What can we say about the Supernatural

[Voyager]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’m not sure what you mean by “event horizon” here; can you elaborate?

The cosmos may, and probably does, extend more than 13 billion light years from us. Some parts are receding from us at what seems to be faster than light speed - possible because they aren’t moving, space is expanding. We can never know anything about this region of the universe. It isn’t quite an event horizon in the black hole sense, but it is similar.

At any rate, it does seem to me that scientists do sometimes detect a phenomenon for which they have no explanation; what science does in such cases is to feverishly work on the problem until you’ve got an explanation.

Sure. But natural explanations are deterministic at the macro level and probabilistic at the quantum level. We can derive laws and equations to describe natural things. But consider the plight of Flatland scientist trying to describe the motion of this sphere within their universe. (or the point that is the intersection of the sphere and their plane.) The sphere appears, then disappears, then shows up someplace else. In 3d we can use the laws of motion to describe its movement, but in 2d it is totally random. If the plane is curved, the sphere can even move faster than light as it travels along the plane. So from the Flatlanders view it is violating all sorts of physical laws.

Science studies the natural world. If something occurs in the natural world, science looks for an explanation of it.

If science doesn’t currently have an explanation for it, I think it’s unwise to call the phenomenon “supernatural.” Instead, the best thing to do is to look for an explanation.

If that explanation requires positing extradimensional forces or whatever, that’s fine, as long as we can build some math, or (better yet) some experiments that demonstrate the plausibility of that explanation. I don’t like calling those extradimensional forces “supernatural.”

Daniel

Okay, the extra dimensions of string theory are not supernatural. Neither is the third dimension in my analogy. I used it to examine a similar case, where the third dimension stands in for the supernatural, but is not the supernatural. If I spoke of supernatural events for the flatlanders, we’d be no further.

It boils down to what you mean by natural. If anything that projects onto our natural world is natural by definition, you’ve defined away the supernatural, since whenever the supernatural impacts our world it becomes natural. That is like the Flatlanders calling the sphere two dimensional because it has two dimensional effects. Or perhaps you define natural as being subject to natural law. I contend that the sphere, though subject to 3d (supernatural) law is not subject to 2d natural law in any meaningful sense - unless you consider popping up at random intervals and moving faster than light a law.

I’m not ruling out that we could start hypothesizing supernatural law if we ever found evidence of the supernatural, just as a genius flatlander might be able to posit a third dimension in which the movements of the sphere made sense. All those theists who say that god has to send people to hell are doing just that. We won’t know until we get evidence.

So, if supernatural events ever happen, with an effect on the natural world, I agree that science can and should study them. They should of course first try to explain them naturally, but it might turn out that a separate, supernatural explanation is better than an absurd natural one. And all this would be tentative, as usual. It all boils down to that the best reason to reject the supernatural is lack of evidence, not that it cannot exist in principle. Skeptical scientists who investigate (and reject) supernatural evidence do a great service, since otherwise the field would be left to the fruitcakes. And I include magicians among scientists here, since they are the best observers.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Voyager

It boils down to what you mean by natural. If anything that projects onto our natural world is natural by definition, you’ve defined away the supernatural, since whenever the supernatural impacts our world it becomes natural. That is like the Flatlanders calling the sphere two dimensional because it has two dimensional effects.

Not at all like that. I’m using “supernatural,” again, as a subset of “nonexistent,” specifically referring to those phenomena which are both nonexistent and, because of our current understanding of how the cosmos works, impossible. Ghosts most likely fall into this category. Unicorns don’t, unless they have a magical horn that aids them at speed-reading.

This is a useful term to have, I think. We can clearly define the supernatural; we don’t run into any difficult problems in which science observes the supernatural (since you can’t observe that which does not exist); no phenomena are rejecting by definition (since if it’s happening, it’s by definition not supernatural).

“Two-dimensional” has a specific meaning, and it’s not synonymous with “existing.” If the Flatlanders hypothesize three dimensions, but reject the hypothesis because it’s supernatural, then they’re thinking poorly. Once they observe the sphere, they need to get to work trying to figure out what is causing this obviously natural phenomenon. They may never understand what’s causing it, but that’s a failure of imagination on their part.

Or perhaps you define natural as being subject to natural law. I contend that the sphere, though subject to 3d (supernatural) law is not subject to 2d natural law in any meaningful sense - unless you consider popping up at random intervals and moving faster than light a law.

