There is no supernatural.

[AHunter3]

Hoodoo Ulove, quoting Liberal:

If the supernatural is natural, then A is Not A. No one is beholden to call everything that exists “natural”

Many, probably most, theists (I can’t specifically speak for Theologue or Liberal) believe that everything that is (i.e., all of Creation) was created by God. Depending on how you look at it, that makes everything either natural or supernatural, and either way you already fail to have a dichotomy. (Unlike, say, if you were to instead assert that these things over here were created by God but all that stuff over yonder originated in some other manner or fashion).

So if some object, event, or phenomenon is to be considered miraculous, explicitly created by God, … so? That doesn’t differentiate it from the entire universe, the entirety of That Which Is, which is also considered miraculous in origin, here by virtue of the fact that God wished it all to be here.

Or, inversely, if anything is natural, all if it is.

When a person (theistic, as I am, or atheistic) says “everything is natural, there is no supernatural”, the only distinction we’re failing to make that someone such as Theologue makes is that we do not consider there to be an entity (in SentientMeat /Ockham’s sense or in the everyday sense), God, which is not part of creation, not part of the “everything”, the “That Which Is”, but somehow nevertheless exists but stands apart from it — traditionally held to preexist the entirety of Creation by an infinite period, in fact.

I suppose my version is in some ways the hardest to parse, if only because it’s not what you’re accustomed to: divine miraculous creation without a Creator, a universe with a purpose without it being the purpose of a Purposeful Entity, an explanatory and causal primary that has given rise to consciousness without itself being a Consciousness, an alternative to mechanistic cause-effect paradigms that also is not a supernatural-causal model.

But I think it fits nicer than the unweildy God of the conventional theist, a Creator God that behaves and operates like a Creature, an Entity with a Personality and a Consciousness and even Opinions and whatnot, an Actor within the pageant like the rest of us yet cited as responsible for the entire pageant’s existence.

The holiness is there, to be sensed and known, but it is manifest in That Which Is, not a foreign thing apart, above, distinguishable from.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@Voyager

Let me propose a test for the supernatural: a physically measurable phenomena that violates basic laws of science that appear to be still operative. . . . Whether supernatural events follow their own laws would be interesting, but not essential to this definition.

We’d also assume that this would be repeatably tested, but would never yield up a physicalist explanation.

Hmm, pretty good. But if it violates basic laws of science that appear to be still operative, then those laws DON’T appear to be still operative, do they? Hafta think about that one.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@AHunter3

I suppose my version is in some ways the hardest to parse, if only because it’s not what you’re accustomed to: divine miraculous creation without a Creator, a universe with a purpose without it being the purpose of a Purposeful Entity, an explanatory and causal primary that has given rise to consciousness without itself being a Consciousness, an alternative to mechanistic cause-effect paradigms that also is not a supernatural-causal model.

Yes, I’m having trouble parsing this. (Not necessarily your fault.) Especially the part about “an explanatory and causal primary”. I can’t find the explanatory part here.

As to it being a divine miraculous creation, I’m as susceptible as the next guy to feelings of reverence, wonder and awe. As you put it, “The holiness is there, to be sensed and known, but it is manifest in That Which Is, not a foreign thing apart, above, distinguishable from.” Is it improper to categorize this as pantheism? I’ve always liked pantheism, in an emotional sense, but I’ve never been able to reduce it to a factual statement.

[lekatt]

Dr. Peter Fenwick:
"In other words, everything that we think of as “real” in scientific terms has a physical form that can be perceived by our senses. But this model, which philosophers call “radical materialism,” cannot explain the existence of consciousness, which has no physical essence.

However, another theory proposes that the basic building block of the universe is not matter but instead consciousness itself. This is described as the “transcendent” view, a perspective shared by many of the world’s religions.
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55826-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

I think this is closer to explaining some things.
Maybe soon it will be time to attempt to define the Creator, although our mental capacity is very small compared to the Creator.

[Voyager]

@Hoodoo Ulove

Hmm, pretty good. But if it violates basic laws of science that appear to be still operative, then those laws DON’T appear to be still operative, do they? Hafta think about that one.

