141 thoughts on “Body, Soul, and Spirit”

1. And since Erik brought up mirages, there’s a point I’d like to stress: mirages and illusions aren’t the same thing. Mirages (such as the fata morgana below) occur because the atmosphere distorts the light before it reaches our eyes. Visual illusions occur because our perceptual systems introduce distortions after the light reaches our eyes.

   We don’t perceive directly; we perceive indirectly via the (sometimes distorted) representations produced by our perceptual apparatus. I stress this lest someone argue that illusions are really just distortions introduced by the medium. They are not, so that argument can’t be used to explain illusions in a way that is compatible with direct perception.

2. CharlieM: CharlieM: Is it wrong to say that Caucasians generally show a more cold, abstract thinking which has resulted in advancement in technology?

   Kantian Naturalist: It’s factually wrong but more importantly it’s racist bullshit.

   CharlieM: Are you saying that modern universities, technologies and industries weren’t created in Europe? Is this not a fact?

   One of the few weaknesses in your otherwise rather pleasant personality is your habit of playing the “so what you are saying is … ” rhetorical gambit as Jock has previously pointed out to you.

   KN remarked, rightly so, that explaining historical differences among nations in the rate of technological advancement in terms of inherent biological differences in the capacity for “abstract thinking” between their inhabitants is not only factually incorrect but also racist bullshit. You have twisted his words into something completely different. I think you owe KN an apology here.

   Rudolf Steiner nurtured, like many others Europeans in his time, several deeply racist convictions. Deal with it.

3. keiths:
   CharlieM: I’m really impressed with that seemingly moving image.

   keiths: It’s striking, isn’t it? One of the best illusions I’ve ever seen. Here’s a link for readers who haven’t seen the full-speed original:

   Mario illusion

   CharlieM: The image above demonstrates to me how sense perception alone gives a false impression. Visual sense perception involves the eyes and brain and is thus limited. But there is a higher perception by means of the mind. This is where we might exclaim, “Oh yes, I see it now!”

   Through this higher form of “seeing” I know that the figures in the image are not moving as they appear to be for the senses. I understand the effect of the radiating, bright yellow which swamps the darker colours. It is the movement of this yellow within the figures that give them the appearance of movement.

   keiths: That was my impression too, but I decided to slow it down just to make sure. As you can see below, it turns out that neither the figures nor the colors within the figures are moving. There is no motion whatsoever in that image. It’s an illusion within an illusion.

   I guess your “higher form of seeing” isn’t so high after all. It got fooled by an illusion, just like the “lower” form. So much for direct perception.

   CharlieM: I now see the reality hidden in this optical image.

   keiths: No, you didn’t, and neither did I until I slowed it down. Vision is a function of the eyes and the brain, Charlie, and there is no “higher form of seeing” to supplement it. Besides, if we actually did have this higher form of seeing, why would God create us with eyes and a visual system, especially one that’s prone to illusions? Why wouldn’t we just use the higher form all the time?

   This post caught my eye, so I’ll make a rare exception and reply out of sequence. 🙂

   Visual sense perception does not just involve the eyes and brain, it involves the eye, the brain, and the mind.

   You should look closer. I have provided a still from the illusion. The figures are edged with changing colours. We see yellow on one side of the ‘moving’ figures and then a short time later it has appeared the other side. In conjunction with the cleverly arranged changing main body colours, this displacement (movement) of the bright yellow gives the impression that the figure is moving in that direction.

   According to Goethe we see the warm yellow/red spectral colours as advancing, and the violet/blue cold spectral colours as receding. Perception of movement is an intrinsic feature of colours for our vision. Many artists use these properties to good effect in their paintings.

4. CharlieM: According to Goethe we see the warm yellow/red spectral colours as advancing, and the violet/blue cold spectral colours as receding.

   Yet another aspect of Goethe’s colour theory that was ultimately proven wrong.

5. keiths:
   And since Erik brought up mirages, there’s a point I’d like to stress: mirages and illusions aren’t the same thing. Mirages (such as the fata morgana below) occur because the atmosphere distorts the light before it reaches our eyes. Visual illusions occur because our perceptual systems introduce distortions after the light reaches our eyes.

   We don’t perceive directly; we perceive indirectly via the (sometimes distorted) representations produced by our perceptual apparatus. I stress this lest someone argue that illusions are really just distortions introduced by the medium. They are not, so that argument can’t be used to explain illusions in a way that is compatible with direct perception.

   Here I go again, replying totally out of sequence. 🙂

   You stress the difference between mirages and optical illusions. The former occurs due to the way the image falls on our retinas. Illusions occur because of the way the brain deals with the image.

   Your brain does not understand the difference, but you do. You can ‘see’ the difference because your mind is capable of providing an understanding of the whole process from source, through the eye, the optic nerve, and in the brain. The brain is but one part of this process, the mind grasps the whole procedure.

6. CharlieM: Your brain does not understand the difference, but you do.

   My brain understands the difference just fine, thank you.

   You can ‘see’ the difference because your mind is capable of providing an understanding of the whole process from source, through the eye, the optic nerve, and in the brain.

   Is ‘see’ in quotation marks because you are distorting the meaning of the word beyond recognition? In both the mirage and the illusion, you perceive something that is not there. The reasons for this error differ, and we can use our “thinking minds” (or brains…) to understand the different reasons for the different errors. Strangely, this does little or nothing to eliminate the error in perception. I encourage you to ponder on this curious result.

   The brain is but one part of this process, the mind grasps the whole procedure.

   So you keep asserting, without one scrap of evidence. Frankly, it’s getting old.

7. keiths:
   CharlieM: I agree that I fail to communicate much of the time. Sometimes language is not enough to communicate personal experiences.

   keiths: That isn’t the problem. We aren’t talking about personal experiences here; we are talking about some concepts and the terminology associated with them, including the ‘etheric’, the ‘astral’, and the question of whether ‘sentience’ means the same thing as ‘the seat of sentience’.

   “CharlieM: By ‘[astral] body’ I mean the seat of sentience.”

   keiths: Yet earlier you wrote:

   “Charlie: This can be named the astral ‘body’, sentience, feeling principle or something like that.”

   In that sentence you equate ‘astral body’ with ‘sentience’, not ‘the seat of sentience’. Those are different things. You additionally equate ‘astral body’ with ‘feeling principle’, which also makes no sense. Bodies, astral or otherwise, are not principles. Your own terminology is confusing you, which is one of the dangers I pointed out earlier.

   The astral ‘body’ according to Steiner is an entity that can be perceived supersensibly as can the etheric ‘body’. In my opinion if any person genuinely perceives someone’s aura, this is what they are ‘seeing’. The astral ‘body’ can be regarded as the supersensible manifestation of the sentient soul. So, changes in soul qualities such as mood states will be ‘seen’ as variations in the astral ‘body’.

