The 'Supernatural'

MisterEpicurus

I'd like to preface by saying this is not a continuation of KidChameleon's thread.

On my other thread concerning mass extinctions, the word 'supernatural' popped up over and over again without a second thought, even I'm victim to using it. However, isn't there something inherently wrong and misleading about using this term. I want this thread to expand on that and not in the direction Kidchameleon dragged it down to.

Here were my original comments:

This whole 'supernatural' concept never made sense to me.

Surely it's an oxymoron?

If we (Homo sapiens) are natural and can sense natural phenomena then surely any supernatural/paranormal phenomena could not be sensed by our naturally formed bodies?
If it's suggested that we can sense supernatural phenomena, then surely it stops becoming supernatural and is part of the natural world?

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread from the topic. Just thought I'd add that two cents.

...and I stand by this. Anything we define as supernatural cannot be detectable by this naturally formed species by mere definition.

For me, it's exactly the same as saying 'a blind person can see'.
If we are naturally formed, then we have to be 'blind' to the supernatural whether it be ghosts, demons, fairies and so forth. If we can detect and hence sense these entities, then they don't fit the description of supernatural.

One of the OP cleverly said that the word supernatural should be replaced with 'imaginary' and no other word in the sentence need be changed. I think this is a more useful and less misleading word. If you grant the definition of the word supernatural, surely you are misleading people by giving an impression such a thing is logically rational.

However, based on the real logical meaning of the word, it's just a useless word which should be discarded. So in conclusion I'm saying;

1. The concept of supernatural is an oxymoron because by definition it could not be detected by mortal natural species.
2. If it did exist, it could not be detectable. Anything 'detected' is therefore part of the natural world.

Any thoughts?

seamus

I don't think the definition of "supernatural" is ever meant to mean that something is beyond detection by the "natural" world, but rather more generally is used to describe phenomena which are not (or which do not appear to be) subject to the laws of nature. This doesn't mean that just because it would be possible to see ghosts, that they are subject to the laws of physics. It's generally just the idea that these things exist which cannot be described in terms of formulae.

Obviously it's a very loose definition and in many cases what one person may consider to be supernatural, another person considers to be simple coincidence.

On the "detectable" part, supernatural can also refer to both the outcome and the agent. So in the case of "divine intervention" for example, both the intervetion and the divine being are considered to be supernatural, though only the former is "detectable".

It would have been held as a much more "obvious" thing not too long ago - taken for granted that supernatural things just happen. Since what is supernatural is dependent on exactly how much you understand about nature, then it stands to reason that as science progresses, what is and isn't supernatural retreats further and futhrer until you mainly have stuff that's just made up.

5,000 years ago, a solar eclipse would have been a supernatural event. So if such a thing can happen, then why not ghosts or demons?

One of the primary differences we have now is that we've managed to remove the supernatural label from practically all observable phemonena. The end result is that we now assume that all observable phenomena are natural, confining supernatural to the realm of "imaginary", whereas once it would have been an accepted theory.

I would have an issue with using the term "imaginary" though in a debate as it very firmly plants you down on the side of saying that, "it doesn't exist". "Supernatural" is less certain than that, ascribing more ethereal properties to whatever it is you want. It doesn't give it any more weight than something imaginary because it still isn't proven to exist, but at the same time you're not declaring absolute certainty that this supernatural "thing" doesn't exist.

MisterEpicurus

seamus wrote: »

I don't think the definition of "supernatural" is ever meant to mean that something is beyond detection by the "natural" world, but rather more generally is used to describe phenomena which are not (or which do not appear to be) subject to the laws of nature. This doesn't mean that just because it would be possible to see ghosts, that they are subject to the laws of physics. It's generally just the idea that these things exist which cannot be described in terms of formulae.

The bold part highlights the problem though.
Assume they operate outside the laws of physics (which doesn't make sense, but assume it's true), then they still should not be detected by our bodies which have been formed through the laws of physics.

On the "detectable" part, supernatural can also refer to both the outcome and the agent. So in the case of "divine intervention" for example, both the intervetion and the divine being are considered to be supernatural, though only the former is "detectable".

So it really is a loose definition.

Well, this thread isn't really about divine intervention specifically, but anyway, the problem remains the same. Given that there is no evidence of divine interventions and moreover given the fact that every society mimics and replicates the same interventions makes the godly supernatural events even more improbable.

It would have been held as a much more "obvious" thing not too long ago - taken for granted that supernatural things just happen. Since what is supernatural is dependent on exactly how much you understand about nature, then it stands to reason that as science progresses, what is and isn't supernatural retreats further and futhrer until you mainly have stuff that's just made up.

True to an extent - there are some natural laws which we know to be true and will forever be true. In addition, there are other piece of science which will be built upon and learned. For the former, if anything contradicts a certainty, then it's safe to assume that the only way it could operate it 'outside the laws of physics' in which case we return to my original problem.

5,000 years ago, a solar eclipse would have been a supernatural event. So if such a thing can happen, then why not ghosts or demons?

We have evidence of a solar eclipse and they regularly happen.
Ghosts and demons specifically occupy some realm outside the certain known laws of physics.

One of the primary differences we have now is that we've managed to remove the supernatural label from practically all observable phemonena. The end result is that we now assume that all observable phenomena are natural, confining supernatural to the realm of "imaginary", whereas once it would have been an accepted theory.

That's twice you're trying to use historical definitions to apply to what we know today. The same problem above still exists.

