Is Reason implicit in the unchangeable laws governing the movement of the solar system?
Can the sun or the planets which revolve around it according to these laws, be said to have any consciousness of them?

If the answer to question #1 is yes, and question #2 no, then it would seem to follow that God is Spirit and not matter because the essence of matter is gravity and has only idyllic unity, while the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness - consciousness of one's own being.

Is Reason implicit in the unchangeable laws governing the movement of the solar system?
Can the sun or the planets which revolve around it according to these laws, be said to have any consciousness of them?

If the answer to question #1 is yes, and question #2 no, then it would seem to follow that God is Spirit and not matter because the essence of matter is gravity and has only idyllic unity, while the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness - consciousness of one's own being.

I wish my thinking was as clear as yours. You amaze me. The logic does seem to follow in the above example, if the answers were as you have suggested. What would the logic be if both answers # 1 and # 2 were both yes?

If God created matter, how did He do it? Is Spirit devoid of matter? Do objects following the rules of matter have consciousness because they were born of Spirit?

If the answer to #2 were yes then it would appear to follow from that, that a rock has consciousness and could therefore reason.

From my understanding God is spirit and energy.

Is Reason implicit in the unchangeable laws governing the movement of the solar system?
No, I wouldn't say that Reason (a noun) is "implicit" in the law of gravity. It may be implicit in the structure and function of the human brain. The human ability to reason (a verb) has certainly been instrumental in our theoretical formulation and experimental confirmation of the law of gravity.

Can the sun or the planets which revolve around it according to these laws, be said to have any consciousness of them?
I'm not aware of any evidence that they do. Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis? How would you design a consciousness detector and apply it to a star or planet?

If the answer to question #1 is yes, and question #2 no, then it would seem to follow that God is Spirit and not matter because the essence of matter is gravity and has only idyllic unity, while the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness - consciousness of one's own being.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that IF Reason is implicit in the law of gravity, and IF suns and planets are NOT consciously aware of the law of gravity, THEN God is Spirit and not matter.

To me, it doesn't "seem to follow" that the answers to either of the original questions have any relevance at all to your conclusion that "God is Spirit and not matter", since they say nothing at all about either God or Spirit, and nothing very specific about matter. Your statement that "the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness" sounds profound at first, but the more I try to understand what it actually means, the more I doubt its profundity, and the less connection I see to Reason, gravity, or the possibility of consciousness in material bodies of planetary scale.

I do think the existence and nature of Spirit, and its relation to self-consciousness is an interesting topic, I just don't see how you got to it from where you started.

OG
And to what do you ascribe the workings of the universe …chance; as did Epicurus. For it would seem to follow that there is a reasoned cause or simply chance. Or perhaps there is some other cause you have in mind.


Yeah, it's been my experience that ordinary guys don't find philosophy or logic very interesting.

From my understanding God is spirit and energy.

Mine was an exercise in making a logical argument about the essence of spirit being freedom and active Reason relative to Physical Nature, not God. For I hear so many abstractions about God that I couldn’t begin to believe. I could just as easily have used the term Providence, or prime mover in place of the term God.

Oh, I was going by...


then it would seem to follow that God is Spirit and not matter because the essence of matter is gravity and has only idyllic unity, while the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity

OG
And to what do you ascribe the workings of the universe …chance; as did Epicurus. For it would seem to follow that there is a reasoned cause or simply chance. Or perhaps there is some other cause you have in mind.
I just tried to address the questions you asked, and to examine whether your conclusion followed from the answers you suggested. I still don't see it, but I'd be happy to hear more about why you think it does.

Yeah, it’s been my experience that ordinary guys don’t find philosophy or logic very interesting.
Your experience with ordinary guys has apparently been quite limited.

Mine was an exercise in making a logical argument about the essence of spirit being freedom and active Reason relative to Physical Nature
You may indeed be correct that the essence of spirit is freedom, and that God (or Providence, or The Prime Mover) is spirit and not matter, but you haven't made a valid logical argument to support either conclusion.