No. Natural is defined as that which exists (although I might define it as that which exists, or could exist based on our understanding of the universe). Everything is subject to natural law, because natural law isn’t a set of codes that you follow or else you get in trouble: natural law is descriptive, not prescriptive. If something behaves in a manner contrary to our understanding of natural law, that points out a failure in our understanding, not a supernatural property of the contrary phenomenon.

Daniel

[mswas]

I think the word Supernatural is void of any useful meaning. It’s babytalk to put it most bluntly. It’s applying a prefix randomly to a word and then expecting it to have meaning. The way we’ve used it has sucked it dry of any useful communicative effectiveness.

If you think of it as “Outside of the universe” then you are just defining terms to fit your phenomenological field, which is not reasonable, it is anti-skeptical. You shouldn’t be defining “Natural” based upon what YOU know, but you should be defining what YOU know based on what’s natural. I agree with the definition, that if it occurs it is “natural”. A lot of people make a distinction between artificial and natural, as though what man creates through artifice is somehow unnatural.

If your law of physics can be violated it wasn’t a law, it served it’s purpose our understanding has evolved past it, it’s time to accept it and move on. It seems like a lot of people have used the word “Supernatural” in their arguments so many times that they are addicted to using it, and are afraid of invalidating so many of their arguments that depended upon the presupposition of the “Supernatural”. This is not a good reason to continue to use a nonsense word.

Now you can look at it in another light, like “Superstructure”. The Superstructure of a building is still structure. It’s just a more specific and precise TYPE of structure. Maybe Supernatural still has some usefulness in this particular case, in which case saying that God is supernatural has more meaning, because it’s defining a particular part of the natural order, rather than defining it in a way that is in opposition to the ‘natural’.

Defining something as supernatural is an attempt at censorship. In the past it was used to demonize ideas that were not directly controlled by the Church. Now it is used by people who perpetrate a broken sort of skepticism so that they can scoff at ideas that don’t make sense to them.

I personally have not ever seen the word supernatural used in any way that wasn’t self-serving. All it does is imply that what YOU KNOW of as the natural world IS the entirety of the natural world. However, your limited phenomenalogical field doesn’t determine what is and is not ‘natural’. If something violates your conception of the laws of physics, it doesn’t show that it’s unnatural, it shows that you were in fact WRONG about the laws of physics, that’s all.

People too often narrowly define words such as “universe” or “natural”. There is no such thing as multiple ‘universes’. Space-Time is measured by the relationship of all of the things within it to one another. If you are in a different sphere where you must use different methods of measurement, then that’s all that’s happening is that you are using different methods of measurement. I am of course using the definition of “universe” as “All that exists”.

The Earth cannot stop moving. To do so all momentum in the entire universe would have to stop, because what we observe as “Rotation” is the relationship of the Earth to the Sun. Rotation of the Earth is the Sun orbiting the Earth, maybe the Sun can stay in a fixed position in relation to the Earth’s topography for a period of time, but that doesn’t mean that the Earth stopped moving unless everything else stopped moving, in which case the cessation of motion ceases to have meaning, because if time stops and starts up again, then it didn’t really stop in the first place. For it to truly stop there has to be something perceiving the stop of the motion, meaning SOMETHING has to be moving in relationship, meaning that the Earth is still moving in relation to that something.

It seems to me like people just want to justify using the word supernatural. I disagree with the idea that there are external forces that can impact the natural. The only forces that can impact the natural are natural forces. There is no external entity. Supernatural is a bit of not so clever semantics, nothing more. It’s an inaccurate, imprecise term that has very little usefulness in discussion, and only serves to nebulize and polarize a discussion in such a way as to eliminate the ability to come to a common understanding until people can come to an agreement upon what is the acceptable semantic space for the discussion.

In short, the word supernatural exists only in rhetoric, and does not describe physical processes effectively, thus one should probably refrain from using it unless someone can more accurately define the word for us.

So my question is, if Superstructure is still structure, then why is not supernatural still natural?

Erek

[mswas]

Left Hand of Dorkness I think you are putting it very eloquently. You are one of the few people on this board that I am becoming impressed with your skepticism. So many people claim to be skeptics and fall flat on their faces, but you appear to be applying skepticism properly.

About 2D and 3D environments. They aren’t seperate environments, but simultaneous representations of the same environment. They are perceptual, not actual. We perceive ourselves to live in whatever dimensionality we exist in, but it’s only a trick of perception. We are living in both a 2D environment, because one eye SEES things in 2D and then map them in 3D in our minds using binocular vision. The world is also in 4D because we have time to contend with. It’s also 1D because everything that happens is a pure stream of information. So it’s not like there is a 2D world, and a 3D world, they are both different ways of representing the world. Like one can make a diorama of a mountain range in 3D sculpture, or one can make a 2D topographical map of the same region, but they aren’t seperate worlds, just alternate representations.