I would have an issue with using the term "imaginary" though in a debate as it very firmly plants you down on the side of saying that, "it doesn't exist". "Supernatural" is less certain than that, ascribing more ethereal properties to whatever it is you want. It doesn't give it any more weight than something imaginary because it still isn't proven to exist, but at the same time you're not declaring absolute certainty that this supernatural "thing" doesn't exist.

The thing with the supernatural claims is that there's literally millions and millions of them, all different in different parts of the world, and not even 1 piece of evidence!! Not one! I submit if there were evidence, it would be a natural phenomena anyway.

So it's a completely different claim altogether. Moreover, these claims contradict our current laws of physics. The Egyptians when viewing a solar eclipse didn't have 1% of the knowledge of laws we have now. We're in a position to make certain claims now. In the future, more laws will enhance this position, not undermine it.

endacl

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'd like to preface by saying this is not a continuation of KidChameleon's thread.

Good stuff. I was running out of different ways to say the same thing over there.

Might not contribute to this one unless the messers appear (in which case I'll probably do my usual) , but I'll follow with interest.

18AD

Would you not say that there are at least some things which aren't subject to the laws of physics?

Numbers. Dreams. Intentionality. Distance. Fiction. Justice. Ethics. Referentiality. Any of these perhaps?

nozzferrahhtoo

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

However, isn't there something inherently wrong and misleading about using this term.

I think so yes. For a very simple reason. Functionally "supernatural" is indistinguishable from "stuff we do not know/understand".

There is that oft quoted cliche about how any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and those wielding it indistinguishable from gods.

Epilepsy and disease were once considered to be caused by supernatural demonic possession too, yet now we understand the natural causes.

As such the term "supernatural" is to me functionally useless. The only difference between "supernatural" and "stuff we do not know" to me is that in the case of the former the speaker is actually pretending to know something about it, linking it as they will to something like god or the spirit realm or some other such nonsense.

In essence they are using the term to say "Because we can not explain it.... we can explain it"

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

Would you not say that there are at least some things which aren't subject to the laws of physics?

Numbers. Dreams. Intentionality. Distance. Fiction. Justice. Ethics. Referentiality. Any of these perhaps?

Numbers - Human construction to understand physical processes.

Dreams/Intentionality/Referentiality - Manifestations of physical processes in the brain: Should the brain break down, these processes break down with them. They are just advanced neural cognition manifestations...good ones, but nothing supernatural about them. They can all be explained through biology.

Fiction - Man-made, nothing supernatural about them except the content.

Ethics/Justice - Man-made construction which are by-products of humans evolving through natural physical processes.

-- There's nothing supernatural about these things at all, not that you said that but I'm saying even if it's difficult to quantify what we mean by them, they are still products of the physical laws in one sense or another.

-- This is not the same as supernatural concepts which lay claim outside the laws of physics in every sense, or claim to be a by-product of something outside natural phenomena.

-- Essentially with the things you listed, they would be impossible without the laws of physics. So yes, they are part and operate through these laws as well.

raah!

There is no direct logical or semantic connection between the word 'supernatural' and detectability. Dragons are detectable.

You might say that the word is inappropriate to describe things which are now known to be entirely natural, but that doesn't make the word any less useful in the description of things like dragons for which it is entirely appropriate and not in any sense contradictory or misleading.

seamus

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Assume they operate outside the laws of physics (which doesn't make sense, but assume it's true), then they still should not be detected by our bodies which have been formed through the laws of physics.

But since we're already dealing with the realm of bull, there's not really a logical basis to assert that something cannot be both partially detectable and at the same time not entirely operating within the laws of physics.

The standard rebuttal to that is that you're trying to logically define something which is impervious to logic. Logically something which is detectable is therefore natural, but when you pull in the word "supernatural" that can encompass something which is simultaneously visible and undetectable.

We have evidence of a solar eclipse and they regularly happen.
Ghosts and demons specifically occupy some realm outside the certain known laws of physics.
That's twice you're trying to use historical definitions to apply to what we know today. The same problem above still exists.

I'm really using historical definitions to explain why the term "supernatural" even exists at all. I think this is actually an appropriate time for a quote from an Incubus song (words paraprashed from Richard Buckminster Fuller);

Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the charted electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one millionth of reality.

In reality many people still have difficulty with this concept that reality isn't everything we can touch, smell, see and hear - that our senses only scratch the surface of reality and a lot of the time can be wrong and mislead us.

The concept of supernatural "things" persists because there are so many things that the individual cannot explain through their senses.

This allows people to believe that ghosts, for example, exist because they'll swear blind that they saw a woman walking across a room and who disappeared in the next instant. Visible, but invisible and not subject to what the individual perceives to be "natural" laws.

As I mentioned in the last post, the concept of "supernatural" has now been completely undermined because we're aware that the human senses have extremely limited scope and the brain is easily fooled. So if something cannot be confirmed by scientific means, then it probably doesn't exist.

To me, "supernatural" is a cushion for people who like to fill in gaps but aren't too fussed about using chewing gum instead of polyfilla. I don't really view it any differently than "God" in a discussion, as to me it simply represents an ethereal "something" which conveniently does what they need it to do. But at the same time in a discussion consider insisting that they label "God" as "imaginary". It doesn't really do much except to offend the other side of the table and place your foot down as a fundamentalist.

I'm always open to the minute possibility that whatever supernatural entity/phenomenon is being proposed, could perhaps exist. But until I see the evidence, it's inadmissible as an argument.

