# There is no supernatural. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587 "2005-04-22T13:04:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/41 "2005-04-23T14:20:58Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > If “the basic building block of the universe is not matter but instead consciousness itself” where is the duality? Ah, in that case you’re right - there is no dualism. But that kind of extreme idealism is as abhorrent to me as solipsism, and raises if anything _more_ questions: why do these dreams and phantasms _seem_ like they are solid objects made of matter which consistently obey physical laws even to the very limits of our experimental ability to test them? If we are to be deceived by Descartes Devil I might as well give up, since even logic and reason might be nonsense fed into our jars. As I understood it, panpsychism is **not** equivalent to pure idealism: it proposes a fundamental duality of physical entities and mental entities (which, incidentally, no cognitive scientist I know of ascribes to, only a few philosophers of mind - and even they don’t like to come right out and say it!) ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/42 "2005-04-23T18:01:19Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > why do these dreams and phantasms _seem_ like they are solid objects made of matter which consistently obey physical laws even to the very limits of our experimental ability to test them? All those properties and relations are simply objects within your consciousness. > [@](#): > > As I understood it, panpsychism is **not** equivalent to pure idealism: it proposes a fundamental duality of physical entities and mental entities (which, incidentally, no cognitive scientist I know of ascribes to, only a few philosophers of mind - and even they don’t like to come right out and say it!) Panpsychism is a catch-all label that lumps all theories which assert primacy of consciousness. There is no “Standard Theory of Panpsychism”. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/43 "2005-04-23T20:40:57Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > All those properties and relations are simply objects within your consciousness. Could be. I can’t definitely prove you’re wrong. Merely asserting it without giving any arguments in its favor isn’t very useful. If you want to start a thread expounding such a view I salute your courage. If there is anything behind the curtain here in the world of appearances, I’ve been unable to get a peek. This world provides confusion enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/44 "2005-04-23T20:55:08Z")
Hoodoo Let’s back up. You quoted Theologue’s initial observation, and my response to you, but you did not quote your response to Theologue to which my response was directed. The reason I posted at all was that it seemed to me that you missed his point about encasement. He wrote: _To be a Christian, to any extent that connects with the historic faith of the church, is to believe in the supernatural; that there is something beyond this system in which we are encased; the universe is not completely sealed._ In which we — **we** — are encased. He did not suggest that God is encased here. You then drew an inference that I believed was a non sequitur: _It seems like waffling – if the universe is not completely sealed, then we are not encased – the supernatural is natural._ The consequent, “we are not encased”, does not follow from the antecedent, “the universe is not completely sealed”, because it may well be sealed to us but open to someone or something else. That was the point that I was making to you with respect to dimensional perspectives. It was offered as a counter-example. While circles may be encased in Flatland, spheres (as whole objects) are not. Just as hyperspheres are not encased in our universe. (Or dodecohyperspheres, depending on the cosmological theory du jour.) This debate is fine and interesting and all that, but it rather misses both his point and mine. Incidentally, this is sort of the opposite debate of the one we had before Sentient and I left in which I contended that the universe is not real. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/45 "2005-04-23T22:30:26Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > If there is anything behind the curtain here in the world of appearances, I’ve been unable to get a peek. This world provides confusion enough for me. It seems you missed my point. Irrespective of whether the chair on which I sit “really” exists, the only interactions with, and knowledge of the chair I have, are within my consciousness. If you do peek behind the curtain, it’s still an experience of your consciousness\*. This holds, irrespective of whether panpsychism or physicalism is true. So Sentient’s objection seems to derive from an aversion to non-physicalism rather than a real wedge. \*Maybe peeking behind the curtain involves a new modality which doesn’t conform to the constraints inherent in our existing modalities. But beliefs in such transcendence, so far, just signify wishful speculation… ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/46 "2005-04-23T23:42:22Z")
