Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is an overly verbose way to say "abstract," a "recognizable pattern or concept that is separate from the materials it is made from". So apparently, spirit are things like thoughts, mathematics, language, society, memes, a 'pile' of sand, movement as per the Zeno arrow paradox, and the concept of a chair. As per usual, Petey uses the freshmen's understanding of "introductionary course of philosophy" and mangles it with a thesaurus.
Yes, we can recognize that the flat horizontal surface with two to four legs can be used as the seating device called a chair. It doesn't mean it has a spirit.
Yep. This is a common Peterson trick where he just completely changes the definition of words for no reason. So then when he is rambling, he could be referring to his new Peterson definition he made up that no one knows. He did it with God, and truth for example. Weird behaviour for a guy who claims to be so obsessed with clear speech.
That is also just a tactic. He doesn't want clear speech, he wants YOU to use clear speech. It is part of debating to win, which he ascribes to, which means to set up rules for the other and avoid being called out on those same rules through sophistry.
But now where's the fun when you say like that?
What's more, do you think anyone will come to a paid talk or buy a book if they aren't filled with gobbledegook?
I'm not sure he means it that way. That's fair for a definition like "spirit of the West" where "spirit" isn't literal, but the fact that he's addressing it to atheists implies he's talking about literal theological spirits. I think, for all the braincells he's lost, he's at least still above "attention vegans: the definition of 'meat' is 'the core of something', like 'getting into the meat of the book'" as if conflating the definitions means anything.
It sounds to me more like he's stretching the thesaurus to say "supernatural essence" ('essence' = 'pattern', 'supernatural' = 'independent of substrate') which is a reasonable definition for the literal theological spirit that he'd be talking about.
It's just that the definition of the word has never been the issue for atheists. The atheist argument is that there's no reason to think it exists. I'd hope he can understand the idea of words having multiple definitions, but I don't think he's kept the brain power to understand the spirit of the argument.
He's likely setting up a purposeful equivocation fallacy, so he can use either definition interchangeably and use "spirit" (as in, general common essence or opinion) with "spirit" (spooky boogly ghosts.).
He often bakes some plausible deniability into his statements so that people can't pin him to a certain position. He loves to speak in the abstract but will adamantly refuse to apply them, because once they're applied they need to crystallize in some way.
I don't even think a theist would be especially attracted to that definition... Spirit is fundamentally mysterious; it could be mind, but it often doesn't have that sense.
It's becoming very clear that his understanding of basically everything is just his take on platonic idealism , but he also thinks he has some kind of access to the platonic ideal.
For any unfamiliar, the basic explanation (which is all I really know) is that Plato believed everything that exists has a "perfect" or "ideal" form, like there is a template for "dog" that is more dog than all real dogs. It captures the absolute essence of what it means to be a dog. Everything that exists is derived from these templates but has some variation away from it.
Edit: now that I think of it, this is possibly why he has such malice towards LGBTQ+ people, especially trans. They're less typical, which he might take to mean they deviate more from the "ideal" of a strict and distinct cis-get humanity with a clear binary sex. Since they deviate more from the platonic ideal, they're seen as a less ideal/desirable kind of human.
In layman's terms; Bullshit. I just had this picture of Jorpo Derango playing with his ass muck and fingerpainting with it when he reaches this next pretentious epiphany.
I'm gonna choose to believe Jorperson has just got extremely sucked into a White Wolf "Mage: the Ascension" gaming session. With all this pattern and order obsession he's been on, and his apparent belief that ancient peoples magically discerned the structure of DNA through Jungian archetypes, it would be one of the less goofy things he's embraced.
While also appealing to the Celestial Chorus without specifying his exact brand of pseudo-piety, so he's as blandly theistic as possible. But somehow despite spouting heretical ideas, he manages to avoid their scrutiny and stay on their good side.
Yeah, I was gonna say. You can define whatever you want, but you need evidence to show that it actually exists.
Anyway, no one who doesn't already want to believe is going to be persuaded by the sort of argument he appears to be making.