I don't see any particular logical issue with the word "supernatural" though since it's effectively a euphemism for "phenomena I believe in or believe I have experienced, and I believe cannot be explained". Although God falls into that category, it does place these things separate to the theism debate.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Numbers - Human construction to understand physical processes.

Dreams/Intentionality/Referentiality - Manifestations of physical processes in the brain: Should the brain break down, these processes break down with them. They are just advanced neural cognition manifestations...good ones, but nothing supernatural about them. They can all be explained through biology.

Fiction - Man-made, nothing supernatural about them except the content.

Ethics/Justice - Man-made construction which are by-products of humans evolving through natural physical processes.

-- There's nothing supernatural about these things at all, not that you said that but I'm saying even if it's difficult to quantify what we mean by them, they are still products of the physical laws in one sense or another.

-- This is not the same as supernatural concepts which lay claim outside the laws of physics in every sense, or claim to be a by-product of something outside natural phenomena.

-- Essentially with the things you listed, they would be impossible without the laws of physics. So yes, they are part and operate through these laws as well.

What do you mean by "human construction"? Are these things simply illusory? Becuase in relation to numbers, and by extension physical laws, this should prove problematic for your position.

I assume you mean something similar when you say "manifestation" and "by-product". You haven't really explained them, but simply attempted to explain them away, as somewhat inconsequential "by-products" of the important physical things.

Also, are you saying that if something is produced by the laws of physics that it is therefore automatically "subject" to it? I'm not sure if this is tenable. I'm no scientist, but say if macro-objects are produced by subatomic laws, does that necessitate that they are subejcted to subatmoic laws? From what little I know this doesn't appear to be the case. Sure some higher level process can depend on the lower level laws but that doesn't mean they are "subject" to those principles that hold on the lower level processes.

To comment on the supernatural thing. I don't think "supernatural" is oxymoronic, it is only the claims to have witnessed the supernatural that are contradictory. That still doesn't mean that the supernatural doens't exist, since it could simply be undetectable, as you put it. But then we're just back into the realm of unverifiability, which is no fun for anyone.

In ordinary usage, I think supernatural is synonymous with extraordinary or paranormal. I hereby reappropriate the term paranormal to describe the exceptional.

Zillah

The definition of the term is inherently tied to how it is used. It means magic. It means anything the person using it wants it to mean. It means that even though what they are saying is stupid and irrational its actually not because magic. It means justifying a lower level of intellectual discipline to oneself. It means disingenuously building a bridge between credulity and intelligence. Magic. Anything. Whatever. It's epistemological scorched earth.

MisterEpicurus

raah! wrote: »

There is no direct logical or semantic connection between the word 'supernatural' and detectability. Dragons are detectable.

You might say that the word is inappropriate to describe things which are now known to be entirely natural, but that doesn't make the word any less useful in the description of things like dragons for which it is entirely appropriate and not in any sense contradictory or misleading.

Dragons are detectable but only if they exist. They do not exist (at least currently, but I won't hold my breath) and so are not detectable. If they were detectable they would be part of the natural order.

...well, on second thought, dragons do exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon

...but that's as far as I'd go.

endacl

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Dragons are detectable but only if they exist. They do not exist (at least currently, but I won't hold my breath) and so are not detectable. If they were detectable they would be part of the natural order.

...well, on second thought, dragons do exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon

...but that's as far as I'd go.

Your point is disintegrating, Mr. E.......

http://rickythedragonsteamboat.com/

MisterEpicurus

seamus wrote: »

The standard rebuttal to that is that you're trying to logically define something which is impervious to logic. Logically something which is detectable is therefore natural, but when you pull in the word "supernatural" that can encompass something which is simultaneously visible and undetectable.

I'm not logically defining it, I didn't invent the word 'supernatural'. I think this thread has made progress as you've just admitted its logically fallacious.

As I mentioned in the last post, the concept of "supernatural" has now been completely undermined because we're aware that the human senses have extremely limited scope and the brain is easily fooled. So if something cannot be confirmed by scientific means, then it probably doesn't exist.

You're right to admit that our brains are easily fooled which almost fully explains why so many people think they see and experience so many different things.

A common argument perpetuated by supernatural believers is that we have an 'extremely limited scope' given we only understand a small portion of matter. I think this is an irrelevant point simply because we don't need future knowledge to undermine what we know to be false today.

For example, if somebody claims a new mountain hovers over part of the Atlantic, I don't need to fully understand more matter to know that what he is suggesting is false...whether or not I have the ability to see it. Indeed, more knowledge about matter enhances this not undermines it as I expressed in my opening remarks.

I don't see any particular logical issue with the word "supernatural" though since it's effectively a euphemism for "phenomena I believe in or believe I have experienced, and I believe cannot be explained".

It is logically fallacious because these claims are almost always based on eye-witness accounts, be it ghosts or demons or whatever. If someone claims these detections, then they are rendered logically bankrupt. I actually have more respect for individuals who claim they can never be detected because then at least they understand what it means to be supernatural. Once you assume detection by our natural mortal eyes, then the phenomena you presume must be part of the natural order or does not exist. Given a lot of these phenomena are contradictions of natural law, it can be concluded they almost certainly do not exist.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

What do you mean by "human construction"? Are these things simply illusory? Becuase in relation to numbers, and by extension physical laws, this should prove problematic for your position.

There's no problem for me. Numbers as we use them describe a physical phenomena. However, the number 3 does not exist in reality. The number 3 is a symbol with a meaning which we ascribe to defining natural phenomena. It's the natural phenomena we aim to describe through these human constructions.