It all depends on whether you are open to splitting the universe into natural and supernatural parts. If not, then you are of the “it’s natural if we can measure it” school. That doesn’t really get at the heart of the discussion, though. I think it makes sense to divide the universe between that which plays by the rules and that which doesn’t. This second set is empty as far as we can tell, but I think it was what we are describing when we speak of the supernatural.

And for lekatt - even the most materialistic materialist will happily acknowledge there are real things we can discuss without physical form - a manufacturing process, for instance. If consciousness is like this, and I suspect it is, it falls neatly into the realm of the physical.

[lekatt]

@Voyager

And for lekatt - even the most materialistic materialist will happily acknowledge there are real things we can discuss without physical form - a manufacturing process, for instance. If consciousness is like this, and I suspect it is, it falls neatly into the realm of the physical.

If you put the process to paper it is then physical, if it remains an idea or a learned process then it is part of consciousness. Your logic seems faulty to me.
It is either physical or not physical.

[SentientMeat]

If you put the process to paper it is then physical,

Interesting. The Church-Turing thesis is that any computer program can be “put to paper”. Would you say computer programs were physical?

[AHunter3]

Hoodoo Ulove:

I’m as susceptible as the next guy to feelings of reverence, wonder and awe. As you put it, “The holiness is there, to be sensed and known, but it is manifest in That Which Is, not a foreign thing apart, above, distinguishable from.” Is it improper to categorize this as pantheism? I’ve always liked pantheism, in an emotional sense, but I’ve never been able to reduce it to a factual statement.

Yes, I think that’s a valid categorization.

[Voyager]

@lekatt

If you put the process to paper it is then physical, if it remains an idea or a learned process then it is part of consciousness. Your logic seems faulty to me.
It is either physical or not physical.

You must never have been anywhere near a factory. A paper with a process description is just a very imperfect representation of the real process. The tag for a thing is not the thing. Writing down a description of god does not make god physical, does it?

[RaftPeople]

@lekatt

If you put the process to paper it is then physical, if it remains an idea or a learned process then it is part of consciousness. Your logic seems faulty to me.
It is either physical or not physical.

Whether represented on paper or through the connections of neurons etc. in your brain, it is still just a representation of some idea.

Being “part of consciousness” does not change the fact that it is really just part of the current state of your brain, nothing more, nothing less, a by-product of the curent configuration of neurons, dendrites, axons, glia, chemicals, electrons, etc. etc. etc.
As for supernatural vs. natural, it’s purely a definition problem. Set theory, math.

[Ludovic]

Wow, we’ve gone all this way in this thread without a good debate over definitions!

Assuming each one of these were scientifically verifiable, which of these phenomena would you all consider supernatural:

1. Jesus comes down from heaven in a shaft of light and proceeds to heal terminal cancer patients by laying on hands.
2. An empty mall is teleported to an orbit around earth. As it falls to earth it produces a visible cross pattern when it burns up.
3. Random objects occasionally teleport to outer space for no apparent reason.
4. Objects occasionally teleport to outer space in a demonstrable and predictable way.

Now, #4 would most likely be viewed by people here as natural. However, what’s to say that #3 and #4 are not both created by a supernatural entity, with the difference being that the entity chooses to conform to an apparent natural law in #4? What’s to say that all our “natural laws” are not conscious choices of a supernatural entity?

The way I see it, on the other hand:
– The Universe is everything that exists.
– Everything that exists is everything that exchanges information with everything else.
– Subjective states cannot be ruled out, but as they do not exchange information with the Universe other than through actions on one’s brain chemicals, they cannot be shown to exist, either. And if they can be shown to exist, they then become objective.
– Once an entity exchanges information with the Universe, if becomes part of the Universe.
– This includes provisionally “supernatural” entities such as deities.
– Even if material intervention is not scientifically provable, if information is exchanged in an objective manner*, this makes these entities, by definition, natural.

I just don’t see enough of a difference between the natural and ostensibly supernatural to draw a distinction.

*Such as, for example, a “supernatural” entity consistently giving someone winning lottery numbers with no other explanation to be found. Obviously there is some objective phenomenon going on here, and the source of it, under my schema, is natural.

[lekatt]

@Voyager

You must never have been anywhere near a factory. A paper with a process description is just a very imperfect representation of the real process. The tag for a thing is not the thing. Writing down a description of god does not make god physical, does it?