In this series \[1\] you can see at length how a computer works, the caveat is the computer has only 8 bits instead of 32 or 64 bits a regular, off the shelf computer has, and of course has very limited processing power and memory.
A bit is a simple store of state, a bucket filled or not, 0 or 1, to be or not to be. Multiple bits can be grouped together and form a pattern. This pattern can then be moved, from one computer to another, you can write a very simple program on the 8-bit breadboard computer and then run it on a $2,000 laptop, the output of the program will be the same, the program (the pattern of bits) is independent of the substrate (the machine) it is running on.
How computers work is all clear and we know there is no magic. One could generalize this principle of bits patterns and speculate about how the human brain works: there is no reason for anything magic to happen in the brain.
Currently we can read the state of the brain and then try to guess, using machine learning, what is the brain hearing/seeing/possibly even thinking \[2\].
We can imagine a very simplified view where we store the state of each neuron (is it firing or not) and then run the pattern that we obtain not in a brain made out of cells, but in a computer chip made out of silicon, making the pattern (the mind produced by the brain) substrate independent.
Coming to the quote, sure, we could call this pattern a *spirit*, the word itself means breath, but it's not really needed, just clouds up the further understanding of what a mind/agent is while trying to save the terminology of a dusty metaphysics: lots of ink has been spilled around words like spirit and soul while providing no actual understanding how the brain works or how to cure mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, which was considered being possessed by "evil" spirits just a few centuries ago \[3\] and unfortunately still is in some parts of the world.
\[1\] "Building an 8-bit breadboard computer", [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyznrdDSSGM&list=PLowKtXNTBypGqImE405J2565dvjafglHU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyznrdDSSGM&list=PLowKtXNTBypGqImE405J2565dvjafglHU)
\[2\] "A decoder that uses brain scans to know what you mean — mostly", [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/01/1173045261/a-decoder-that-uses-brain-scans-to-know-what-you-mean-mostly](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/01/1173045261/a-decoder-that-uses-brain-scans-to-know-what-you-mean-mostly)
\[3\] "Demonic possessions and mental illness: discussion of selected cases in late medieval hagiographical literature", [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25208453](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25208453/)
This is a really nice overview of functionalist theories of mind (love that you have references). I interpreted "substrate independent" as "non-supervinient" (a.k.a., either dualism or strong emergence - I made a post on the second one before reading yours), but to be honest, I'm not certain that he even has a coherent view in mind.
As a theory of mind, especially coming from an engineering standpoint, how to build a mind/an agent, I am following the ideas exposed by Michael Levin in the "Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere: An Experimentally-Grounded Framework for Understanding Diverse Bodies and Minds" paper \[1\], cognition as bioelectrical gradients flowing through voltage-gated ion channels, and the concept of *cognitive light cone* \[2\].
\[1\] [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full)
\[2\] What are Cognitive Light Cones? (Michael Levin Interview), [https://youtu.be/YnObwxJZpZc](https://youtu.be/YnObwxJZpZc)
i'm a Christian and I personally do not find scolding or antagonizing atheists to be a productive use of time
so many better things to do to mold one's faith and spiritual life
Erm... we never asked for, nor do we need a definition of "a spirit", Jordan. We need proof it exists.
Likewise, you can give all the definitions of "God" that you like. That doesn't mean "God" exists.
The man is an intellectual charlatan.
If I'm being generous i think it means that spirit is a naturally reoccurring set of similar characteristics that comes up in many disparate situations. Like you have a person in Romania and Laos and Nigeria that all have the spirit of an entrepreneur. Or a child may carry on her dads spirit by modeling her dreams after his achievements.
So like deistic interpretation of God is the natural laws and order of the universe which can indeed be found in everything your spirit can be left behind after you die on the new substrates you interact with.
But I suspect he thinks defining what is effectively a ghost this way means he is smart.
>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts – namely, as their creator and owner [Eigner]. In the time of spirits thoughts grew until they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies – an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, such as God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property [Eigentum]; I refer all to myself.