Is it even possible to debate it? We are using words. Whether you refer to God, Zeus, Spirit, Allah, Cernunnos or Prime Mover, you still have not defined the "object." What is Spirit, what is matter, what is consciousness, does it matter? What's the matter?

Is it even possible to debate it?
No, I don't think it is, and I don't think that's what we're doing. We're demonstrating our human penchant for mental gymnastics. The point isn't to do useful work, it's to keep the machinery in good working order, in case an important job does come along.

We are using words. Whether you refer to God, Zeus, Spirit, Allah, Cernunnos or Prime Mover, you still have not defined the "object." What is Spirit, what is matter, what is consciousness, does it matter? What's the matter?
I agree, but logically, the flaw is more fundamental than that. Regardless of how the terms might be defined, the essential elements of the stated conclusion (God is Spirit and not matter) are not even mentioned in the premises that are claimed to support it: 1) Reason IS implicit in the law of gravity, and 2) The material bodies of the solar system are NOT conscious of the law that governs their motion. Regardless of how you answer either of the initial questions, the answers have no bearing on the conclusion stated.

Is it even possible to debate it? We are using words. Whether you refer to God, Zeus, Spirit, Allah, Cernunnos or Prime Mover, you still have not defined the "object." What is Spirit, what is matter, what is consciousness, does it matter? What's the matter?
Yes, I think it is possible to debate it.

Wikipedia gives a passably good definition of both matter, spirit, and consciousness. Does it matter; well, not to everyone. OG for instance has pointed out that he does not find it interesting. He apparently is just killing time throwing “Red Herrings” at sometime he is not interested in…strange as it sounds.:)

Ordinary = common…unremarkable…usual.
I didn't say it was a valid argument; I only said it “seems” to follow. Now if it don't “seem” that way to you it's fine by me.

OG for instance has pointed out that he does not find it interesting.
Oh, but I do! Here's what I actually said:

I do think the existence and nature of Spirit, and its relation to self-consciousness is an interesting topic, I just don't see how you got to it from where you started.

I only said it “seems” to follow.
How careless of me to overlook that qualifier. I guess I was distracted by your characterization of what kind of exercise you were engaging in:

Mine was an exercise in making a logical argument...

I didn’t say it was a valid argument;
I do see now that you didn't actually claim that the logical argument you're making is a valid one, so the fact that it isn't valid bears only on its relevance, not on your veracity.

My own opinion is that rigorous logic isn't really the right tool for the job of exploring and grasping the ineffable. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in attempts to use it for that, even though I don't think the likelihood of success is very great.

What I was doing is exploring Hegel's argument, if I understand it right of course.
My position on what to do with the differing accounts that jostle with or contradict each other: The philosophical conclusion I come up with is that the best we can do is base it on the evidence and argument. That is, that the best argument is the best theory until a better one comes along.

I have no use for rigorous logic when addressing abstraction. That is why I ask your opinion as to what you “…[A]scribe to the workings of the universe …chance; as did Epicurus. For it would seem to follow that there is a reasoned cause or simply chance. Or perhaps there is some other cause you have in mind.”

What I was doing is exploring Hegel's argument, if I understand it right of course.
Here's a concise summary of Hegel's argument: Philosophy and the proof of God's existence by Roger Jones (http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm)

Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.


I have no use for rigorous logic when addressing abstraction. That is why I ask your opinion as to what you “…[A]scribe to the workings of the universe …chance; as did Epicurus. For it would seem to follow that there is a reasoned cause or simply chance. Or perhaps there is some other cause you have in mind.”
Good. Then I hope you won't mind if I answer your question poetically rather than logically:


The present manifestation of physical
Happening revolves dancing of particles
Energy emanating within the super-
Structure of soulformings spark and gap
Now as bridging the atomic charge gallops
Forward as life and time--

Consider the sun rising up early
Morning pushing back the darkness
Down beside the river rolling
Toward the ocean
Which raindrops
Rolling down my nose
Pointed toward the broken
Sky
Arching rainbow above
These blue green hills
I feel my presence
Move
As beauty
Watching it burst
Charged potentials
Spinning off into farther orbits
Once again beginning
As end I am ten thousand beings
And the crux of the situation
A collage of integrations and
Separations a paradox of here
And not--

Now and nothing
Everywhere and never
Nowhere and all.