   I don’t claim to be able to perceive these auras directly, but then again, I haven’t put in the effort to strengthen my will. We believe many things in life through their effects and not direct perception. You believe brain causes mind without sufficient evidence to establish how the brain unifies the separate physical input streams into a coherent whole.

   CharlieM: Its [the body’s] physical aspect is the nervous system but isn’t restricted to it. To get a glimpse of the astral I look up from the point I occupy here on earth. The light filled peripheral forces stream in towards us building up life on the earth. The sentience that lights up in life is the result of instreaming forces. My body is formed by the combination of centrifugal earthly forces and centripetal astral forces. My astral component is built up from forces streaming into me in a similar way that my physical body is built up by food, water and air streaming into me. I alter my ‘astral body’ through the force of will.

   keiths: Do you have any evidence for the claims you are making in that paragraph?

   I have often repeated that I am not making truth claims. I am giving my opinions on reality. My first piece of evidence is in coming to an understanding that the equally fundamental nature of both polarity of point and plane affects our views on origins.

   keiths: Yes, there is a clear difference between rocks and living plants, and we refer to the latter as “alive”. But that give us no reason to conclude that an “etheric principle”, “formative force”, or “life body” is somehow involved. Indeed, science shows that particles don’t “care” whether they are part of a living body, a dead body, or an object such as a rock. They follow the same physical laws regardless. Matter and energy arranged one way can be alive; that same matter and energy arranged in a different way can be dead or nonliving. Your “etheric principle” serves no genuine explanatory purpose.

   CharlieM: You are right that particles don’t care what they are part of.

   keiths: That’s crucial, but you don’t seem to be grasping the importance of it. If particles don’t ‘care’ what they’re part of, it means that they follow the same laws regardless. If that’s true, then there is no difference between the laws followed by particles within a living human body versus those followed by particles in dead bodies or in inanimate objects. And if that’s true (and all the evidence we have suggests it is), then the various ‘principles’, ‘forces’, and ‘bodies’ you are positing serve no purpose whatsoever in maintaining life or directing our actions. The particles (and the energy) do that on their own simply by following the laws of physics. The nonphysical entities you posit are superfluous, serving no explanatory purpose. They are as useless as the mythical angels pushing the planets around to keep them in their proper orbits

   The laws of physics and chemistry governing any human-made machine and its components are followed without exception. But physics and chemistry alone does not explain how these machines came to be. Thinking minds are the inspiration for their existence. You might believe that thinking minds are the product of brains, but this is pure belief which is still the subject of much debate among philosophers, and not an established fact.

8. keiths:
   CharlieM: Modern science has tended to look for the fundamental nature of reality in the smaller and smaller while the complimentary fundamental planar aspect has been mostly ignored.

   keiths: Science is just as interested in the very large as it is in the very small. Think of cosmology. Second, what is the evidence that this “planar aspect” exists and has some sort of effect on the physical world?

   When I think of cosmology, I think of the big bang theory which I consider to be the modern creation myth. And it should be noted that the fundamental beginnings of this myth originate in a point and the first thing to appear are sub-atomic particles which formed more complex sub-atomic particles which gave rise to matter as we know it.

   keiths: Plane is equally fundamental to point although the former cannot be fixed and treated numerically as can the latter.

   keiths: Planes can actually be easier to “fix and treat numerically” than points. In a 3D Cartesian coordinate system, some planes can be fixed by specifying a single variable, whereas I have to specify three variables to fix a point. For example, y=4 specifies a plane that intersects the y axis four units from the origin and spreads out from there parallel to the x-axis and z-axis. To specify a point on that same plane, by contrast, I’d need to specify all three variables, eg. x=2, y=4, z=10. And even in the case of a plane that isn’t parallel to any of the axes, it can still be specified by three numbers (the x-, y-, and z-intercepts). So no worse than the three values needed to specify an arbitrary point.

   And with your answer above you have just treated the plane in relation to a point and not by its own terms.

   CharlieM: And it is the same when comparing the physical to the spiritual. The physical is the domain of number, weight and measure.

   keiths: You’ve told us that the etheric and astral interact with the physical, but you haven’t explained how this works, why we see no evidence of it, and why, if those things actually exist, particles follow the same laws of physics regardless.

   The astral ‘body’ is the seat of our emotions and feelings. If somebody has the urge to go to a gym and do some body building, then in my opinion this is evidence of the astral working to alter the physical. The feeling of hunger is astral, and it is satisfied physically. Suicide is a very dramatic example of emotions affecting the physical.

   CharlieM: If others react according to their preconceptions regarding the words I use, that is their concern.

   keiths: People always react according to their preconception of the words that others use, and for obvious reasons. I have a ‘preconception’ about the word ‘bicycle’. If you tell me you rode a bicycle to work, I infer that you sat astride a two-wheeled contraption that carried you to work as you steered and pedaled it. Not my fault if by ‘bicycle’ you actually mean ‘train’. Likewise, if you talk about an ‘astral body’, I infer that you are talking about a body — not a physical body, but a body nonetheless. If by ‘astral body’ you really mean ‘feeling principle’, then that’s on you, because bodies are not principles and it is unreasonable to expect me to intuit your idiosyncratic usage.

   I try to provide details, from my point of view, of the concepts and ideas behind words such as etheric and astral.

   There are some crucial details that I (and Corneel) can never get you to provide. Namely, how do the ‘astral’ and ‘etheric’ interact with the physical? Why don’t we see any evidence that this actually happens?

   I could ask you the same about the physical body. You say it’s made of matter, but how do you define matter? We consist of solids, liquids and gases. How solid is solid? Is it just energetic fields and ’empty’ space? Where is physics leading us? Perhaps the astral, etheric and physical are basically just simmilarly-constitued fields interacting with each other.

9. CharlieM,

   As DNA_Jock noted, you’re being too loose with the word ‘see’. We use ‘see’ both literally and metaphorically, all the time, but the literal sense is quite different from the metaphorical sense. “I see that the gate is open” is a literal use; “I see now that her anger was directed at him, not me” is a metaphorical use.

   It’s similar for the word “perceive”. “He perceived that the water was rising” is literal; “he perceived a link between global warming and rainfall intensity” is metaphorical.

   “I see that the gate is open” refers to an actual sensory process in which the gate, the post, and the surroundings reflect photons that travel to our eyes, impinging on our retinas, followed by processing both in the retina and the brain, producing in the end an awareness of a gate in front of us that is open. “I see now that her anger was directed at him, not me” has nothing to do with that sensory process. It’s pretty much synonymous with “I realize now that her anger was directed at him, not me”.

   You’re clearly aware of the distinction. It’s why you put the word ‘see’ in quotes when you wrote this:

   You can ‘see’ the difference because your mind is capable of providing an understanding of the whole process from source, through the eye, the optic nerve, and in the brain.

