A Scientific Look at the Term Spirit

The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus “breath”) has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person’s spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and “spirit” can also have the sense of “ghost”, i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

It is by definition that one can begin to examine the substance of and lead one to ask how such a thing can become of use and measured? I am not saying you give up on what you know to be your truth, but to examine how we might give particular meaning to the term, as in the way we look at our own composition.

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning “breath“, but also “spirit, soul, courage, vigor”, ultimately from a Proto-Indo-European *(s)peis. It is distinguished from Latin anima, “soul” (which nonetheless also derives from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”, earliest form *h2enh1[2]). In Greek, this distinction exists between pneuma (πνεῦμα), “breath, motile air, spirit,” and psykhē (ψυχή), “soul”[3] (even though the latter term, ψῡχή = psykhē/psūkhē, is also from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”: *bhes-, zero grade *bhs- devoicing in proto-Greek to *phs-, resulting in historical-period Greek ps- in psūkhein, “to breathe”, whence psūkhē, “spirit”, “soul”[4]).

The word “spirit” came into Middle English via Old French. The distinction between soul and spirit also developed in the Abrahamic religions: Arabic nafs (نفس) opposite rúħ (روح); Hebrew neshama (נְשָׁמָה nəšâmâh) or nephesh (in Hebrew neshama comes from the root NŠM or “breath”) opposite ruach (רוּחַ rûaħ). (Note, however, that in Semitic just as in Indo-European, this dichotomy has not always been as neat historically as it has come to be taken over a long period of development: Both נֶ֫פֶשׁ (root נפשׁ) and רוּחַ (root רוח), as well as cognate words in various Semitic languages, including Arabic, also preserve meanings involving misc. air phenomena: “breath”, “wind”, and even “odou

How old and illustrious the thought that to begin here is very ancient part of our history,  that it could lead toward the subject unfolding as to something that defines the matter of, in spirit of, as relative to the body? In this sense then can we say that the spirit is a divisible feature of the body by way of applying the distinction right from the start?

 In philosophy of mind, dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are not identical.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism, in the mind–body problem.[1][2]

So by examination, they are two parts to the subject with which we began that I have separated the body into two? Spirit and Body. If we go toward selecting body so as to see it is not divisible, then one proceeds toward the fashion of what Archimedes demonstrates? What is to measure then?

 Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

Archimedes Thoughtful by Fetti (1620)

How do you measure “the space” in between the bodies materialistic expressions then? If I use a cup of water and deposit a teaspoon of sugar, does the level of the water change? So we say the sugar dissolves into the water.

Now I’m wondering here about that analogy. I know if we said dark matter or dark energy (Of course they are trying to measure), I might have given perspective by such an analogy that you might say that is not a good enough one, but you get the idea I think.  If you can explain this better, knowing what I mean then lets see what you come up with?


  How would you determine Gold?  Is there a better way to measure?

 The results show that the suspension technique is more accurate and precise than the traditional water displacement methods and is more accurate than measuring volume using Vernier calliper measurements. See: Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects

What is the glue that binds matter would then become a statement for me about what has been the efforts of science that wishes to establish the element of such a gathering. It had been on my mind that such a grouping of birds,  that move in unison could have asked me to ponder about such particulate expressions.  Then to have my mind rest on the Higg’s as a particle’ of that expression. In that sense,  I have retain the body as a materialistic expression to this point.

When looking to spirit then,  in context of the meaning,  it becomes divisible in relation too, the body. In that sense the question about spirit then becomes a question with regard to what can measure it. And without such measure,  a scientist will have hard time accepting it in terms of discussion in terms of it’s validation, but  may still retain it’s validity as to the truth for them specifically.

So I wanted people to know that that regardless of such poofs, the world may hold this part of spirit in meaning, while such examinations are still critical for the scientist with regard to a measure.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s