I assume you mean something similar when you say "manifestation" and "by-product". You haven't really explained them, but simply attempted to explain them away, as somewhat inconsequential "by-products" of the important physical things.

See above. They are certainly not 'inconsequential by-products', they have served us well. But if you rewound the tape of human progression, we may have used differing symbols and methodologies, but we would ultimately be describing the same reality.

Also, are you saying that if something is produced by the laws of physics that it is therefore automatically "subject" to it? I'm not sure if this is tenable. I'm no scientist, but say if macro-objects are produced by subatomic laws, does that necessitate that they are subejcted to subatmoic laws? From what little I know this doesn't appear to be the case. Sure some higher level process can depend on the lower level laws but that doesn't mean they are "subject" to those principles that hold on the lower level processes.

Objects are subject to both the macro and the quantum laws. For example, on the macro level, Jupiter is constrained by the laws of gravity which act on large mass, whereas the particles which construct the whole are subject to quantum laws. Mathematics is currently trying to reconcile these into a theory of everything.

To comment on the supernatural thing. I don't think "supernatural" is oxymoronic, it is only the claims to have witnessed the supernatural that are contradictory. That still doesn't mean that the supernatural doens't exist, since it could simply be undetectable, as you put it. But then we're just back into the realm of unverifiability, which is no fun for anyone.

Yeah, you've hit the proverbial nail on the head there. It's the fact of witnessing which thoroughly discredits the usage of the term. It's true to say it can't be used as an argument to prove its non-existence. We can safely assume it can never be detected and therefore can make no judgements about what it could be...at the very sceptical maximum. However, given our current understanding of the laws of physics and matter, it's safe to assume (probability wise) that such a dimension does not exist.

This makes it equally as unverifiable as the god hypothesis, if not worse.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

There's no problem for me. Numbers as we use them describe a physical phenomena. However, the number 3 does not exist in reality. The number 3 is a symbol with a meaning which we ascribe to defining natural phenomena. It's the natural phenomena we aim to describe through these human constructions.

How do we gain knowledge of the universe through non-existent entities? If we use numbers to describe the universe, and what we are describing is not in any way numerical (since numbers don't exist), what are we actually describing?

See above. They are certainly not 'inconsequential by-products', they have served us well. But if you rewound the tape of human progression, we may have used differing symbols and methodologies, but we would ultimately be describing the same reality.

I was curious mostly about what you meant by a "manifestation" in relation to the mind. It seems as though you're trying to capture the entire prblem of consciousness in that one term.

Objects are subject to both the macro and the quantum laws. For example, on the macro level, Jupiter is constrained by the laws of gravity which act on large mass, whereas the particles which construct the whole are subject to quantum laws. Mathematics is currently trying to reconcile these into a theory of everything.

That's precisely what I was questioning. Jupiter depends on quantum laws, but is not itself "subejct" to them, as a macro entity. Best we leave it to the mathematicians.

I'm actually trying to sneak in the possibility of there being supernatural entities. If you can have emergent properties that aren't subject to the lower level laws you could probably have higher level entities that aren't subject to those laws.

mooliki

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

One of the OP cleverly said that the word supernatural should be replaced with 'imaginary' and no other word in the sentence need be changed. I think this is a more useful and less misleading word. If you grant the definition of the word supernatural, surely you are misleading people by giving an impression such a thing is logically rational.

However, based on the real logical meaning of the word, it's just a useless word which should be discarded. So in conclusion I'm saying;

1. The concept of supernatural is an oxymoron because by definition it could not be detected by mortal natural species.
2. If it did exist, it could not be detectable. Anything 'detected' is therefore part of the natural world.

Any thoughts?

The word "supernatural" serves a purpose beyond the definition of "imaginary". Hypothetically, I could say I'm seeing a tree burning outside. The reality is that isn't happening, so that would be an imaginary event, but in no way a supernatural one. If I was to say there's a tree burning outside and it's hovering 3 metres in the air and talking to me, that would be would imagined and supernatural. Similarly, there are slight differences in the definitions words like "paranormal" or "extraordinary". No need to depreciate the english language.

I don't think the definition of supernatural should be subject to change (in the strict sense; that which is outside the laws of nature), but merely what is defined as supernatural. As others have pointed out, our understanding of the laws of nature evolve, therefore our knowledge of what is confined to them changes.

It's one of those words that should be used with an inherent As-Far-As-Our -Understanding-Of-Science-Suggests clause. Which obviously allows room for....unsavory use of the word, but if you change the meaning of a word, people will simply find new ways to say stupid things.

I'd agree with 18AD and Mr E with the idea;

18AD wrote: »

it is only the claims to have witnessed the supernatural that are contradictory. .

But to add that if someone truly does witness the "supernatural", then what they are witnessing is not actually supernatural. Or, you know, they're crazy.

raah!

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Dragons are detectable but only if they exist. They do not exist (at least currently, but I won't hold my breath) and so are not detectable. If they were detectable they would be part of the natural order.

The mythological creatures, dragons (that's what i was referring to when I said dragon), are in theory detectable. That's what they are in the stories, Fire breathing things. They might not exist, but if they do, they would be detectable.

So you are just saying dragons don't exist. There is a difference between something existing and it's being detectable in theory. There is a difference between thinking no supernatural things exist, and thinking that supernatural things are inherently undetectable.