   ‘Direct perception’ is a term of art referring to sensory processes, not cognitive ones. Your use of ‘see’ above refers to a cognitive process, not a sensory one, so it cannot be used to support a claim about direct perception. Regarding the illusion, we can say “I see motion, but I understand that the figures aren’t really moving”. Understanding is not literal seeing, so it cannot be an instance of direct perception.

10. Charlie,

    Earlier you wrote this:

    I do not believe that I perceive the external world through some sort of copy inside my head. In my opinion direct perception involves my mind being in the world rather than the world imprinting itself in my brain.

    I’ll first note that your use of ‘direct perception’ here does not match its use as a term of art in perceptual science. This can lead (and has led) to confusion, so let’s substitute a different phrase for the kind of perception you are referring to. I suggest ‘unmediated perception’, since (if I understand you correctly) you are claiming that the mind can bypass the senses and instead perceive objects (in the literal sense of ‘perceive’) via direct contact with the world.

    The argument from illusion applies to unmediated perception just as it does to direct perception. If our minds are in direct contact with the world, we should perceive the Marios as they actually are — static figures. We don’t. Our minds rely on our visual system, and the quirks of that system are exposed by illusions such as the Marios. We see the figures moving when we first encounter that illusion, and it’s only after an interval that we can convince ourselves that they’re actually fixed in place. Understanding that they’re static is different from seeing (in the literal sense) that they’re static. The mind isn’t out in the world, perceiving by unmediated contact. It’s within us, constructing a model of reality based on the information it receives from our senses.

    ETA:
    If it’s true that our minds are out in the world, sensing things via direct contact, then why do we have eyes and ears? What purpose do they serve if the mind is already capable of seeing and hearing?

    The argument from illusion leads to a similar argument from mistaken beliefs. Why can we have false beliefs about the physical world if our minds are out there sensing everything directly? Suppose I’m convinced there is one last Coke in the fridge, but when I open the door I find that someone has already taken it. Why didn’t my mind sense that and save me the trip? It seems that refrigerator doors are opaque to the mind as well as to our senses.

11. keiths,

    Lovely example with the fridge door. I was hoping that Charlie would realize that if his ‘out in the world’ mind was managing his experience, then the understanding that the Marios are stationary would cause the illusion of motion to disappear. It doesn’t.

12. CharlieM:

    This post caught my eye, so I’ll make a rare exception and reply out of sequence. 🙂

    I’d encourage you to prioritize recent posts over older ones so that your interactions with us will feel more like a conversation and less like an exchange of letters via transatlantic schooner.

    You can always go back and respond to older posts as time permits.

13. keiths:

    In that sentence you equate ‘astral body’ with ‘sentience’, not ‘the seat of sentience’. Those are different things. You additionally equate ‘astral body’ with ‘feeling principle’, which also makes no sense. Bodies, astral or otherwise, are not principles. Your own terminology is confusing you, which is one of the dangers I pointed out earlier.

    CharlieM:

    The astral ‘body’ according to Steiner is an entity that can be perceived supersensibly as can the etheric ‘body’. In my opinion if any person genuinely perceives someone’s aura, this is what they are ‘seeing’. The astral ‘body’ can be regarded as the supersensible manifestation of the sentient soul. So, changes in soul qualities such as mood states will be ‘seen’ as variations in the astral ‘body’.

    That ‘response’ is completely unresponsive to my comment. Let me repeat: bodies are not principles, and sentience is not the same thing as the seat of sentience. You are conflating separate concepts and confusing yourself in the process.

    If you want to talk about the astral body, fine. But don’t call it a ‘body’ in one breath and a ‘principle’ in the next, and don’t call it ‘sentience’ in one breath and the ‘seat of sentience’ in the next. These discussions will continue to go nowhere if you can’t keep your concepts, your terminology, and your positions straight.

    You believe brain causes mind without sufficient evidence to establish how the brain unifies the separate physical input streams into a coherent whole.

    That’s God-of-the-Gaps style reasoning. Science is actually making progress on that question, but even if it weren’t, gaps in scientific knowledge don’t justify the invocation of a God or an ‘astral body’ to fill the gap. Besides being unable to demonstrate the astral body’s existence, you have no idea how it would unify separate sensory streams into a unified consciousness or whether it would even be capable of doing so. You just assume it would. “Steiner says” is not an adequate justification.

14. keiths:

    keiths: Do you have any evidence for the claims you are making in that paragraph?

    CharlieM:

    I have often repeated that I am not making truth claims. I am giving my opinions on reality.

    You certainly state your positions as if you’re making truth claims, and I think you use the ‘not claiming truth’ gambit as something of a get-out-of-jail-free card. But even assuming that your assertions are really just opinions, don’t you still care whether they are true and whether they can withstand scrutiny and criticism?

    You wrote earlier that

    I enjoy participating here because of the polarized viewpoints. I can post here safe in the knowledge that my views will be challenged.

    I just challenged your views. Why bail out now and say “oh, I really wasn’t making any truth claims”? If you care whether your views are correct, why not see whether you can justify them and how well they hold up in the face of counterarguments?

    My first piece of evidence is in coming to an understanding that the equally fundamental nature of both polarity of point and plane affects our views on origins.

    That is a statement of Steinerian gobbledygook, not a piece of evidence. You’re taking the “equally fundamental nature of both polarity and plane” as a given without justifying it.

    The laws of physics and chemistry governing any human-made machine and its components are followed without exception.

    Ditto for any living creature and any object.

    But physics and chemistry alone does not explain how these machines came to be.

    What is it about their origin that requires something beyond the reach of physics and chemistry, and what is your evidence for that?

    You might believe that thinking minds are the product of brains, but this is pure belief which is still the subject of much debate among philosophers, and not an established fact.

    It is definitely not “pure belief”. I can make a case for my position, and I have done so. Where is your rebuttal? I would love to have you challenge me, and I encourage you to try. “St. Rudolf says” is not a rebuttal, however.

15. CharlieM:

    The astral ‘body’ is the seat of our emotions and feelings. If somebody has the urge to go to a gym and do some body building, then in my opinion this is evidence of the astral working to alter the physical.

    The idea of the astral altering the physical is at least compatible with the fact that an urge can lead to action, but so is physicalism. The advantage of physicalism is that it doesn’t face the interaction problem (or a number of other problems that plague your astral hypothesis).

    The interaction problem is central to this discussion, which is why we keep pressing you to address it. Please do.

    I should acknowledge that you did sort of take a stab at it when you wrote that “Perhaps the astral, etheric and physical are basically just simmilarly-constitued fields interacting with each other”, but that unfortunately does not solve the interaction problem, as I explain below.

    The feeling of hunger is astral, and it is satisfied physically.

    Evidence that the feeling is astral and not physical, please. Why invoke a hypothetical astral body when the physical body is perfectly adequate to explain hunger?

