As a kid I was taught that spiritual was much much finer and thus undetectable.

So where is the spirit?

In the future we might be able to detect all sorts of finer things but where is the spirit?

https://bigthink.com/the-future/quantum-sensors-measure-extreme-precision/

Tough ask. Considering it's a myth.

When the ectoplasm hits you.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng0olzfFzog

That's great! Actual physical contact!

I feel funky.

Captain Morgan is a good spirit.

I've got a bottle of The Kraken Black Spiced on the go. Yum!

What's the difference between when a person is alive and when in the next moment when they are dead?

Is it the spirit, or in some schools of thought the soul, that leaves?

What is it 28 grams?

"What's the difference between when a person is alive and when in the next moment when they are dead?"

COMMENT: The body is a complex biological system having several necessary components (organs) for the system to function. Each of these components are comprised of living cells, which process energy for the operation of those cells and the bodies systemic functions generally. When the system is disrupted sufficiently (e.g. by a gunshot, cancer, or just an over-worked heart), death occurs. The cells of the body eventually die also, and the body decomposes. Sometimes, as in cancer, the malfunction of cells within the body triggers a disruption of the system, causing death. In short, all of this can be explained by physiology. There is no need for a spirit or soul to explain death.

Imagine you were driving your car down the highway and it suddenly 'dies.' As upsetting as this is, you are not tempted to exclaim, "Damn, the car spirit has left its body again." The reason is that you generally understand the mechanisms of the car that are required for it to operate and realize that some such mechanism has failed and needs to be fixed--unless the car is 'totaled.' The same generally applies to the human body.

_______________________________________________

"Is it the spirit, or in some schools of thought the soul, that leaves?"

COMMENT: The above description of death does NOT prove there is no 'life giving' spirit or soul either in the human body or the car. In order to show affirmatively that there *is* such a spirit in the car, say, you might try to prove (1) that the car is conscious, and that its conscious mental life affects in some way the functioning of the car over and above its mechanistic, physical, properties; and/or (2) that the car is able to perform operations of some kind that cannot be explained by appeal to its physical mechanisms. Of course, with respect to the car, you cannot prove any of this, and it seems especially ludicrous. But how about the human body?

As for the human, it is quite easy to show that humans are conscious, mental agents, whose mental efforts and direction can affect the functioning of the physical body. This is just an empirical fact of human experience. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)is one non-subjective example of this, as I have previously noted. But common everyday subjective intuitions support this fact also. We decide by our thoughts and reasoning, and our mental choices where our bodies will go, and what they will do in order to accomplish whatever goal we might set for ourselves. So, arguably the mental causation associated with the human body is, or should be, uncontroversial.

Secondly, a serious look at human cognition--particularly in light of the demonstrated limitations of AI--demonstrates that human beings engage in cognitive processes and have cognitive abilities that cannot be explained, even in principle, by appeal to the known, neural network, mechanisms of the physical brain, however complex. This suggests that there is something missing, or something additional that is necessary to explain these cognitive capacities. I will not get into the details now, but such limitations are evident from the so-called 'frame problem' of AI and cognitive science generally; as well as the lack of mechanistic explanations as related to human creativity. See for example:

Daniel C. Dennett, *Brainstorms* (1978) p. 125-126; Daniel C. Dennett, "Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence," (1987) in Z.W. Pylyshyn (ed.) *The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence; Margaret A. Boden, *Creativity as a Neuroscientific Mystery* (2013)

(Note: AI as applied to robotics represents a good approximation as to the 'state-of-the-art' in resolving both the frame problem and creativity in neuroscience. When AI develops a 'universal' robot that can perform complex problem-solving tasks across multiple domains--as a human clearly can--or can 'create' a uniquely artistic symphony, say, from algorithms applied to the data of musical rules and forms, then we can start talking about robotic consciousness. Until then, the idea of a 'spirit' or 'soul' remains a viable placeholder for explaining human cognition. Of course, the nature of such a spirit or soul remains to be seen, including its origin and status at death.)

Thank you for a detailed explanation on how the body shuts down after death, but I don't understand how it's alive one moment and dead the next.

The correlation to a car is meaningless to me.

A car dies because the energy flow, gas, electricity etc. is disrupted for some mechanical reason. There is no spirit or soul in a car.

Again, thanks for your views.

"Thank you for a detailed explanation on how the body shuts down after death, but I don't understand how it's alive one moment and dead the next."

COMMENT: From a purely materialist perspective--that is, absent some life-giving spirit or soul--the body is alive one minute and shuts down the next for the same general reason the car is running one minute and shuts down the next: There is a physical, mechanical failure within the system. Life (or being alive) on this view is just the natural functioning of a mechanical, albeit biological, system. Death is the result of internal and environmental causal factors that somehow disrupt the functionality of the system in a totally natural, physical, way.

However, there *is* a deeper sense to your question and concern. 'Vitalism,' the view that life requires a vital spirit or essence has long since been displaced in academic circles by the details of molecular biology. It is assumed that such biochemical processes totally explain the distinction between life and non-life.

Yet, the dynamics of organic molecules (within, for example, a proposed prebiotic soup), as encompassed by their biochemical properties, do not explain how it is possible for such relatively simple molecules to naturally combine and evolve into complex functional cellular structures, and eventually into living organisms. This is the standard origin of life debate, but extended not just to life (abiogenesis), but to the complexity of living systems generally.

In other words, it might be asked, what forces of nature--over and above the local atomic forces of physics and chemistry-- 'direct' such biochemical processes toward increasing complexity, and eventually to complex living systems? What forces and/or other influences bridge the gap between the non-life of biochemistry, and the life of complex autonomous systems. Arguably, the path from biochemistry to living organisms, including human beings and their marvelous conscious, cognitive capacities, still needs to be explained.

Of course, the traditional and standard answer appeals to the natural forces of evolution by natural selection. However, modern biology has called this simplistic explanation into question, as biologists, like Stuart Kauffman, have insisted upon the need for additional laws of 'emergence' that direct such complexity, which he himself characterizes as mysterious and 'sacred.' So, maybe there is still some room in biology for some sort of 'vitalism' (or spirit) that explains the directed emergence of complex systems. But, even if this is true, it doesn't change the facts and processes associated with physical death.

"It is assumed that such biochemical processes totally explain the distinction between life and non-life."

So academia is a cult. That isn't a problem? Assumptions are supposed to be tested.

Mind non-locality has been proven. It is ignored the same way Mormons ignore BoM anachronisms. Paranormal effects, NDEs, and reincarnation all have overwhelming anecdotal evidence. But if you can't explain how something works it doesn't exist. Even if it's right there. Going through life with blinders on is a good indicator that you are in a cult. If your paycheck or reputation rely on agreeing with the cult, you certainly will not risk being shunned. There was a time when academic freedom was a thing, but that was another time.

Non-overlapping magisteria is a man-made convention enforced by taboo, not a natural phenomenon. It doesn't have to be this way.

The spirit's blue da da Dee da da do.

I have never yet been in a church meeting where the leaders declare that The Spirit (TM) was only partly strong. It's always obvious to them that The Spirit (TM) was there that day and the congregation was thereby blessed. If it is so ubiquitous, you'd think by now somebody would have invented a Spiritometer of some sort, so we could tell when it was strong or only so-so that day.