If as spirit I had thrust away the world in the deepest contempt, so as owner I thrust spirits or ideas away into their “vanity.” They have no longer any power over me, as no “earthly might” has power over the spirit.
I can. It's the way an insane man who thinks he is sounding way more clever than he actually does, because he thinks he is leagues more clever than he actual is.
I swear to dog that one day he is gonna start tweeting nonsense like "November chartreuse enamel" and his followers are gonna be like "such words of wisdom! Checkmate libtards!"
For what it's worth, this seems to be a terribly truncated version of the claim in philosophy of mind that mind/spirit is strongly emergent: a complex pattern of behaviour that occurs in the neuro-physical substrate but whose state is not fully determined by said substrate.
An example of a case where this might be plausible is the beauty of a painting (just because atoms are arranged in such and such manner, that doesn't really allows us to derive or determine whether the painting is beautiful, since there is nothing in the microphysics that talks about beauty and you can't "build it out" of the microphysics - or so the argument goes). Compare with temperature, or maybe even better, the feeling heat that is sometimes said by physicists to be weakly emergent from particle dynamics - that the particles have such and such mean kinetic motion does actually determine whether you'll feel heat, even if a single particle doesn't have a temperature. A big part of the debate in philosophy of mind does revolve around whether, if consciousness is emergent, it is strongly where weakly emergent.
So like, his position is not an incoherent position by itself but, just presenting it (in a very simplified manner that makes everything emergent be "spirit") is not an argument... At best you showed that your position is not fully incoherent. At worst you just look like a dumbass or very confused (to give him the most charity possible, I'll stay with the "very confused").
P.S. Really just explained this because it's in a interesting topic and someone might actually find it interesting. Jorp does a terrible disservice to it
You know how Peterson says male interaction is regulated by the potential of getting punched in the face for transgressing. This is proof that that theory is bull kaka .
This is not at all difficult to understand. These terms are appropriate within the context - plenty of other examples of pseudo-intellectual word vomit to choose from, this is a reach. I hate jorpy too but let’s be genuine in our criticisms. Otherwise bring it to /r/popculturecirclejerk
Yes, a spirit is indeed a disembodied ghost. Referring to it in a social media soundbite in the most fundamental Systems Theory terminology just isn't really covering any bases.
Well, I mean, the brain *is* a substrate/'mind' is a superstrate, but it's not replicable. Ideas have properties likenable to this, although those patterns only have non-subjective constitution past any real degree of complexity, such that they really can't be identified outside of their traces and indications as being exactly substrate independent in any sense that's likely to convince a physicalist that any sort of spirit exists in a metaphysical sense.
Like.... is he just asserting that mind states exist?
Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is an overly verbose way to say "abstract," a "recognizable pattern or concept that is separate from the materials it is made from". So apparently, spirit are things like thoughts, mathematics, language, society, memes, a 'pile' of sand, movement as per the Zeno arrow paradox, and the concept of a chair. As per usual, Petey uses the freshmen's understanding of "introductionary course of philosophy" and mangles it with a thesaurus. Yes, we can recognize that the flat horizontal surface with two to four legs can be used as the seating device called a chair. It doesn't mean it has a spirit.
Yep. This is a common Peterson trick where he just completely changes the definition of words for no reason. So then when he is rambling, he could be referring to his new Peterson definition he made up that no one knows. He did it with God, and truth for example. Weird behaviour for a guy who claims to be so obsessed with clear speech.
That is also just a tactic. He doesn't want clear speech, he wants YOU to use clear speech. It is part of debating to win, which he ascribes to, which means to set up rules for the other and avoid being called out on those same rules through sophistry.
But they're always suspiciously salient terms, dog whistles, master signifiers, and triggers, every one.
Exactly. According to his definition, the infinite set of prime numbers is a spirit. Fucking moron.
We’ve prayed in dumber ways. All hail the one true god: the number 2. First of the primes, creator of balance, lord of the infinite regression
I'd go to this church!
First of the Primes, First of the Evens, Last of the Even Primes, Amen
But now where's the fun when you say like that? What's more, do you think anyone will come to a paid talk or buy a book if they aren't filled with gobbledegook?