    Suicide is a very dramatic example of emotions affecting the physical.

    And that’s perfectly compatible with physicalism. Emotions are physical phenomena, so it’s unsurprising that they have an influence on thoughts, which are physical, and the body, which of course is also physical. We know that the physical can interact with the physical; our everyday experience makes that unmistakable. If you want your astral/etheric hypothesis to compete with physicalism, you’ll need evidence that the astral and the etheric can interact with the physical, an explanation of how this occurs, and an explanation of why we never see it happening.

    Perhaps the astral, etheric and physical are basically just simmilarly-constitued fields interacting with each other.

    If that were true we would see instances where matter and energy deviated from the behavior dictated by physical law, due to the influence of the astral and etheric. No one has ever observed that, and you have acknowledged that matter and energy follow the same physical laws whether they are inside or outside a living body. By acknowledging that, you are unwittingly ruling out any role for the astral or etheric in influencing our behavior. The matter and energy in our bodies follow the same physical laws regardless, and the astral and etheric, if they exist at all, are helpless to alter that.

16. CharlieM:

    You should look closer. I have provided a still from the illusion. The figures are edged with changing colours. We see yellow on one side of the ‘moving’ figures and then a short time later it has appeared the other side. In conjunction with the cleverly arranged changing main body colours, this displacement (movement) of the bright yellow gives the impression that the figure is moving in that direction.

    You speak of the “displacement (movement) of the bright yellow”, but that itself is an illusion. Your screen is constructed of pixels. Those pixels are static; they remain where they are unless you move the entire screen. The yellow doesn’t actually move; what’s happening is that different sets of static pixels are emitting yellow in successive frames of the video, and your visual system mistakenly interprets this as motion.

    Television exploits this illusion. You perceive the soccer ball football rolling across the pitch, but in reality it’s just static pixels lighting up in sequence. It’s an advantageous illusion — imagine how jarring it would be if we perceived a televised soccer football match as a rapidfire sequence of disjoint images rather than a smooth whole. (There is a brain condition called akinetopsia* in which some patients see smooth real-world motion as if it were a sequence of still images.) Without the illusion, we’d be forced to construct TVs in an entirely different manner.

    There is no “higher form of seeing” that can bypass the visual system and avoid these illusions. Your own purported higher form of seeing fell prey to a motion illusion, showing that it isn’t higher after all. Information about the outside world has to flow through our imperfect sensory systems because there is no other way for it to reach our minds.

    Your mind isn’t out there in the world. It’s within you, operating on the representations that your sensory systems and your brain construct. Which can be faulty. Hence moving Marios and rolling soccer balls footballs on television.

    * Besides being fascinating, akinetopsia is further evidence against your belief in unmediated perception. If your mind is a nonphysical thing out there sensing the world directly, then why can’t it surmount deficiencies in motion perception, like those of akinetopsia, that are due to brain damage?

17. keiths:
    CharlieM: But I do try to make distinctions between what I know and what I believe. And regarding body, soul and spirit, I think that we are dealing with a clash of two basic belief systems. There are those who believe that soul and spirit, if they mean anything at all, are produced by bodily processes, and those of us who believe spirit to be primary.

    keiths: The two belief systems are not on equal footing. One fits the evidence while the other conflicts with it. You’re free to believe whatever you’d like, of course, but don’t kid yourself. You believe this stuff about in spite of the evidence rather than because of it. If you care about truth, it behooves you to pay attention to what the evidence is telling you. If you don’t care about the truth, then have a ball. Be like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland and believe six impossible things before breakfast each day.

    It’s logical that for a staunch physicalist the evidence is believed to fit that worldview. The personal experience of anyone who believes in a higher reality may not be classed as justifiable in the scientific sense. And if anyone does claim to have experiences of this sort, they are taken to be either lying or deceiving themselves and others.

    But if they have actually experienced a higher reality, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are believed. It is what it is.

    I’m not sure what it is you believe to contradict the evidence. If it is a contradiction of what your senses are telling you then we all know how deceptive the senses can be.

    CharlieM: I enjoy participating here because of the polarized viewpoints. I can post here safe in the knowledge that my views will be challenged.

    keiths: Indeed you can.

    Yes, and I’d like to thank everyone who engages with my posts. 🙂

18. keiths:
    Charlie,

    Any comments regarding the appallingly racist Steiner quotes I posted above and his racist drawing?

    Yes, Steiner had some racist views, and he made some racist remarks.

    But I also agree with him that the concept of ‘race’ has all but lost its meaning and will continue to be a factor of less importance in modern times. I’m sure Steiner would agree that a person should be treated as an individual and not as a member of a race, tribe, gender, or whatever. For him human evolution is a process whereby individuals are transcending the group nature they have grown out of. The insular way of life of the clans in the Scottish Highlands disappeared a few centuries ago. And the indigenous people in places like Brunei and the Amazon Basin are not going to be able to continue living as they are used to with the encroachment of modern culture.

    There are maps available which show me, according to my surname, the area of the country where my ancestors belonged. But I don’t feel any more affinity with people I meet just because they happen to share a surname with me.

19. keiths:
    CharlieM: I presume you start from the assumption that the whole idea of the Christian story and Christ as a spiritual being is rubbish. So, it doesn’t surprise me that you would think Steiner was spouting horseshit.

    keiths: It’s true that I am not a Christian, though I was raised as one and thus find it easy to take a Christian position for the sake of argument. Even from a standard Christian perspective, what Steiner says is made-up horseshit. Also, my atheism does not preclude criticism of Steiner, just as your Steinerism does not preclude criticism of my atheism or my physicalism.

    I was just making the point that any talk of a spiritual reality will be horseshit to you unless it stems from your envisioned physical world.

    CharlieM: From the point of view of the human being as having the four lower principles as in the ‘jolly drawing of a house’ above, what Steiner says is quite believable, so long as one doesn’t approach it with the belief that the physical is the be all and end all.

    keiths: If by ‘believable’ you mean ‘capable of being believed by at least someone‘, then yes, that passage is believable. You and your fellow Steinerites are proof of that. If by ‘believable’ you mean ‘reasonable and supported by evidence’, however, then no, that passage is not believable. It is unevidenced horseshit, as this excerpt vividly demonstrates:

    “Steiner: In order to understand the true being of Christ, we must go far back into the history of the development of the earth and of mankind. Before the earth became Earth, it was the old Moon, and the present moon is only a fragment of the old Moon. Before the Earth was Moon, it was Sun, and at a still earlier stage it was Saturn. We should bear in mind that milliards of years ago there existed in the cosmic spaces a heavenly body, Saturn. Also planets develop through different incarnations: Before the Earth was EARTH, it existed as Saturn, Sun and Moon.”

    keiths: How could anyone reasonably believe what Steiner is saying here? Where is the evidence that “planets develop through different incarnations”, and that the Earth used to exist as Saturn, Sun, and Moon?