There is no logical connection here whatsoever, as the counter example of the dragon (or think of any supernatural creature, or...90% of mythological supernatural things that are detectable) shows.

Sarky

How do you know dragons are detectable? Do you have a tool capable of detecting them? Has it been tested on any dragons? What's the false-positive margin of error for its detection rate?

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

How do we gain knowledge of the universe through non-existent entities? If we use numbers to describe the universe, and what we are describing is not in any way numerical (since numbers don't exist), what are we actually describing?

Let me ask you a question for once, does the + sign exist in reality? How do we gain knowledge from the + sign if the + sign does not exist?

This is the same as the number 3 or 5 in my view. While they don't exist in reality, they serve a purpose as a model to help explain and deduce information. This information can be advanced upon further enquiry and investigation i.e. science.

I was curious mostly about what you meant by a "manifestation" in relation to the mind. It seems as though you're trying to capture the entire prblem of consciousness in that one term.

Well, I think consciousness is a horrible word. I think it's a loaded word as well. A lot of people ascribe the 'mind' as separate from our consciousness. Total tripe really. These dualists have to understand that our 'mind' (sum of neural processes) breaks down when any part of the neural processes break down. There's nothing mysterious to explain.

That's precisely what I was questioning. Jupiter depends on quantum laws, but is not itself "subejct" to them, as a macro entity. Best we leave it to the mathematicians.

No, we won't leave it to them. Jupiter is dependent on both the macro and the micro, just as we are. Mathematicians just need to mathematically link them, but there's nothing mysterious about suggesting we're subject to both, which we are.

I'm actually trying to sneak in the possibility of there being supernatural entities. If you can have emergent properties that aren't subject to the lower level laws you could probably have higher level entities that aren't subject to those laws.

There's nowhere for the supernatural to sneak in.

MisterEpicurus

mooliki wrote: »

It's one of those words that should be used with an inherent As-Far-As-Our -Understanding-Of-Science-Suggests clause. Which obviously allows room for....unsavory use of the word, but if you change the meaning of a word, people will simply find new ways to say stupid things.[/SIZE]

I thought I already dealt with this point.

Science will only add another layer of enforcement. This isn't like 2,000BC where they didn't know if they were advancing or not.

There's some things in science we know to be true - they'll be true now and they'll be true tomorrow and forever simply because they work.

MisterEpicurus

raah! wrote: »

The mythological creatures, dragons (that's what i was referring to when I said dragon), are in theory detectable. That's what they are in the stories, Fire breathing things. They might not exist, but if they do, they would be detectable.

So you are just saying dragons don't exist. There is a difference between something existing and it's being detectable in theory. There is a difference between thinking no supernatural things exist, and thinking that supernatural things are inherently undetectable.

There is no logical connection here whatsoever, as the counter example of the dragon (or think of any supernatural creature, or...90% of mythological supernatural things that are detectable) shows.

I'm not really sure what you're waffling on about here.

Dragons are, in theory, detectable...but so are leprechauns, fairies, hob-goblins, 561 headed Angela Merkel etc. But there's no evidence for any of them. Maybe they do exist in another realm 'behind the curtain', but mere speculation is wasting our time at best. I'd go further and claim such a dimension does not exist.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Let me ask you a question for once, does the + sign exist in reality? How do we gain knowledge from the + sign if the + sign does not exist?

I don't know really. Should you want me to have an answer I'd say that things don't have to be material entities, i.e. tangible/touchable/visible, in order to exist. The plus sign does exist, but not in the same way as an air balloon.

This is the same as the number 3 or 5 in my view. While they don't exist in reality, they serve a purpose as a model to help explain and deduce information. This information can be advanced upon further enquiry and investigation i.e. science.

Does information exist in reality?

Well, I think consciousness is a horrible word. I think it's a loaded word as well. A lot of people ascribe the 'mind' as separate from our consciousness. Total tripe really. These dualists have to understand that our 'mind' (sum of neural processes) breaks down when any part of the neural processes break down. There's nothing mysterious to explain.

OK, just to clarify. The dualism you are talking about, where the mind is separate from the brain, is only one of many various types of dualism. There are other dualists who believe that the mind is actually dependent on the brain. There many other variants of dualism. I'm not that familiar with a lot of them. You haven't really refuted "dualism" bar the one specific variant you mention.

No, we won't leave it to them. Jupiter is dependent on both the macro and the micro, just as we are. Mathematicians just need to mathematically link them, but there's nothing mysterious about suggesting we're subject to both, which we are.

You're missing the distinction I was making between something being "subject to" and something being "dependent on". The planet Jupiter is dependent on the micro-laws but, would it be fair to say, not subject to them?

Because if you are saying that macro-entities are "subject" to micro-laws you would be coming suspiciously close to that brand of new age thinking, where mental states (or brain states or any other macro-objects) are privy to quantum effects or whatever other fantastic connections you can draw. Allowing for all sorts of ridiculous, but fascinating, possibilites.

There's nowhere for the supernatural to sneak in.

Way to spoil the fun.

:pac:

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

I don't know really. Should you want me to have an answer I'd say that things don't have to be material entities, i.e. tangible/touchable/visible, in order to exist. The plus sign does exist, but not in the same way as an air balloon.

I would say that the plus sign does not exist in reality. It only exists in our brains. The same can be said of sound. Sound only exists when animals are around to hear it. But in a universe without animals, sound does not exist. What we do have is vibrations which do exist. When these vibrations interact with our ears, we 'sense' this as sound. So sound exists, but at the minimum level that creates it, which is vibrations. The same can be said of smell.