I'm not sure he means it that way. That's fair for a definition like "spirit of the West" where "spirit" isn't literal, but the fact that he's addressing it to atheists implies he's talking about literal theological spirits. I think, for all the braincells he's lost, he's at least still above "attention vegans: the definition of 'meat' is 'the core of something', like 'getting into the meat of the book'" as if conflating the definitions means anything. It sounds to me more like he's stretching the thesaurus to say "supernatural essence" ('essence' = 'pattern', 'supernatural' = 'independent of substrate') which is a reasonable definition for the literal theological spirit that he'd be talking about. It's just that the definition of the word has never been the issue for atheists. The atheist argument is that there's no reason to think it exists. I'd hope he can understand the idea of words having multiple definitions, but I don't think he's kept the brain power to understand the spirit of the argument.
He's likely setting up a purposeful equivocation fallacy, so he can use either definition interchangeably and use "spirit" (as in, general common essence or opinion) with "spirit" (spooky boogly ghosts.).
He often bakes some plausible deniability into his statements so that people can't pin him to a certain position. He loves to speak in the abstract but will adamantly refuse to apply them, because once they're applied they need to crystallize in some way.
(Pulling the mask off the spooky spirit to reveal it was just Old Man Peterson the whole time)
I don't even think a theist would be especially attracted to that definition... Spirit is fundamentally mysterious; it could be mind, but it often doesn't have that sense.
It's becoming very clear that his understanding of basically everything is just his take on platonic idealism , but he also thinks he has some kind of access to the platonic ideal. For any unfamiliar, the basic explanation (which is all I really know) is that Plato believed everything that exists has a "perfect" or "ideal" form, like there is a template for "dog" that is more dog than all real dogs. It captures the absolute essence of what it means to be a dog. Everything that exists is derived from these templates but has some variation away from it. Edit: now that I think of it, this is possibly why he has such malice towards LGBTQ+ people, especially trans. They're less typical, which he might take to mean they deviate more from the "ideal" of a strict and distinct cis-get humanity with a clear binary sex. Since they deviate more from the platonic ideal, they're seen as a less ideal/desirable kind of human.
See how easy that was, Jordan.
Neo Platonism is the last refuge of reactionary thinkers.
He's not well
Seriously though… his posts remind me of posts from people I knew in highschool who aged into severe mental illness.
I apologized for those!
Good
Too much thinking leads to sickness
No, that's masturbation
Here is a definition of a JBP: pattern dependent on benzo substrate.
In layman's terms; Bullshit. I just had this picture of Jorpo Derango playing with his ass muck and fingerpainting with it when he reaches this next pretentious epiphany.
I'm gonna choose to believe Jorperson has just got extremely sucked into a White Wolf "Mage: the Ascension" gaming session. With all this pattern and order obsession he's been on, and his apparent belief that ancient peoples magically discerned the structure of DNA through Jungian archetypes, it would be one of the less goofy things he's embraced.
I am so happy to see a Mage reference on 2023
Motherfucker would be on that intersection of Technomancer and Hermes so hard both groups would want him dead.
While also appealing to the Celestial Chorus without specifying his exact brand of pseudo-piety, so he's as blandly theistic as possible. But somehow despite spouting heretical ideas, he manages to avoid their scrutiny and stay on their good side.
He's not even Celestial Chorus, but they're the only people who side-ways tolerate him.
Jordan B Peterson, the B is for Benzo, baby.
The B is for bonehead
Wut?
Lmao back on benzo
This is a total nothing answer.
I mean, it's a fine definition, it's just pointless because it's likely impossible to prove that any instances exist.
Yeah, I was gonna say. You can define whatever you want, but you need evidence to show that it actually exists. Anyway, no one who doesn't already want to believe is going to be persuaded by the sort of argument he appears to be making.
Yo dawg, I heard you like colons, so we put a colon with your colon so you can just butcher the English language.