    First we must understand that by “Saturn, Sun, and Moon”, Steiner is not referring to the Saturn, Sun, and Moon we observe today. This should be thought of as conditions of the solar system rather than the Earth alone. He proposed that “Saturn” was a condition of warmth (pure energy), the “Sun” condition was gaseous, and the moon, liquid. Condensation to the solid form didn’t take place until the 4th (Earth) phase.

    We can understand how a gaseous state can condense to liquid, and liquid condense into a solid, so it is not unreasonable to envision areas of the universe condensing in a similar fashion.

    keiths: You state that “neither strong antipathetic feelings nor uncritical acceptance are helpful when attempting to gain an understanding”. How is your acceptance of the above anything BUT uncritical? Do you accept it merely because it’s the product of St. Rudolf’s “clairvoyant investigations” and it resonates with you? If so, that’s the epitome of uncritical acceptance. If you believe it for other reasons, what are they?

    I don’t accept it as fact, I consider it to be a reasonable possibility. We are all familiar with matter condensing from more rarified material. Solar systems are thought to condense from gas and dust clouds, our bodies consist of substances that have been gathered in from far afield.

    keiths:It might be helpful if you were to lay out the actual criteria you applied in deciding whether that passage — that specific passage — was true. I am genuinely curious, because it doesn’t seem believable at all to me (in the second sense of ‘believable’, above).

    As I said, I don’t accept it as true. No respectable scientist would accept scientific theories as true, and I take Steiner’s pronouncements in the same vein.

    CharlieM: In sleep and death, the changing relationship can be observed between the physical body, etheric body, astral body and ego. During sleep the astral body and ego are less connected to the physical and etheric bodies and thus our consciousness is dimmed. During death the initial separation occurs at the level between the physical and etheric bodies. Thus, life no longer permeates the physical body. We observe the effects of the changing relationship between the four principles.

    keiths: That is a just-so story. It posits superfluous, unevidenced entities, and it conflicts with the evidence. Why on earth would you prefer it over the physicalist view, which fits the evidence and is much more streamlined and elegant?

    The physicalists view has a very hard job explaining the origin of life and of consciousness so by what logic should I accept any just-so story coming from physicalists?

    CharlieM: Neither strong antipathetic feelings nor uncritical acceptance are helpful when attempting to gain an understanding.

    keiths: Uncritical acceptance certainly isn’t helpful. “Strong antipathetic feelings” can be a problem if they interfere with a person’s ability to think rationally. Otherwise they are not.They certainly don’t disqualify a person from criticizing the object of their antipathy. I feel a strong antipathy toward Donald Trump, but I am quite capable of criticizing him objectively and rationally.

    I think it would be wrong to have any antipathy toward Donald Trump without having a comprehensive understanding of how he arrived at his current position, what shaped his development. However, I do feel a strong antipathy toward many of his views and actions. I would say that my feelings toward the man himself is one of pity rather than antipathy.

    In any case, I first encountered Steiner before I knew who he was, what he preached, and how he claimed to acquire his knowledge. My feelings toward him were neutral at that point. It was only after exposure to his writings that I recognized him as a horseshit-spouting crackpot.

    My first exposure to the writings of Steiner was on reading, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds: how is it achieved? which I thought to be full of good, sensible advice on self-development. And reading Occult Science: An Outline which I found mainly very hard to believe.

    I have since been working on trying to expose my own prejudices.

20. keiths:
    CharlieM: Organisms behave in a way that uses physics and chemistry.

    keiths: Organisms behave in a way that is determined by physics and chemistry. Physical laws aren’t voluntary, and organisms can’t opt out of them. Every particle in our bodies is governed by physical law and nothing else. There is no way for an immaterial soul, immaterial mind, ‘astral body’, etc. to “reach in” and influence our behavior, because that behavior is already fully determined by the laws of physics.*

    If there actually were an immaterial soul, it would be feckless. Any decisions it made would be unenforceable, because the body would just go on doing what it was already going to do, as dictated by the laws of physics.

    You have acknowledged that “living systems do not break or contradict the laws of physics.” Yet you don’t seem to have realized that this leaves no room for an immaterial entity to control or even to influence the body.

    * I am neglecting quantum indeterminacy here for simplicity’s sake, but even when it is accounted for, my point remains the same: there is no way for an immaterial entity to “reach in” and influence our behavior. Physical law offers no such opportunity.

    You are neglecting creativity and will. There is no law of physics which determines that matter creates and invents from pre-determined imagination. Inventors think their ideas through and then proceed to realize them. This foresight and conscious planning need not contradict physics because it sits above any law of physics. No law of physics or chemistry that I have heard of encompasses this kind of pre-determination. If you know of any such laws can you tell us which laws?

    You make decision through acts of will. Physics and chemistry allow you to accomplish your actions, but they do not determine which conscious action you take.

21. keiths:
    CharlieM: Organisms behave in a way that uses physics and chemistry. But this does not mean that organizing principles can be explained by physics and chemistry. The construction and use of the vehicles we travel in can be explained in terms of physics and chemistry, but that doesn’t take into account the thoughts of the inventors and designers of said vehicles.

    keiths: After it rolls off the assembly line, nothing a car’s designers think or say can alter its behavior (unless there’s a recall, I suppose). It operates according to the laws of physics and nothing else. The designers’ thoughts aren’t reaching in and altering the behavior of its particles. Any ‘organizing principle’ employed by the designers had its effects in the past, when design was underway. In the present, the car doesn’t “care” about that organizing principle; it just blindly follows physical law.

    The designer builds in limits to the physical operating conditions of the car. The various physical and chemical activities within the parts must be refined so as to work together harmoniously or the machine will fail as a working unit. What physical and chemical laws are responsible for this coordinating principle.

    My car might “just blindly follows physical law”, but every time I drive it, I exert my will to determine the way the physical and chemical effects occur, and willing is a property of conscious minds. You keep stating that minds and consciousness are the products of brains, but that is just your opinion, and the jury is out on the justification for that assumption.

    keiths: Also, the design process itself is a physical process involving the physical brain. The ‘organizing principle’ isn’t some nonphysical entity reaching in and altering the behavior of the particles in the designers’ brains. No such entity is possible, as explained above.

    The ‘organizing principle’ is the conscious mind of the designer, and so we are back to the old mind/brain debate.

22. keiths:
    keiths: Charlie,

    I’d like to echo Corneel’s complaint. Your replies are typically unresponsive to the points we raise. Most of the time you simply restate your beliefs without actually addressing our arguments.

    Several commenters (including me) have described to you in detail why the immaterial entities you invoke don’t make sense. I have done so again in my last two comments. If you disagree with us, that’s fine, but please grant us the courtesy of explaining specifically where and how you think our arguments fail.