I’ll quote it again. > [@II Gyan II](#): > > All those properties and relations are simply objects within your consciousness. Maybe I’m confused by what I take to be a spatial metaphor. **Within** my consciousness? The objects before me don’t **seem** to be in my head. Am **I** “all in **your** head”? Welcome, **Liberal**! I’ll do some review and reflection before replying. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/47 "2005-04-24T00:48:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > This debate is fine and interesting and all that . . . I can’t quite agree. It has been fine and interesting, but it’s fallen short of being a debate. Too much agreement. If you’ll forgive me, I’ll open with a question which will sound like it comes from the most arrogantly dismissive atheist on the board. What is God’s address? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/48 "2005-04-24T01:34:20Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Am **I** “all in **your** head”? Are you? 🙂 How can I tell otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/49 "2005-04-24T02:13:50Z")
Nature (the Cosmos) is All. There exists only Nature (or Cosmos, or Universe, or All, or The One, or “God” [because “God” can be understood to mean “The Cosmos” as per pan-theism]). That is my understanding of the concept of Nature/Universe/etc. If you wish, you can posit that there are many different Universes, or Planes, or A Super-Nature that is seperate from Nature. But it gets rather messy at that point because what will you now call the sum of the two (or more) parts? I believe that if there is a God it is either part of, or all of, Nature and that “Supernatural” exists only as one of many human concepts within the physical (natural) realm. As I have stated in numerous threads here, I believe that the Supernatural is simply the part of Nature that we can’t conceive yet (like “God” or the actions attributed to this “God” if it doesn’t in fact exist). It seems seperate only because we can’t fathom it (yet). Therefore Iwould agree with the OP with a slight qualification: there is no such thing as Supernatural _as a seperate entity_ from the Natural. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/50 "2005-04-24T12:53:59Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Are you? 🙂 How can I tell otherwise? The smiley is the most significant part of your post. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/51 "2005-04-24T13:11:52Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > All those properties and relations are simply objects within your consciousness. Do we agree that for billions of years those objects behaved in exactly the same manner? If so, whose consciousness were they part of for those aeons? > [@](#): > > Panpsychism is a catch-all label that lumps all theories which assert primacy of consciousness. There is no “Standard Theory of Panpsychism”. If I may ask: what’s _yours_? > [@](#): > > Irrespective of whether the chair on which I sit “really” exists, the only interactions with, and knowledge of the chair I have, are within my consciousness. If you do peek behind the curtain, it’s still an experience of your consciousness. This holds, irrespective of whether panpsychism or physicalism is true. So Sentient’s objection seems to derive from an aversion to non-physicalism rather than a real wedge. And my aversion derives from the [explanatory](http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/explanat.htm) power of the Computational Theory of Mind, whereby consciousness _emerges_ from physical processes in the same way that programs emerge from electronics. Could you provide the panpsychic _explanation_ for how, say, stellar nucleosynthesis in the early universe _emerge_ from your “primary consciousness”: why should carbon 14 have the resonance it does, rather than _another_ one, if it “resides within my consciousness”? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/52 "2005-04-24T13:55:36Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Do we agree that for billions of years those objects behaved in exactly the same manner? I don’t know. Physicists certainly assume they did, courtesy the Razor. > [@](#): > > If I may ask: what’s _yours_? Every entity that exists possesses consciousness. Not to be confused with the _form_ of that consciousness. > [@](#): > > Computational Theory of Mind, whereby consciousness _emerges_ from physical processes in the same way that programs emerge from electronics. The analogy doesn’t hold. Programs don’t emerge from electronics. We perceive them. Just like the Computational Theory, at best, correlations and consistency of structure can be held. The CToM depends on consciousness being a privileged phenomenon. Since one can’t know whether it is, it assumes so, beforehand. At best, behaviour and physical processes may be correlated. Panpsychism has no trouble with that. > [@](#): > > Could you provide the panpsychic _explanation_ for how, say, stellar nucleosynthesis in the early universe _emerge_ from your “primary consciousness” I was teasing Hoodoo about solipsism, not advocating it. Besides, like i said, I don’t know whether the nucleosynthesis was a ‘real’ event or not. It is simply a logical consequence of a temporal antecedent derived from assuming consistency of structure throughout time and space. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/53 "2005-04-24T18:12:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know [whether physical laws were obeyed for billions of years]. Well, stars certainly went on emitting characteristic spectral lines and going supernova and the like, since we’re seeing them [as they were](http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html) when _we_ (or indeed, life on Earth) didn’t exist. I’ll rephrase my question: how does panpsychism _account for_ this? Just coincidence? > [@](#): > > Every entity that exists possesses consciousness. So a photon, an electromagnetic variation in spacetime, is _conscious_? My fingernail? My dead brain? > [@](#): > > Programs don’t emerge from electronics. What do they run _on_, then? How come Sonic the Hedgehog _didn’t_ appear in those 13.7 billion years before he _did_? > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether the nucleosynthesis was a ‘real’ event or not. What is the _altternative explanation_ which panpsychism puts forward for the diversity of elements beyond simple hydrogen and helium? > [@](#): > > It is simply a logical consequence of a temporal antecedent derived from assuming consistency of structure throughout time and space. Ah, but there is nothing _illogical_ about it _not_ happening. Again, why is the resonance frequency of carbon the number is [is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) rather than a slightly different number: _logic_ surely doesn’t dictate a preference of one number over another? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/54 "2005-04-24T19:19:18Z")
Since the rather niggling semantic point of my OP is, (perhaps best) forgotten, I’ll join the hijack. > [@II Gyan II](#): > > Every entity that exists possesses consciousness. Not to be confused with the _form_ of that consciousness. Every entity **possesses** consciousness? This would seem to imply a duality; the entity and its consciousness. Do you agree? I’ve been known to lose consciousness. Has my bicycle ever lost consciousness? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/55 "2005-04-24T20:00:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, stars certainly went on emitting characteristic spectral lines and going supernova and the like, since we’re seeing them [as they were](http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html) when _we_ (or indeed, life on Earth) didn’t exist. Except that this is an assumption. We see _something_ when we point telescopic lens. Based on experimental observations of phenomena locally, we assume that similar conditions exist ‘everywhere’ and then deduce the characteristics of what comes through those lenses. Maybe the universe is homogenuous, maybe it isn’t. At best, consistency and coherence of incoming observations can be tested, and that’s all. > [@](#): > > So a photon, an electromagnetic variation in spacetime, is _conscious_? My fingernail? My dead brain? Here’s where solipsism becomes more attractive. Identity is an ephemeral concept. According to materialism, this lump of cells that’s _me_ presumably didn’t exist as an organization a few decades ago, and won’t exist in a few decades hence. Throughout, the underlying constitution is ever fluid, and the structures and processes are quasistatically changing. The same’s true for fingernails. Yet, the brain’s supposedly priviledged to an unfragmented continuous narrative of experience that is sure as hell unitary in perceived identity. There’s no difference in essence between a fingernail - an agglomeration of cells expressing some coherence - than the aggregrate of nuclei, ganglia and cortices that’s the human brain. We attribute a difference solely due to perceived complexity & familiarity of behaviour. That’s an assumption. I don’t know if other coherent identities exist, but I assume so. When I say I’m a panpsychist, all I mean is that consciousness is a primary arising that does not supervene on the physical plane. What qualifies as an entity? I don’t know. > [@](#): > > How come Sonic the Hedgehog _didn’t_ appear in those 13.7 billion years before he _did_? Maybe, he did, and does, on Ulan Bator 9, in the galaxy Phraedus 3 :). > [@](#): > > What is the _altternative explanation_ which panpsychism puts forward for the diversity of elements beyond simple hydrogen and helium? Who knows? I don’t see a logical necessity for just those 2 or 100s of elements. > [@](#): > > Ah, but there is nothing _illogical_ about it _not_ happening. Again, why is the resonance frequency of carbon the number is [is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) rather than a slightly different number: _logic_ surely doesn’t dictate a preference of one number over another? In context, it probably does. If something is A, something must be B to establish coherence and consistency. But why A in the first place? Je ne sais pas. > [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Every entity possesses consciousness? This would seem to imply a duality; the entity and its consciousness. Do you agree? Yes, but I’m not too hung up on duality. > [@](#): > > I’ve been known to lose consciousness. Has my bicycle ever lost consciousness? If there’s an identity associated with it, it might have. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/56 "2005-04-24T23:17:49Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > I can’t quite agree. It has been fine and interesting, but it’s fallen short of being a debate. Too much agreement. > > If you’ll forgive me, I’ll open with a question which will sound like it comes from the most arrogantly dismissive atheist on the board. > > What is God’s address? According to Jesus, our hearts. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/57 "2005-04-25T01:11:32Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > According to Jesus, our hearts. Well, that kinda puts him in nature, I’d say. However, on reflection, I must agree with you, that if God, or some part of Him, is absolutely never manifested in the natural world, that might properly be termed supernatural. (However, anyone who claims knowledge of these aspects of him is blowin’ smoke.) Have I broken some Great Debates Rule by so admitting? Will I now be obligated to argue with those who agreed with me? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/58 "2005-04-25T08:41:11Z")