Excerpts from the Illuminated Autobiography of Guy Lee
By Peter M. Johnson
Copyright 1981

I long ago came to the conclusion that it adds much more to a greater understanding to read an author himself, than to another person's analysis.

Just to clear things up a bit…in Hegel's own words, “It is, for example, a widely current fiction, that there was an original primaeval people, taught immediately by God, endowed with perfect insight and wisdom, possessing a thorough knowledge of all natural laws and spiritual truth;…”

“It was Socrates who took the first step in comprehending the union of the Concrete with the Universal. Anaxagoras, then, did not take up a hostile position towards such an application. The common belief in Providence does; at least it opposes the use of the principle on the large scale, and denies the possibility of discerning the plan of Providence. In isolated cases this plan is supposed to be manifest. Pious persons are encouraged to recognise in particular circumstances, something more than mere chance; to acknowledge the guiding hand of God; e.g. when help has unexpectedly come to an individual in great perplexity and need. But these instances. of providential design are of a limited kind, and concern the accomplishment of nothing more than the desires of the individual in question.

From: THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY*
By G. W. F. Hegel
Translated by J. Sibree
I like poetry well enough but better a clear statement of fact attaching a simple yea or nay…Do you believe the solar system began to operate by chance alone?

I like poetry well enough but better a clear statement of fact attaching a simple yea or nay…Do you believe the solar system began to operate by chance alone?
Nay. I think both the beginning and the subsequent development of our particular solar system is adequately explained by the straightforward operation the law of gravity.

Whether the Big Bang (which forged the atoms that make up the solar system) was precipitated by "chance", or by some causative factor, I have no knowledge or opinion.

As you use the term, what does it mean to say that something happened "by chance"? Do you mean that there was NO causative factor involved at all? Or do you mean that there was a cause, just not one that originated in the mind of a sentient being?

What Law of gravity, so far as I know gravity is as abstract a term as intention. We only see the results, not the action of gravity.

When I say by “chance” I use it in relation to reasoned cause. Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.

Reason, along with the ideas of Socrates is only part of the picture. Reason is not freedom from pure chance. Reason is simply the vehicle, within it, you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get. Perhaps after you die, the reason will become clear.

What Law of gravity
Newton's: Law of Gravity - introduction to Newton's law of gravity (http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm)

In the Principia, Newton defined the force of gravity in the following way (translated from the Latin):


Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

so far as I know gravity is as abstract a term as intention.
It seems pretty concrete to me.

When I say by “chance” I use it in relation to reasoned cause.
I don't understand what you mean by "A reasoned cause". Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being? And what do you mean by "use it in relation to"? Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?

Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.
Reasoning is a cognitive capability of the human (and possibly other) minds. How does it equate with "freedom from pure chance"?

OG
So that's what you believe. That's OK, a lot of people think in black and white.

The easiest way I've found to explain it is the way Einstein did… gravity is actually just the observed result of the shape of the Four-dimensional space time continuum.
There are other theories of gravity too, some involve particles (Gravitons), still others involve quantum events and an attempt to explain all forces in one grand unified theory there is String Theory.

Explaining these unproven theories would take much more than I'm willing to give it here.
BTW... My Cats reason... Don't confuse intelligence with reasoning.

Reason, along with the ideas of Socrates is only part of the picture. Reason is not freedom from pure chance. Reason is simply the vehicle, within it, you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get. Perhaps after you die, the reason will become clear.
Given that Reasoning does not guarantee the exclusion of chance, I do see a correlation.

Would you explain what you mean by……”… you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get.”

OG
So that’s what you believe.
And you don't? Are you suggesting that the classical (Newtonian) formulation of the law of gravity is inadequate to explain the origin and development of our solar system? That was the question you asked me:

a simple yea or nay…Do you believe the solar system began to operate by chance alone?
If we were discussing the origin of the entire material universe, it would be a different story, but the solar system began a long time after the Big Bang, and things had settled down a lot by then.