    Here’s an example of how that might look:

    “keiths,

    You’ve asserted that our behavior is fully determined by the laws of physics. That cannot be true, because [lists reasons]. Your mistake was in thinking that X implies Y. In reality, X only implies Z. Here’s why: If X implied Y, then V would be true. Yet we already know from observation that V is false…”

    If you can’t spot a flaw in someone’s argument, that’s fine too. Just tell them that. If you aren’t yet ready to concede the point, just say something like “That’s a strong argument, but I’d like to think about it some more.”

    Taking inspiration from your passage:

    You’ve asserted that our behavior is fully determined by the laws of physics. That is questionable, because I know of no physical or chemical laws that account for the forethought and coordination as I have referred to in my previous post. Your mistake was in believing, as an incontrovertible fact, thinking to have a physical cause. In reality, thinking only implies consciousness. Here’s why: If thinking implied a physical cause, then it would be true that physical systems can plan ahead. Yet we already know from observation that physical systems have no forethought. Only living systems produce forethought and physics does not equate to biology.

    keiths: But whatever you do, you must never, ever criticize Rudolf Steiner. Understood?

    Consider him criticized. 🙂

23. CharlieM:

    It’s logical that for a staunch physicalist the evidence is believed to fit that worldview.

    Objectivity is not impossible, Charlie. People don’t inevitably distort the evidence to fit their worldview. I grew up a believer, but my worldview didn’t prevent me from examining the evidence and becoming a physicalist as a consequence.

    The personal experience of anyone who believes in a higher reality may not be classed as justifiable in the scientific sense. And if anyone does claim to have experiences of this sort, they are taken to be either lying or deceiving themselves and others.

    But if they have actually experienced a higher reality, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are believed. It is what it is.

    I agree that truth is truth, regardless of belief, and that it’s logically possible that transcendent experiences reflect a higher reality. It’s also possible that those experiences, despite their vividness, are produced entirely within us and have no connection to external reality. It could even be a mix of the two, though I haven’t seen arguments for that hypothesis.

    How can we adjudicate this? The same way as for anything else: examine the evidence as objectively as possible and adopt the hypothesis that fits best while remaining open to the possibility that new evidence or arguments could arise and overturn the adopted hypothesis.

    I can provide multiple arguments against the veridicality of transcendent experiences. One such argument is that reports of transcendent experiences conflict with each other, often in major ways. Conflicting reports regarding ‘higher reality’ can’t all be true. And if you regard your experiences as true and the conflicting ones as false, you are conceding that it is possible for people to have vivid transcendent experiences that nevertheless do not reflect reality.

    If the vivid transcendent experiences of others can be false, you must acknowledge that your own experiences, no matter how true they feel, might themselves be false. You can’t assume that they reflect reality. While it might be the case that they are true and the conflicting ones are false, that needs to be established, not assumed. (If you’re searching for the truth, that is. You are free to take them as true on the basis of faith alone, but that is a bad idea if your search for truth is genuine.)

24. CharlieM:

    I’m not sure what it is you believe to contradict the evidence.

    I and others have been telling you for years, hoping in vain that you would present a counterargument. But now I see that you have actually presented a genuine counterargument in one of your later comments. Thank you!

25. CharlieM:

    Yes, Steiner had some racist views, and he made some racist remarks.

    Yay! You have clearly and publicly acknowledged Steiner’s racism.

    I may be pushing my luck, but could I also persuade you to acknowledge that he was factually wrong about stuff like the following?

    So this kind of independent thinking, which Europeans developed to deal with the outer world, Asians do not have it. The Japanese will therefore work with all European inventions, but the Japanese cannot create something new on their own.

    My purpose in all of this isn’t to make you uncomfortable. It’s to point out that Steiner has been wrong on major issues, and that it’s therefore entirely appropriate to question the things he says. Truth withstands scrutiny, so if he’s right, you have nothing to fear from a critical examination. If he’s wrong, you’d want to know that, wouldn’t you?

26. CharlieM:

    I was just making the point that any talk of a spiritual reality will be horseshit to you unless it stems from your envisioned physical world.

    Not so. I’m prepared to abandon my physicalism should the evidence warrant it. I used to be a believer, and it would therefore be relatively easy and comfortable for me to slide back into a worldview that included a spiritual realm. If the evidence warranted it.

    I’ll be surprised if that ever happens, though. The evidence against a nonphysical realm is so solid, and the evidence for one so weak, that it would be stunning if new evidence or arguments surfaced that were able to upend physicalism. I’m open to the possibility, however.

    First we must understand that by “Saturn, Sun, and Moon”, Steiner is not referring to the Saturn, Sun, and Moon we observe today. This should be thought of as conditions of the solar system rather than the Earth alone. He proposed that “Saturn” was a condition of warmth (pure energy), the “Sun” condition was gaseous, and the moon, liquid. Condensation to the solid form didn’t take place until the 4th (Earth) phase.

    If he’s just talking about the evolution of the solar system, then why give the stages planetary names? What on earth (so to speak) connects “a condition of warmth” with Saturn? A liquid condition with the moon? Why connect solids to an “Earth phase” when there are solids throughout the solar system? What does all of this have to do with the “the true being of Christ”? It’s clear that Steiner attaches a bunch of mystical baggage to all of this — baggage for which he presents no evidence. He isn’t merely recounting the early history of the solar system. He’s trying to make metaphysical claims.

    Here’s an additional quote:

    The God, Indra, is to be found in the soul world at a time when the Christ was not yet perceptible to Earth evolution, although the Christ light shone upon him. A man who is able to perceive Indra may well say that this Being now reveals something different from his earliest revelations; for at first the Christ light did not ray back from him. Since the point of time in question, Indra has not shed his own light into the spiritual evolution of the earth, but has reflected the light of Christ, just as the moon reflects the light of the sun. The light thus rayed back by Indra, not directly perceptible on earth and in which therefore we cannot actually recognise Christ, was proclaimed by Moses to his people.

    Steiner has no evidence for any of that. He is simply constructing wild tales out of whole cloth, just like L Ron Hubbard. I infer that this stuff is the product of his “clairvoyant investigations”, aka unbridled imagination. You say that you don’t regard it as true, but it’s clear that you take it very seriously, and you write about it in a way that is forceful, not tentative. Why grant so much credence to the effluent of his “clairvoyant investigations”?

    No respectable scientist would accept scientific theories as true, and I take Steiner’s pronouncements in the same vein.

    No scientific theory is incontrovertible, but we regard many of them as true for all practical purposes. Water expands when it freezes, and we can explain that in terms of molecular physics. No reputable scientist disputes that, though it’s always possible in principle that some disconfirming evidence will arise. We take the theory to be true while acknowledging that it isn’t absolutely certain. I even did an OP on this years ago: The Myth of Absolute Certainty

    Steiner’s evidence-free divagations are not in the same league as well-established scientific theories. By suggesting they are, you are constructing a false equivalence.