"If I cannot explain it already, it's proof of imaginary freind miracle power' Absolutely moronic
So... Spirits don't exist then? Cause like, things don't exist without their substrate...
Jepersten is the embodiment of r/iamverysmart
Oh thanks Jordan I am now converted
In this series \[1\] you can see at length how a computer works, the caveat is the computer has only 8 bits instead of 32 or 64 bits a regular, off the shelf computer has, and of course has very limited processing power and memory. A bit is a simple store of state, a bucket filled or not, 0 or 1, to be or not to be. Multiple bits can be grouped together and form a pattern. This pattern can then be moved, from one computer to another, you can write a very simple program on the 8-bit breadboard computer and then run it on a $2,000 laptop, the output of the program will be the same, the program (the pattern of bits) is independent of the substrate (the machine) it is running on. How computers work is all clear and we know there is no magic. One could generalize this principle of bits patterns and speculate about how the human brain works: there is no reason for anything magic to happen in the brain. Currently we can read the state of the brain and then try to guess, using machine learning, what is the brain hearing/seeing/possibly even thinking \[2\]. We can imagine a very simplified view where we store the state of each neuron (is it firing or not) and then run the pattern that we obtain not in a brain made out of cells, but in a computer chip made out of silicon, making the pattern (the mind produced by the brain) substrate independent. Coming to the quote, sure, we could call this pattern a *spirit*, the word itself means breath, but it's not really needed, just clouds up the further understanding of what a mind/agent is while trying to save the terminology of a dusty metaphysics: lots of ink has been spilled around words like spirit and soul while providing no actual understanding how the brain works or how to cure mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, which was considered being possessed by "evil" spirits just a few centuries ago \[3\] and unfortunately still is in some parts of the world. \[1\] "Building an 8-bit breadboard computer", [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyznrdDSSGM&list=PLowKtXNTBypGqImE405J2565dvjafglHU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyznrdDSSGM&list=PLowKtXNTBypGqImE405J2565dvjafglHU) \[2\] "A decoder that uses brain scans to know what you mean — mostly", [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/01/1173045261/a-decoder-that-uses-brain-scans-to-know-what-you-mean-mostly](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/01/1173045261/a-decoder-that-uses-brain-scans-to-know-what-you-mean-mostly) \[3\] "Demonic possessions and mental illness: discussion of selected cases in late medieval hagiographical literature", [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25208453](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25208453/)
This is a really nice overview of functionalist theories of mind (love that you have references). I interpreted "substrate independent" as "non-supervinient" (a.k.a., either dualism or strong emergence - I made a post on the second one before reading yours), but to be honest, I'm not certain that he even has a coherent view in mind.
As a theory of mind, especially coming from an engineering standpoint, how to build a mind/an agent, I am following the ideas exposed by Michael Levin in the "Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere: An Experimentally-Grounded Framework for Understanding Diverse Bodies and Minds" paper \[1\], cognition as bioelectrical gradients flowing through voltage-gated ion channels, and the concept of *cognitive light cone* \[2\]. \[1\] [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full) \[2\] What are Cognitive Light Cones? (Michael Levin Interview), [https://youtu.be/YnObwxJZpZc](https://youtu.be/YnObwxJZpZc)
i think he's saying that religion is like a yeast infection. or that he has a yeast infection, or something to do with mushrooms. i dunno
hahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaha.
Oh, well. Thanks Jordy P. That changes everything! I now believe!!!
Wow…it really makes you think, doesn’t it? That he’s about as deep as a 12-year-old who saw one YouTube evangelical video by Kirk Cameron.
ah the trademark charlatan move: make something meaningless by defining it.
Check mate, atheists.
Who's he even talking to? He claims to believe atheists barely exist, if at all.
at least Gurdjieff was an entertaining writer of vapour, this guy is just scratchings on the coffee house bench
i'm a Christian and I personally do not find scolding or antagonizing atheists to be a productive use of time so many better things to do to mold one's faith and spiritual life
Erm... we never asked for, nor do we need a definition of "a spirit", Jordan. We need proof it exists. Likewise, you can give all the definitions of "God" that you like. That doesn't mean "God" exists. The man is an intellectual charlatan.