> [@](#): > > We see _something_ when we point telescopic lens. And physicalism _accounts for_ that something. It _explains_ it. It _provides a causative mechanism_ for it. I ask again: what is panpsychism’s equivalent? Coincidence? > [@](#): > > There’s no difference in essence between a fingernail - an agglomeration of cells expressing some coherence - than the aggregrate of nuclei, ganglia and cortices that’s the human brain. We attribute a difference solely due to perceived complexity & familiarity of behaviour. You’re speaking solely in tautologies: _of course_ there’s a difference in behaviour, perceived or not. What **explanation** are you putting forward for the different behaviour of a live brain and a dead one, or a live brain and a fingernail or a photon? If photons are conscious then surely _lots and lots_ of photons will be _very_ conscious, in which case, why doesn’t the sun have a conversation with us by encoding non-random data in its light (or, at least, doing _something_ uncharacteristic of a non-conscious entity)? I’ll tell you why: because it is _not conscious_: it has no neural or electronic means of _processing sensory input_ or _accessing memory_ unlike, say, an insect. > [@](#): > > When I say I’m a panpsychist, all I mean is that consciousness is a primary arising that does not supervene on the physical plane. What qualifies as an entity? I don’t know. Have you not just _Reductio_ed your own _Absurdans_? What is the _point_ of drawing such an arbitrary distinction if you don’t know how or why it should be _applied_? > [@](#): > > Maybe, he did, and does, on Ulan Bator 9, in the galaxy Phraedus 3 If programs don’t need hardware, why specify a _planet_? Why could he not have appeared _anywhere_? > [@](#): > > [What is the alternative explanation for the elements?] Who knows? _ie._ Pansychism **hasn’t got one**. > [@](#): > > I don’t see a logical necessity for just those 2 or 100s of elements. Two elements is (largely) all that non-stellar nucleosynthesis produces. What is _logically necessary or unnecessary_ about that nucleosynthesis? Appealing to logic here is as much a _non sequitur_ as answering “non-stellar nucleosynthesis only produces elements beginning with the letter H”. > [@](#): > > If something is A, something must be B to establish coherence and consistency. But there you are just _tautologically **describing** _ what happens, rather than **explaining** it. Logic provides no _explanatory mechanism_ and, as far as I can tell, neither does your particular version of panpsychism: what _use_ is it? > [@](#): > > Je ne sais pas. Que _savez_-vous, exactement? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/59 "2005-04-25T12:02:38Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Well, that kinda puts him in nature, I’d say. > > However, on reflection, I must agree with you, that if God, or some part of Him, is absolutely never manifested in the natural world, that might properly be termed supernatural. (However, anyone who claims knowledge of these aspects of him is blowin’ smoke.) > > Have I broken some Great Debates Rule by so admitting? Will I now be obligated to argue with those who agreed with me? Coupla things: One, by heart, Jesus didn’t mean “[t]he chambered muscular organ in vertebrates that pumps blood received from the veins into the arteries, thereby maintaining the flow of blood through the entire circulatory system” (American Heritage 1A). Rather, He meant “[the] vital center and source of one’s being … [the] most important or essential part” (American Heritage 3A and 9). Two, a manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself. If A is one entity, then the manifestation of A is some other entity. A is A, and manifestation is manifestation. Therefore, it is metaphysically possible for the supernatural to become manifest in the natural world without itself being natural. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/60 "2005-04-25T13:58:28Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > a manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself. If A is one entity, then the manifestation of A is some other entity. A is A, and manifestation is manifestation. Therefore, it is metaphysically possible for the supernatural to become manifest in the natural world without itself being natural. The manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself, but it does not follow that by manifesting itself the thing itself becomes not the thing itself. > [@](#): > > manifest > Function: transitive verb > : to make evident or certain by showing or displaying > synonym see SHOW **SM** , panpsychism does have explanatory power. If every entity possesses consciousness and malevolence, we’ve accounted for Murphy’s Law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587.md?page=4)