    I think it would be wrong to have any antipathy toward Donald Trump without having a comprehensive understanding of how he arrived at his current position, what shaped his development. However, I do feel a strong antipathy toward many of his views and actions.

    We are all ultimately shaped by circumstances beyond our control. I didn’t pick my genome from a catalog. I didn’t select my parents or specify the time and place of my birth. That is true of you, me, and Donald Trump. It is also true of your wife. But I’m willing to wager that you love your wife more than you love that asshole down the street who lets his dog shit in your yard every day, and that your love of her is at least partially due to her views and actions. Would you say “I don’t love my wife, but I do love her views and actions”? I doubt it. Why then would you say “I don’t dislike Donald Trump, but I do dislike his views and actions”?

    Note that this doesn’t preclude compassion. I think Trump’s an asshole, but I’d help him out if he were flailing in quicksand while I was walking by.

27. CharlieM:

    You are neglecting creativity and will. There is no law of physics which determines that matter creates and invents from pre-determined imagination. Inventors think their ideas through and then proceed to realize them. This foresight and conscious planning need not contradict physics because it sits above any law of physics. No law of physics or chemistry that I have heard of encompasses this kind of pre-determination. If you know of any such laws can you tell us which laws?

    You make decision through acts of will. Physics and chemistry allow you to accomplish your actions, but they do not determine which conscious action you take.

    And:

    You’ve asserted that our behavior is fully determined by the laws of physics. That is questionable, because I know of no physical or chemical laws that account for the forethought and coordination as I have referred to in my previous post. Your mistake was in believing, as an incontrovertible fact, thinking to have a physical cause. In reality, thinking only implies consciousness. Here’s why: If thinking implied a physical cause, then it would be true that physical systems can plan ahead. Yet we already know from observation that physical systems have no forethought. Only living systems produce forethought and physics does not equate to biology.

    This is excellent. It’s exactly the kind of counterargument I hoped you would make. It’s responsive to my argument and it pinpoints where you think my reasoning has gone wrong. Let’s have more exchanges like this!

    I’m too tired tonight to give this the attention that it deserves, but I think I’ll have the time and energy to do so tomorrow.

28. I suggest we move our discussion to the new Did I lose my mind to science? thread.

    I will respond further to CharlieM there.

29. keiths: Corneel:

    That is indeed the synthesis between science and spirituality that Rudolf Steiner envisioned. Let me know when this research program becomes productive. So far it hasn’t.

    CharlieM:

    It doesn’t matter if you believe these endeavours to be a waste of time, you cannot claim that they aren’t producing anything.

    I believe Corneel was referring to Steinerism’s anemic production of scientific advances, not its prodigious production of anthroposophical effluent.

    An effluent sample:

    For, what is the common belief about the nature of the human heart? It is regarded as a kind of Pump, to send the blood into the various organs. There have been intricate mechanical analogies, in explanation of the heart’s action — analogies totally at variance with embryology, be it noted! — but no one has begun to doubt the mechanical explanation, or to test it, at least in orthodox scientific circles…

    The most important fact about the heart is that its activity is not a cause but an effect…

    The heart originates as a “damming up” organ (Stauorgan) between the lower activities of the organism, the intake and working up of food, and the upper activities, the lowest of which is the respiratory. A damming up organ is inserted and its action is therefore a product of the interplay between the liquefied foodstuffs and the air absorbed from the outside. All that can be observed in the heart must be looked upon as an effect, not a cause, as a mechanical effect, to begin with…

    The content of this article [by Dr. Karl Schmidt] is comparatively small, but it proves that his medical practice had enlightened the author on the fact that the heart in no way resembled the ordinary pump but rather must be considered a dam-like organ. Schmidt compares cardiac action to that of the hydraulic ram, set in motion by the currents. This is the kernel of truth in his work…

    For what is the heart after all? It is a sense organ, and even if its sensory function is not directly present in the consciousness, if its processes are subconscious, nevertheless it serves to enable the “upper” activities to feel and perceive the “lower.” As you perceive external colours through your eyes, so do you perceive, dimly and subconsciously through your heart, what goes on in the lower abdomen. The heart is an organ for inner perception.

    I did have a thread on the heart here.

    Putting, “the heart is not a pump” into a search engine will bring up many discussions on this subject.

    To believe that the heart is a pump is no different to believing that the brain is a computer just because computers have some brain-like qualities. I’ll resist the temptation to say any more at the moment.

30. Prayers During War, and the Beyond Eight Fold Human Aspects
    A Measured Response:
    Ah, I love the energy. This reminds me of the engaging conversations I have with some of my brightest pupils. Nothing stimulates the mind like a composed interchange of enlightening ideas. Before we can elevate the mind with conversation, we must first ground ourselves on even footing, as I do with all neophyte course takers. Including those who are seemingly un-possessing of the meditative gifts required to engage in the subject matter on a higher level [7] [4]. But fear not, “you all get get there by the end” as I tell them. For alas, it is my lot in life as an educator, to pull others up to a level of introspective and speculative topology, to secure the integrity of a deserving morale fabric. [3]

    In this instance, I believe there are a few fundamental misunderstandings you have provided about the work of Steiner, the arbitrary nature of a eight+fold dissection of the human experience, and the role prayer on the battlefield.
    First of all, though I agree in your assessment of, and deconstruction of, the seminal natures of the human body, soul, and spirit. [3] However, your somewhat (and excuse my excessive vocabulary) erroneous reference to “twofold, threefold, fourfold, sevenfold, ninefold, or twelvefold aspects” as being interchangeable trains of thought is very dangerous indeed. [1] These levels of division are highly disagreeable over eightfold separation of the schema. It is in my mind, more so than arbitrary, a malicious and self obsessed neo feudal reduction of the reality. And your crass expression of “splitting a human being”, is even more reductive, no human should be subjected to a force of analysis that would see him/her/them, physically divided and dissected in order to be simply understood [5]. I do hope you reconsider these fairly draconian concepts. And I can understand “Twofold”, “Threefold” up to “Sevenfold” discussion. But “Eightfold”, “Ninefold”, “Twelvefold”? This I find most disconcerting . I Implore you to read in on all of the provided citations in order to get a full grasp on why these further divisions imply for the greater mantra. [6]
    And to comment on your brief allusion to Steiner’s quote, on opposing side both praying for victory, I would like to clarify it is relatively misguided. For, as exists in the case of any armed conflict, why would the winning side pray for victory over their quarry[2]? Why would it not be the losing side that would pray, for it is their cause that is in need of spiritual assistance.

    *Please examine the provided diagram, I think it sums up a ubiquitous response to and Carl Jung’s introspection of Duality.

