View the following abstracts:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/abstracts.htm

See also Jeffery Schwartz The Mind and the Brain and Gary Schwartz The Afterlife Experiments for example.

You are also ignoring the vast literature on NDEs. See especially:

http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._pim_van_lommel_m.d._continuity_of_consciousness.html

We all seem to experience consciousness and yet it is unexplained by brain function (see Schwartz). Many individuals experience consciousness outside of their bodies and as yet this is unexplained by brain function (see van Lommel). Attempts have been made at explanations but these are only convincing to those who already discredit any immaterial existence (such as, apparently, your self).

[_Moniker]

I wonder how the spirit enters human bodies? I know it's from pre-existence (whatever that is?) and that spirits are created, yet how do they enter a person? In the womb?

We don't know, but many think so.

Well, that would seem to make the most sense, I suppose.

I just really don't understand the idea behind it, quite frankly. The spirit is a spirit baby at first and grows larger as the human body ages? Then after death the spirit goes to one of the Kingdoms?

It is my understanding that spirits somehow "shrink" to be the same size as the baby and grow as the baby grows. After death, the spirit first goes to the spirit world before going to one of the Kingdoms.

Is the spirit the shape of what the human will be and then have to shrink down to fit the baby? I mean, does the spirit already look like the human will look like if they grow to old age? Or is the spirit just human looking in a very generic sense and then takes on the trait of the human it inhabits? Are the spirits assigned to humans? Are the humans already paired with the spirits -- as in foreknown that this babe will be born? I hope that makes sense.. It's sort of confusing to me and I'm not certain I'm asking my questions in a way that makes much more sense. Sorry.

Do the spirits shape the human or vice versa?

It is my understanding that the human shapes the spirit.

So, the spirit is shapeless and then takes on the form of the human? That's right?

Are the spirits genderless before entering the fetus in the womb (I'm assuming this is when it enters??)? Or is the spirit the essential component of what makes the human that it inhabits what it is? I don't know if that makes any sense.

Gender is a part of our eternal identities according to the Proclomation to the World on the family, so spirits do have gender before entering the fetus.

Okay, that's interesting. So, they have a gender and look like a human -- yet, they later take on the exact qualities of the human they inhabit.

Why are spirits placed in humans? Is it so that they are somehow linked to God? Then the spirit takes on the shape and form of the human, has the experiences of the human, etc... and then when the human life is through the spirit returns to the spirit world with all the qualities of the human it inhabited?

[_Tarski]

Consider that you might be making a category mistake. Consciousness in not immaterial in any stronger sense than is the meaning in the words you are reading. The idea or intuition that consciousness is something ghost-like with a separate but substantive ontological status is common, maybe irresitable, but almost certainly mistaken.
Read "Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett" and Matter and Consciousness" by Paul Churchland.

Even without that we know from experiment that every aspect of consciousness that we can explicitly identify can be tied to brain function--include color sense, emotions, sense of self etc.

1. What EXACTLY do you think needs explaining than cannot be explained by physical processes? (Read Dennett as many times as it takes to get the point).
2. How in the world does positing a new kind of stuff ("spirit") help anything at all? Whatever property this spirit matter has that you think so amazing, why can't it be that matter already possesses it?
3. If you are a TBM consider that Joseph Smith said that spirit was refined mater. Well then if is a kind of matter then I suppose we are back to explaining how that kind of matter can produce something immaterial like consciousness (but as you will recall, I think "immaterial" is a misleading and empty way of talking about consciousness).

Dennett and Paul Churchland, along with his wife, are all materialists. What do you expect them to say? Their position on consciousness is not the only one. View the following abstracts:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/abstracts.htm

I've seen that before. You seem to think that the Churchlands decided to be materialists and then suddenly realized there was mind to account for and then dishonestly tried to fake it.
Not so, I think we all start out with this intuition. But it never gets articulated in any sensible way.
I started out being really into the immaterial nature of consciousness when I was quite young. I took guys like Dennett to be fools and my intellectual enemies with regard to consciousness. But then slowly I started to get the point. It took me three reads of Dennett's book before I got it. It is very counter intuitive but at least is is articulate and not a brute intuition. Words have meanings and can be connected to experiement etc.


See also Jeffery Schwartz The Mind and the Brain and Gary Schwartz The Afterlife Experiments for example.

You are also ignoring the vast literature on NDEs.

I am not ignoring them. I have had them---OBE's anyway! And I have seen the literature.

Many individuals experience consciousness outside of their bodies and as yet this is unexplained by brain function.

I have had OBEs.
Convincing at first blush but then.....think about it. It can be explained by neurology. They can be induced at will by a chemical already present in the body.

I challenge you to make any sense out of "immaterial consciousness". What does it mean? What characterizes the "immaterial"? How do you know you are saying anything meaningful? Lets have some precise or functional definitions. How does one distinguish material from immaterial? This line of thought never ever gets of the ground. Lets have at it!