This same analogy is true of the plus sign. While the plus sign does not exist in reality, the thing it's describing (i.e. methods of operation in the Universe) does exist. Without humans you don't have a plus sign but you have the physics which the universe is composed of...in exactly the same way sound only exists when humans are around. But sound and the plus sign are not illusory because they are just different facets of explanation of the same thing.

Does information exist in reality?

Information only exists in our brains when conscious animals are around to interpret through cognition.

OK, just to clarify. The dualism you are talking about, where the mind is separate from the brain, is only one of many various types of dualism. There are other dualists who believe that the mind is actually dependent on the brain. There many other variants of dualism. I'm not that familiar with a lot of them. You haven't really refuted "dualism" bar the one specific variant you mention.

True.

You're missing the distinction I was making between something being "subject to" and something being "dependent on". The planet Jupiter is dependent on the micro-laws but, would it be fair to say, not subject to them?

Because if you are saying that macro-entities are "subject" to micro-laws you would be coming suspiciously close to that brand of new age thinking, where mental states (or brain states or any other macro-objects) are privy to quantum effects or whatever other fantastic connections you can draw. Allowing for all sorts of ridiculous, but fascinating, possibilites.

I don't see anything wrong in suggesting that Jupiter is subject to and dependent on the quantum laws. But considering the quantum laws only operate at a small level, then it would be a contradiction to say they operate on the macro level.

Because we can't interpret the quantum world effectively (i.e it usually requires counter-intuitive analogies). It's better to work on a level which we know to understand. So while I'm not ignoring the quantum, I'm saying it's better to work at a level where we have comprehensive knowledge of what does happen without needlessly relying on cumbersome analogies which probably don't reflect the reality we're trying to explain.

Way to spoil the fun.

:pac:

I think this conversation has stayed equally as fun ;-)

raah!

Sarky wrote: »

How do you know dragons are detectable? Do you have a tool capable of detecting them? Has it been tested on any dragons? What's the false-positive margin of error for its detection rate?

How do you know dragons are detectable? Have you ever read about a dragon where it was not detectable? What do you think the word dragon means? Have you ever heard a story where the dragon was not detectable? How bilbo approached the cave only to find that he couldn't see the dragon?

Dragon's are detectable in the story's and mythologies they appear in. They are detectable by definition. They could be a fiction, but just like in a comic book, Spider man is in principle detectable. Spiderman isn't real. But he is detectable, by definition. If there is such a thing then it is detectable, if there is not then you can't detect it because it's not there.

Not being able to detect something that isn't there doesn't mean that thing is undetectable.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're waffling on about here.

Well I rather explicitly stated that the logical conclusion you base your entire argument on isn't there. Nothing you say after the false assumption "supernatural implies indectable" matters, because there is no logical implication from supernatural to indetectable. As a single counter example will show.

That is a very simple way to show that one thing doesn't imply another. If it were the case that supernatural implied indetectable, then things like detectable dragons (or detectable supernatural anything, as any honest examination of the term will uncover) would not logically possible. But we know the word supernatural has exactly things like dragons, and flaming bushes which people could (within the context of the story and the language describing them) detect.

And the use of the word in this way shows that your whole argument is invalid. And this is because you either don't understand basic logic, or you just don't know what the word supernatural means.

Dragons are, in theory, detectable...but so are leprechauns, fairies, hob-goblins, 561 headed Angela Merkel etc. But there's no evidence for any of them. Maybe they do exist in another realm 'behind the curtain', but mere speculation is wasting our time at best. I'd go further and claim such a dimension does not exist.

And again this completely misses the point. And is addressed in my reply to the other person. Not being able to detect something not there does not in any way imply that that thing is inherently undetectable. That's ridiculous.

But anyway, there is nothing more to argue, the logical connection upon which your whole argument is based is non-existent. To continue arguing after this has already been irrefutably demonstrated, would indeed be waffling.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I would say that the plus sign does not exist in reality. It only exists in our brains. The same can be said of sound. Sound only exists when animals are around to hear it. But in a universe without animals, sound does not exist. What we do have is vibrations which do exist. When these vibrations interact with our ears, we 'sense' this as sound. So sound exists, but at the minimum level that creates it, which is vibrations. The same can be said of smell.

So it does exist!

This same analogy is true of the plus sign. While the plus sign does not exist in reality, the thing it's describing (i.e. methods of operation in the Universe) does exist. Without humans you don't have a plus sign but you have the physics which the universe is composed of...in exactly the same way sound only exists when humans are around. But sound and the plus sign are not illusory because they are just different facets of explanation of the same thing.

I'm not so sure I like this analogy. Take sound for example. When we hear a sound, we are hearing something. There is an object to which the sound corresponds. There is a correspondence between the sound and the object. It is not like a hallucinated sound that has no object correlate.

So if the plus sign is behaving the same way, there is something out in the world that demonstrates "plus behaviour" and the plus sign is simply a response to this "plus behaviour" out in the world. We don't make up the plus behaviour in order to explain things, rather it is actually describing something out there in the world. Something in the world does correspond to "plus behaviour".

If there is nothing in the world that corresponds to the plus sign, then we are never actually talking about the world at all. We're just talking about signs.

If there is no "threeness" in the world we have nothing on to which we can apply the concept of "threeness". If there is no "threeness" in the world we can rightly call any quantity three, because it's not actually what's out there that matters (or quantity doesn't exist at all).

