You assume I mean spirits that physically exist separately from people. I do not. You have missed my point entirely.
Even the simple question of what the experience of color is like is totally beyond empiricism.
Not everything has a scientific answer, and that's ok.
Correlating brain activity to thoughts is not the same as being able to distill love or emotional experience down to objective understanding. The difference is spiritual experience.
Oxytocin is a part of how people experience love, but it will never be possible to objectively assess whether someone is experiencing love by measuring it or any other physical quantity.
We can measure the wavelength of light and track how it stimulates cone cells and the brain, but we will never be able to measure the spiritual experience of color.
It is science that will always be chasing the 'gaps' in measuring spiritual experience. No matter how closely we can measure ourselves physically, the actual spiritual experience will always transcend it.
Trying even to describe spirituality at all is difficult because it's an inherently nebulous thing. It can only be known, never proven.
The free-threaded build is a patched version of the interpreter. This is not (currently) behavior normal users will be exposed to.
"and now, the continuation"
vincemcmahon.jpg
To push the absurd narrative that these were essentially scuba tanks for underwater swimming and not flotation devices.
Not going to get many clicks with a real image.
Plus, have people never tried to push floaties or balloons underwater? It's not even a matter of strength, you can't really fight buoyancy. Even a large heavy adult would only be able to force a very small air bladder under long enough to actually swim.
Spirituality itself, as with anything spiritual, is a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing. But that's an unsatisfying answer.
I do think 'the opposite of empirical' is a decent shorthand. The less a truth can be objectively defined, and the less consistent the nature of a truth is across different people, the more spiritual it is.
Enjoyment of music and wonder in the face of nature / the cosmos are two more spiritual truths I think most people know.
Of course, but from my perspective you almost certainly do need spiritual nourishment of your own, given my broader concept of the spiritual. Purely a matter of perspective.
Which is all to say when someone like me says people can't live without spirituality, it doesn't necessarily imply that they feel everyone needs to believe in some kind of supernatural power.
I think it depends on how you frame 'spirituality'. Love for example can never be meaningfully measured empirically, it's a spiritual truth. You just know it. It cannot be reliably be proven or disproven, especially across different people.
I don't think the line between 'I truly believe in love' and 'I truly believe in god' is as crisp as people would like to believe. That's not at all to say they're the same thing, but they're more similar than a lot of people want to accept.
If you aren't cringing at your past at all, then you aren't growing.
Threw me too, I did not parse "Skywalker Hughes" as a name at first.
I'm not really talking about belief so much as the fact that people need nourishment in unmeasurable ways: love, wonder, etc. I don't think it makes sense to exclude that from spirituality. I have found that 'spirituality = supernatural' is unnecessarily reductive.
But, at the end of the day it's just individual perspective as to what constitutes the spiritual.