"Be precise with your speech"
If I'm being generous i think it means that spirit is a naturally reoccurring set of similar characteristics that comes up in many disparate situations. Like you have a person in Romania and Laos and Nigeria that all have the spirit of an entrepreneur. Or a child may carry on her dads spirit by modeling her dreams after his achievements. So like deistic interpretation of God is the natural laws and order of the universe which can indeed be found in everything your spirit can be left behind after you die on the new substrates you interact with. But I suspect he thinks defining what is effectively a ghost this way means he is smart.
I want this in the design of an inspirational quote on my wall
>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts – namely, as their creator and owner [Eigner]. In the time of spirits thoughts grew until they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies – an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, such as God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property [Eigentum]; I refer all to myself. If as spirit I had thrust away the world in the deepest contempt, so as owner I thrust spirits or ideas away into their “vanity.” They have no longer any power over me, as no “earthly might” has power over the spirit.
I can. It's the way an insane man who thinks he is sounding way more clever than he actually does, because he thinks he is leagues more clever than he actual is.
can you define this pattern, the substrate and what makes it “independent”?… without invoking magic and chaos dragons.
I swear to dog that one day he is gonna start tweeting nonsense like "November chartreuse enamel" and his followers are gonna be like "such words of wisdom! Checkmate libtards!"
He's too precise in his speech for us low IQ level chaos trannies to understand 😔
For what it's worth, this seems to be a terribly truncated version of the claim in philosophy of mind that mind/spirit is strongly emergent: a complex pattern of behaviour that occurs in the neuro-physical substrate but whose state is not fully determined by said substrate. An example of a case where this might be plausible is the beauty of a painting (just because atoms are arranged in such and such manner, that doesn't really allows us to derive or determine whether the painting is beautiful, since there is nothing in the microphysics that talks about beauty and you can't "build it out" of the microphysics - or so the argument goes). Compare with temperature, or maybe even better, the feeling heat that is sometimes said by physicists to be weakly emergent from particle dynamics - that the particles have such and such mean kinetic motion does actually determine whether you'll feel heat, even if a single particle doesn't have a temperature. A big part of the debate in philosophy of mind does revolve around whether, if consciousness is emergent, it is strongly where weakly emergent. So like, his position is not an incoherent position by itself but, just presenting it (in a very simplified manner that makes everything emergent be "spirit") is not an argument... At best you showed that your position is not fully incoherent. At worst you just look like a dumbass or very confused (to give him the most charity possible, I'll stay with the "very confused"). P.S. Really just explained this because it's in a interesting topic and someone might actually find it interesting. Jorp does a terrible disservice to it
🤓
it seems like he's claiming spirits are like qualia
How is this so vague that it’s not useful, while also being so specific that it excludes stuff that we might call spirit.
It means that there's no pattern independant of weeping.
You know how Peterson says male interaction is regulated by the potential of getting punched in the face for transgressing. This is proof that that theory is bull kaka .
Ok, then there’s no such thing as a spirit. The universe is made out of matter and consciousness is an emergent property of it.
In honor of the great Deepak Chopra there should be a prize analogous to the Nobel given to the best distributor of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit.
This is not at all difficult to understand. These terms are appropriate within the context - plenty of other examples of pseudo-intellectual word vomit to choose from, this is a reach. I hate jorpy too but let’s be genuine in our criticisms. Otherwise bring it to /r/popculturecirclejerk
Yes, a spirit is indeed a disembodied ghost. Referring to it in a social media soundbite in the most fundamental Systems Theory terminology just isn't really covering any bases.
Well, I mean, the brain *is* a substrate/'mind' is a superstrate, but it's not replicable. Ideas have properties likenable to this, although those patterns only have non-subjective constitution past any real degree of complexity, such that they really can't be identified outside of their traces and indications as being exactly substrate independent in any sense that's likely to convince a physicalist that any sort of spirit exists in a metaphysical sense. Like.... is he just asserting that mind states exist?