Depends on whether you believe in the Bible.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@Dr. Fenwick

However, another theory proposes that the basic building block of the universe is not matter but instead consciousness itself.

I’m fond of this theory, too. Panpsychism? It has the great virtue of eliminating the knotty problem of the emergence of consciousness, which even the physicalest of physicalists have problems with. If it’s true, I think it doesn’t contradict my thesis.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

To Ludovic:
“Definitions? We don’t need no stinking definitions!”

You ask a tough question. I’m glad you agree with me so I needn’t argue with you.

[AHunter3]

@Hoodoo Ulove

I’m fond of this theory, too. Panpsychism? It has the great virtue of eliminating the knotty problem of the emergence of consciousness, which even the physicalest of physicalists have problems with. If it’s true, I think it doesn’t contradict my thesis.

Whatever the basic building block of the universe may be, it most certainly is not matter.

Matter is energy doing a dance. Matter is a verb masquerading as a noun. Go down into its component subparticles and you soon leave behind the world of objects and find yourself in the world of interactions.

[Spatial_Rift_47]

@Ludovic

Assuming each one of these were scientifically verifiable, which of these phenomena would you all consider supernatural:

1. Jesus comes down from heaven in a shaft of light and proceeds to heal terminal cancer patients by laying on hands.
2. An empty mall is teleported to an orbit around earth. As it falls to earth it produces a visible cross pattern when it burns up.
3. Random objects occasionally teleport to outer space for no apparent reason.
4. Objects occasionally teleport to outer space in a demonstrable and predictable way.

All of them. If they are demonstratably repeatable yet unexplained by currently accepted models, then they are by definition supernatural. Such phenomena are goldmines for progress in science, because they either point us to new laws or help us radically change the old ones.

[SentientMeat]

@Hoodoo

Panpsychism? It has the great virtue of eliminating the knotty problem of the emergence of consciousness, which even the physicalest of physicalists have problems with.

But brings in a fundamental dualism which violates Ockham’s Razor as gravely as any other. And I wouldn’t say ‘emergence’ was much of a problem really, whether it’s at the level of sea squirt or insect or lizard, bird, chimp, Australopithecus or ancient Egyptian, any more than “life” or “weather” has a problem emerging grom non-life or non-weather.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@Spatial Rift 47

All of them. If they are demonstratably repeatable yet unexplained by currently accepted models, then they are by definition supernatural. Such phenomena are goldmines for progress in science, because they either point us to new laws or help us radically change the old ones.

Well, how about an astronomical observation made in say, the the mid eighteenth century showing a deviation from the newtonian model. I don’t think relativistic effects flipped from supernatural to natural around 1900. Do you?

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@SentientMeat

But brings in a fundamental dualism which violates Ockham’s Razor as gravely as any other. And I wouldn’t say ‘emergence’ was much of a problem really, whether it’s at the level of sea squirt or insect or lizard, bird, chimp, Australopithecus or ancient Egyptian, any more than “life” or “weather” has a problem emerging grom non-life or non-weather.

I don’t ge twhy you say panpsychism brings in a dualism. If “the basic building block of the universe is not matter but instead consciousness itself” where is the duality? I’m not really arguing here for the “truth” of panpsychism, but I don’t see how it’s guilty of that charge.

As to emergence as a general phenomenon, I agree it’s not a problem. The difficulty with consciousness is one I brought up in “Memory is a physical thing”, which you helpfully identified as the so-called “hard problem”. Maybe it’s just a muddle, I know, but . . .

[lekatt]

@Hoodoo Ulove

I don’t ge twhy you say panpsychism brings in a dualism. If “the basic building block of the universe is not matter but instead consciousness itself” where is the duality? I’m not really arguing here for the “truth” of panpsychism, but I don’t see how it’s guilty of that charge.

As to emergence as a general phenomenon, I agree it’s not a problem. The difficulty with consciousness is one I brought up in “Memory is a physical thing”, which you helpfully identified as the so-called “hard problem”. Maybe it’s just a muddle, I know, but . . .

The basic building unit of the universe is consciousness. It is the only thing that makes any sense, and answers most of the questions science can’t. Matter is only denser consciousness. Whose consciousness? The Creator’s consciousness, the Oneness of all things.

Yes, that does mean a nail understands it’s a nail, and an electron know when there are two holes instead of one.

Have fun with this one.