Take the idea of distance. We measure actual distance between entities in the world. But there isn't actually a tangible thing called distance that we can find out there. You can't find distance, but you can measure it.

Sarky

raah! wrote: »

How do you know dragons are detectable? Have you ever read about a dragon where it was not detectable? What do you think the word dragon means? Have you ever heard a story where the dragon was not detectable? How bilbo approached the cave only to find that he couldn't see the dragon?

Oh fine, if you want to bring in the laws of completely fictional universes where magic and dragons and whatever the hell you like exists then you have a point.

Otherwise, you're arguing piddly little semantics for what I can only presume is a near-fetishistic love of threads filled great sodding walls of text. Again.

raah!

What? Piddly semantics? His main argument and the cornerstone of any wall of text he may write after that is about "super natural" logically implying non-detectability. That is a completely semantic point... Saying this seems to imply that you don't actually understand the main argument or what semantics or logic consist of.

And yes, I prefer threads where people can support what they say rather than piddly little one liners and meme posts. What a strange comment.

FISMA

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Dreams/Intentionality/Referentiality - Manifestations of physical processes in the brain: Should the brain break down, these processes break down with them. They are just advanced neural cognition manifestations...good ones, but nothing supernatural about them. They can all be explained through biology.

So dreams obey the laws of Physics?

If so, prove it.

MisterEpicurus

FISMA wrote: »

So dreams obey the laws of Physics?

If so, prove it.

As far as science understands dreams, they are linked with some form of neurobiological inhibition process with neurotransmitters.

What we do know is that if you remove these processes, you have no dreams.

If dreams were not subject to mere physical laws, then why do they disappear when the structure themselves are removed?

Moreover, can you prove that dreams operate independent of the laws of physics?

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

So it does exist!



I'm not so sure I like this analogy. Take sound for example. When we hear a sound, we are hearing something. There is an object to which the sound corresponds. There is a correspondence between the sound and the object. It is not like a hallucinated sound that has no object correlate.

So if the plus sign is behaving the same way, there is something out in the world that demonstrates "plus behaviour" and the plus sign is simply a response to this "plus behaviour" out in the world. We don't make up the plus behaviour in order to explain things, rather it is actually describing something out there in the world. Something in the world does correspond to "plus behaviour".

If there is nothing in the world that corresponds to the plus sign, then we are never actually talking about the world at all. We're just talking about signs.

If there is no "threeness" in the world we have nothing on to which we can apply the concept of "threeness". If there is no "threeness" in the world we can rightly call any quantity three, because it's not actually what's out there that matters (or quantity doesn't exist at all).

Take the idea of distance. We measure actual distance between entities in the world. But there isn't actually a tangible thing called distance that we can find out there. You can't find distance, but you can measure it.

It doesn't exist in a wholly natural sense if you get where I'm going. It's a construction.

You've misconstrued my analogy. I'm saying that sound and colour only exist when humans are around to see and hear them. Plus signs will only be understood when humans are around to use it. However, both are interpretations of matter; one is a natural construction while the other is a man-made construction. But both serve to highlight that things can exist, including information, as long as humans are around to interpret it. No humans, no information.

The meaning of 'three' has a definite meaning and is represented as a symbol for applying to physical processes and such things. But the symbol only exists in our brains, the meaning is a mere interpretation of reality. This doesn't denigrate the knowledge we receive from it either. The idea of distance is the same thing really. Both are non tangible objects but serve a purpose of meaning which is true for our understanding of nature. I sort of forget where all this talk has come from.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

It doesn't exist in a wholly natural sense if you get where I'm going. It's a construction.

Are constructions not natural phenomena?

Are they perhaps SUPERNAtURAL!? :pac:

You've misconstrued my analogy. I'm saying that sound and colour only exist when humans are around to see and hear them. Plus signs will only be understood when humans are around to use it. However, both are interpretations of matter; one is a natural construction while the other is a man-made construction. But both serve to highlight that things can exist, including information, as long as humans are around to interpret it. No humans, no information.

Sound exists only when humans are around to hear it? Hear what exactly?

The same for infromation. Infromation exists, but only if humans are around to interpret it. What is the it? Information that exists?

It's one thing saying information requires humans to interpret it, but quite another to say that there is no information without humans.

If humans create information then all we ever understand is our information. You can never say anything about the world.

The meaning of 'three' has a definite meaning and is represented as a symbol for applying to physical processes and such things. But the symbol only exists in our brains, the meaning is a mere interpretation of reality. This doesn't denigrate the knowledge we receive from it either. The idea of distance is the same thing really. Both are non tangible objects but serve a purpose of meaning which is true for our understanding of nature.

But to what phenomena do you know when to apply the concept of three to? And why?

I sort of forget where all this talk has come from.

I was secretly trying to argue that the supernatural exists. But I've forgotten that trail of thought. If I remember I will be back! :P

recedite

seamus wrote: »

I don't think the definition of "supernatural" is ever meant to mean that something is beyond detection by the "natural" world, but rather more generally is used to describe phenomena which are not (or which do not appear to be) subject to the laws of nature.

However, once the real cause is ascertained, the phenomena are then considered natural. Therefore in hindsight they were allegedly supernatural, but were never actually supernatural.

seamus wrote: »

5,000 years ago, a solar eclipse would have been a supernatural event.

Allegedly.

seamus wrote: »

I would have an issue with using the term "imaginary" though in a debate as it very firmly plants you down on the side of saying that, "it doesn't exist".