That’s OK, a lot of people think in black and white.
Are you suggesting that my answer is naïve and oversimplified, or what? If that's what you think, why not give a coherent explanation of why you think so, instead of an airy put-down with no substance to it?

The easiest way I’ve found to explain it is the way Einstein did… gravity is actually just the observed result of the shape of the Four-dimensional space time continuum.
There are other theories of gravity too, some involve particles (Gravitons), still others involve quantum events and an attempt to explain all forces in one grand unified theory there is String Theory.
Yes, but do the limitations and approximations of the classical theory make it inadequate to explain the origin and development of our solar system?

Explaining these unproven theories would take much more than I’m willing to give it here.
I see that as a good thing, since they have little to do with the topic under discussion.

Still, I do agree that these more fundamental issues are fascinating, even if they don't really bear on the question at hand. Here's an interesting story from today's NYTimes: Laws of Nature, Source Unknown (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all)

There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe?

If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time.

On the other hand, many thinkers — all the way back to Augustine — suspect that space and time, being attributes of this existence, came into being along with the universe — in the Big Bang, in modern vernacular. So why not the laws themselves?


BTW... My Cats reason... Don’t confuse intelligence with reasoning.
Are you saying that your cats aren't intelligent? How would you characterize the difference between intelligence and the ability to reason?

I'd still like to hear your answers to some of my previous questions, for example:

I don't understand what you mean by "A reasoned cause". Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being? And what do you mean by "use it in relation to"? Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?

Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.
Reasoning is a cognitive capability of the human (and possibly other) minds. How does it equate with "freedom from pure chance"?

OG

The reason I don't answer all of your questions is because so many are red herrings; for instance you ask: “Are you saying that your cats aren't intelligent?” Well no, had I meant to say that I would have. The intelligence of a cat can only meaningfully be address relative to something else.

Another, you ask: “Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?” And another: Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being?


Perhaps if you paid more attention to the whole of what I say instead of analyzing a particular sentence out of context you would not be so confused by what you think I might mean and the conversation would move along better.

Another example, you ask: “Are you suggesting that my answer is naïve and oversimplified, or what? If that's what you think, why not give a coherent explanation of why you think so, instead of an airy put-down with no substance to it?”

Again, if that is what I had meant, that is what I would have said. You seem to believe one theory about gravity at the exclusion of all others…as I said, that is OK with me, it's just that I refuse to accept it.

Perhaps if you paid more attention to the whole of what I say instead of analyzing a particular sentence out of context you would not be so confused by what you think I might mean and the conversation would move along better.
OK, let's start over. Here's a clean slate. What was the main point of your original post?

Ok, here is my view: Abstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents.
Concrete terms refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. This is directly opposite to abstract terms, which name things that are not available to the senses.

General terms and specific terms are the different ends of a range of terms. General terms refer to groups; specific terms refer to individuals—or somewhere in between.

We experience the world first and most vividly through our senses.

Can gravity be sensed…well, not unless someone has convinced you that there is a fine balance of the opposite but same force that allow you to walk and that force is named gravity.

Freedom and spirit are generally considered abstract terms. Are there any conditions under which they can be sensed…well, if I am driving down the street and decide I want a vanilla ice cream cone and then pull over, walk in with the purpose of getting one, but decide instead to get a chocolate cone instead. Do I experience a sense of freedom, and if so isn't that a concrete sense of freedom in specific as opposed to general terms.

Suppose I am playing a game of high school football and my team is down by two touchdowns starting into the last quarter…but we come together after some incident, rally, and go on to win. We attribute 'team spirit' as the cause because we individually experienced it and the crowd sensed it. So isn't that an example of a concrete sense of spirit in specific as well as general terms.

What has this to do with the claim that freedom is essential to spirit? Could that spirit have existed if we each had believed that it was impossible, that we were not free to do so but rather bound by circumstance beyond our control.

So it was all about Freedom and Spirit, and not really about Reason, gravity, or the solar system? Then I don't have a problem with it. Thanks for clearing that up.