    [1] Amaya, A. (2017) “Replies to critics,” Ratio Juris, 30(4), pp. 529–548. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12188.
    [2] Freud, S. (1971) “The ego and the Id (1923). part III: The ego and the super-ego (ego ideal),” PsycEXTRA Dataset [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/e417472005-463.
    [3] Jung, C. (2017) “’psychology and religion,’” Religion Today: A Reader, pp. 272–274. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244747-87.
    [4] Kind, A. (2010) “Transparency and representationalist theories of consciousness,” Philosophy Compass, 5(10), pp. 902–913. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00328.x.
    [5] Mitrana, V., Păun, A. and Păun, M. (2019) “How complex is to solve a hard problem with accepting splicing systems,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Complexity, Future Information Systems and Risk [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5220/0007715900270035.
    [6] Rowland, S. (1999) “C.G. Jung and literary theory,” C. G. Jung and Literary Theory, pp. 188–201. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597648_9.
    [7] Spencer, H. (1855) “Consciousness in general.,” The principles of psychology., pp. 322–328. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/14065-029.

31. Are we headed for a showdown between Dr. Caarscac and CharlieM, and between “The Stulx Paradigm” and Steiner’s “anthroposophy”? Hang on a second. [Checks popcorn supply in pantry] OK. Please proceed.

32. CharlieM:

    To believe that the heart is a pump is no different to believing that the brain is a computer just because computers have some brain-like qualities.

    Steiner doesn’t merely believe that the heart isn’t a pump. He believes that it doesn’t pump, which is moronic.

33. Dr. Caarscac M.D.,

    Hello there. Finding no trace of the Stulx paradigm on a Google search, I’m guessing this is parody. Of whom or what, though?

34. Alan, to Dr. Caarscac M.D.:

    Finding no trace of the Stulx paradigm on a Google search, I’m guessing this is parody. Of whom or what, though?

    For a second I thought it might actually be the output of ChatGPT, and though I decided against that, it has inspired me to do a new OP that I’ll publish probably tomorrow.

35. keiths:
    Are we headed for a showdown between Dr. Caarscac and CharlieM, and between “The Stulx Paradigm” and Steiner’s “anthroposophy”?Hang on a second. [Checks popcorn supply in pantry] OK. Please proceed.

    Alan Fox:
    Dr. Caarscac M.D.,

    Hello there. Finding no trace of the Stulx paradigm on a Google search, I’m guessing this is parody. Of whom or what, though?

    “What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books.” -Sigmund Freud

    Why would I have a “showdown” with someone I consider a student? Keiths, I understand your sentiment, but that is not my intention. And as to this so called “parody” remark, Alan Fox, this version of the Paradigm is a digital remaster of a scan I had translated back during my time in university. It originates from a German Waldorf textbook. I would be happy to enlighten anyone who is interested on how to better comprehend the Stulx diagram. I understand it can look overwhelming or even illogical, but that comes from a surface level gaze. With greater dissection the Stulx paradigm is a complex and nuanced framework for describing human consciousness.
    My intentions with guiding Charlie, and by extent, the rest of you, is entirely amicable. I can see a negative preconception among those of you who would so recklessly dismiss the merited discussions between minds. I caution against not balancing an open mind and evaluative skepticism. This rational temperance is key in understanding, with an unbiased eye, the values upheld by individuals such as Charlie and myself. For even though Charlie and I might not see eye to on every topic up for discussion, he retains a bright and aware clarity of purpose and, as I stated, an open mind. I too can understand, and even commune an internalize even with his more debased and irrelevant of Charlie’s proposals; as Steiner once famously stated “for even the wisest can learn incalculably much from children.” And as not to be ungrateful of the hospitality provided by the regulars and denizens of this site, Keiths is of an exceptionally keen mind, and I thank him for his coherency and rapidity of response.

36. Dr. Caarscac M.D.: It originates from a German Waldorf textbook.

    Ah, OK, the penny drops.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education

37. CharlieM: To believe that the heart is a pump is no different to believing that the brain is a computer just because computers have some brain-like qualities.

    Performing computations is literally one of the things that brains do, exactly as pumping blood is literally one of the things that hearts do.

38. Kantian Naturalist:…pumping blood is literally one of the things that hearts do.

    What else do hearts do?

39. KN:

    …pumping blood is literally one of the things that hearts do.

    Alan:

    What else do hearts do?

    Occupy space, add weight to the body, give countless children something to draw (incorrectly), produce the sound of heartbeats, confuse people like Steiner, inspire dozens of metaphors…🙂

40. Dr. Caarscac:

    Why would I have a “showdown” with someone I consider a student?

    It could be a part of your teaching style, like a Zen master whacking his student with a stick.

    I based my assessment on confrontational remarks like this:

    I too can understand, and even commune an internalize even with his more debased and irrelevant of Charlie’s proposals; as Steiner once famously stated “for even the wisest can learn incalculably much from children.”

    And this:

    It is in my mind, more so than arbitrary, a malicious and self obsessed neo feudal reduction of the reality. And your crass expression of “splitting a human being”, is even more reductive, no human should be subjected to a force of analysis that would see him/her/them, physically divided and dissected in order to be simply understood.

    Note: I’m not criticizing you; it’s fine to be confrontational at a site like The Skeptical Zone. I’m just explaining why I chose the word ‘showdown’.

    My intentions with guiding Charlie, and by extent, the rest of you, is entirely amicable.

    I, for one, am profoundly grateful for your guidance. We were flailing in the abyss, utterly lost, and your arrival has given me hope again.

    And to comment on your brief allusion to Steiner’s quote, on opposing side both praying for victory, I would like to clarify it is relatively misguided. For, as exists in the case of any armed conflict, why would the winning side pray for victory over their quarry? Why would it not be the losing side that would pray, for it is their cause that is in need of spiritual assistance.

    Because the winning side seeks to remain the winning side, and the losing side seeks to become the winning side, and both sides would welcome divine assistance in gaining what they are seeking.

41. Dr. Caarscac M.D.,

    Welcome Dr Caarscac M.D.

    I look forward to any further input from you and hope you have the time and inclination to continue to participate.

    I’ll take a closer look at the references you’ve provided but I see some of them at least are behind paywalls.

    I realize that in discussing Steiner and anthroposophy here is a risky, and somewhat dangerous business altogether. Firstly, it’s difficult for me to keep within the bounds of what I think I’m justified in sharing. Most of the knowledge that Steiner claimed to have is beyond anything I can confirm and I do try to distinguish this from my personal knowledge. Secondly, when I pass on anything from Steiner, I could be adding my misinterpretation, or I might not be saying things with enough clarity. And of course things he has said may not always be correct.

    As for prayer on the battlefield, I’m sure there will be a lot of them. many prior to engagement, before either side can be sure of the outcome. Those on the winning side may not even know that this is the situation until it is all over.

    I appreciate your feedback.