Yes, but when the person who is asserting the existence of the supernatural being or phenomenon admits that there is no observable evidence of its existence, then the default position should be that the thing is imaginary.

This is slightly different from the theoretical "supernatural" phenomenon which can be observed but can never be explained. In this case a better term is "magic".

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

Are constructions not natural phenomena?

Are they perhaps SUPERNAtURAL!? :pac:

No, they are natural constructions in the sense they are produced by us.

Sound exists only when humans are around to hear it? Hear what exactly?

The same for infromation. Infromation exists, but only if humans are around to interpret it. What is the it? Information that exists?

It's one thing saying information requires humans to interpret it, but quite another to say that there is no information without humans.

If humans create information then all we ever understand is our information. You can never say anything about the world.

Hear the vibrations of matter.

'It' is the information we gain from reflections and analysis of the world. Without us, there is no interpreting or reflection and thus no information in the human sense. There is much to be gained from this and it's not just 'our information', it's information about the world.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

No, they are natural constructions in the sense they are produced by us.

So they are natural phenomena. The number three does exist. Even if, at the very least, it is just produces by us, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean it's a tangible object though does it?

'It' is the information we gain from reflections and analysis of the world. Without us, there is no interpreting or reflection and thus no information in the human sense. There is much to be gained from this and it's not just 'our information', it's information about the world.

OK. I understand that if there are no humans there is no information. But the pivotal point is this. If the universe doesn't contain any information, our interpretations of information don't have anything to do with the world.

If no information is out there, to be found/measured/analysed, then we are never talking about the world. If the world doesn't contain information then we aren't actually measuring anything.

When I measure something, the distance from my face to the screen, I am measuring something out there in the world. I'm not measuring something in my head. The information is out there to be discovered. I have to go out into the world to make discoveries. The information is out there.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

OK. I understand that if there are no humans there is no information. But the pivotal point is this. If the universe doesn't contain any information, our interpretations of information don't have anything to do with the world.

If no information is out there, to be found/measured/analysed, then we are never talking about the world. If the world doesn't contain information then we aren't actually measuring anything.

When I measure something, the distance from my face to the screen, I am measuring something out there in the world. I'm not measuring something in my head. The information is out there to be discovered. I have to go out into the world to make discoveries. The information is out there.

I think we're confusing terms. The information does exist, but that's also known as reality. Our reflections on reality give us what we call information. Information and reality are more or less one and the same. However, we only get information from human reflection on reality. So we're just playing semantics here I guess.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

The information does exist, but that's also known as reality.

So information is reality.

Our reflections on reality give us what we call information. Information and reality are more or less one and the same. However, we only get information from human reflection on reality.

Yes, the human reflection part is pretty key. But the information is out there and only extracted/unearthed/activated/whatever when humans are around to interpret it?

So like a book in a library, if no one reads it it remains non-functional information. But the information is there in the book and it does require a reader to interpret it.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

So information is reality.



Yes, the human reflection part is pretty key. But the information is out there and only extracted/unearthed/activated/whatever when humans are around to interpret it?

So like a book in a library, if no one reads it it remains non-functional information. But the information is there in the book and it does require a reader to interpret it.

I fail to see your point in this response?

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I fail to see your point in this response?

That makes two of us.

I give up. Good hussle.

FISMA

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If dreams were not subject to mere physical laws...

Specifically, what Laws of Physics are you referring? All of them or a combination thereof?

MisterEpicurus

FISMA wrote: »

Specifically, what Laws of Physics are you referring? All of them or a combination thereof?

I'd say everything is subject to the Laws of Physics at all times. If I specifically pick dreaming as an example, then it sounds like there's something special about dreaming, which there isn't.

What we also know is that these dreams or anything else for that matter would not occur without the Laws of Physics because we wouldn't be here if it weren't for these laws.

Undergod

I don't know anything about the philosophy of mathematics, so I can't really deal with that argument, but:

If something exists it is subject to physical laws. If it is not subject to physical laws, so it cannot interact with entities or objects that are subject, so it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

18AD

Undergod wrote: »

If something exists it is subject to physical laws.

Do the physical laws exist? If so, what laws are they subject to? If not, how is anything subject to them?

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

Do the physical laws exist? If so, what laws are they subject to? If not, how is anything subject to them?

As far as my knowledge goes, I think the current forces of nature separated at birth so to speak since the inception of the Big Bang. So they're not subject to any laws but are consequences from and due to the Big Bang. The physicists around these fora may be able to correct this though.

swampgas

18AD wrote: »

Do the physical laws exist? If so, what laws are they subject to? If not, how is anything subject to them?

This was discussed in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, as far as I can remember - something along the lines that since the laws of physics have no mass, they cannot exist.

The way I look at it, the laws of physics are attributes of mass and energy, they don't have to be mass and energy.

recedite

Laws, thoughts, concepts exist in the imagination.
If you are not sure whether something exists in the physical world or only in your imagination, ask yourself this question;
If I want someone else to see it, do I have to communicate the idea to them so that they can recreate it in their own mind (imaginary) or can they perceive/interact with it directly as a third party (real).
So, if you see a ghost but other people can't, then its "supernatural" as in "imaginary".
If you describe it to me so convincingly and in such detail that I can see it in my mind, and start to believe it exists, it's still imaginary.

18AD

recedite wrote: »

Laws, thoughts, concepts exist in the imagination.

Is the imagination itself not a natural phenomenon?

recedite

Yes grasshopper, it is. But its only information. Software not hardware.