Erek

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@mswas

Left Hand of Dorkness I think you are putting it very eloquently. You are one of the few people on this board that I am becoming impressed with your skepticism. So many people claim to be skeptics and fall flat on their faces, but you appear to be applying skepticism properly.

I appreciate the compliment, but I believe Voyager and others are arguing from very respectable positions in this thread. I may disagree with them, but I hope you’re not including them among those who are falling flat on their faces.

Daniel

[Psilocybe]

I know the best definition!

supernatural = altered state of consciousness

All “altered” states, caused by hallucinogens or otherwise, are ineffable so they remain in a place very hard to examine. Language doesn’t apply and they’re almost impossible to truly integrate so people tend to push it into the “supernatural”. In a lifelong effort to integrate these experiences, almost everyone turns to religion and calls these experiences “God”. The experiences themselves are intensely personal so most people have a hard time equating these experiences with those caused by drugs, or even as a byproduct of the brain. As a last resort, some say God caused the changes in the brain which caused the experience. So you see, this makes them closed the possibility to examining them with science, though neurology or pharmacology. Consciousness is truly the last thing science will understand, if ever. It will remain in the “supernatural” for quite some time.

As for a definition of “altered state”…I’m stumped on that one.

[mswas]

I think Voyager is a smart guy, but I don’t think he manages to live up to the standards of skepticism that I would place on someone who wants to refer to themselves as a skeptic. In general this thread is pretty good, people are doing a decent job, but I think that generally on this board skepticism is more of a fashion statement than something that people truly apply to their lives. I was complimenting you, not insulting others.

In Voyager’s case, I’d say he’s about a yellow or green belt skeptic, he’s on his way to being a true skeptic, but I don’t think he’s there yet.

Mind you, you put me on the spot, and I do have a healthy respect for Voyager as we went the rounds for a while, and he definitely helped me clear up a lot of things, and I learned a lot from it, so I don’t want my compliment of you to turn into an insult to him.

I have outlined where I disagree with Voyager in my previous post, in that his idea of “Supernatural” “2D” and “3D” are supporting his particular biases more than they are describing the fundamental nature of the way things work.

I outlined exactly why in my descriptions of my opinions on the word supernatural, and that I disagreed that there are “2D” and “3D” universes. Dimensionality does not exist without a perceiving entity. For a 3D body to cast a shadow on a 2D body, implies another axis, thus making the 2D body a flat entity in a 3Dimensional space rather than a 2Dimensional universe in and of itself.

Erek

[Voyager]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Not at all like that. I’m using “supernatural,” again, as a subset of “nonexistent,” specifically referring to those phenomena which are both nonexistent and, because of our current understanding of how the cosmos works, impossible. Ghosts most likely fall into this category. Unicorns don’t, unless they have a magical horn that aids them at speed-reading.

I agree that it sure looks like the supernatural is nonexistent. I’d bet big money that it is, not as much as Randi is betting, though. But I don’t think you can prove the supernatural does not exist, unless you assume it away in your postulates or define it away. If the supernatural is impossible, then so is god, and thus you would be one of those rare people who some theists think make up the entire set of atheists - those who claim they can prove god does not exist.

This is a useful term to have, I think. We can clearly define the supernatural; we don’t run into any difficult problems in which science observes the supernatural (since you can’t observe that which does not exist); no phenomena are rejecting by definition (since if it’s happening, it’s by definition not supernatural).

But science does not observe the supernatural, it would observe the natural effects of supernatural causes, and would then have to infer those causes. The Flatlanders can’t observe the sphere, but can infer its existence from its effect on their world.

“Two-dimensional” has a specific meaning, and it’s not synonymous with “existing.”

You’re still not getting the analogy. Sure there is nothing mystical about 3d, but it would be as unreachable to the Flatlanders as god’s realm is to us. I still contend that the analogous Flatlander position to yours would be to claim that some spooky 2d only thing is happening, and define away the possibility of 3d. A theist might say that if we could see God’s realm the existence of the supernatural would be as obvious to us as the 3d realm is to us.

And remember, this is purely hypothetical. The example assumes some mysterious stuff has happened, which is not the case in the real world!

No. Natural is defined as that which exists (although I might define it as that which exists, or could exist based on our understanding of the universe). Everything is subject to natural law, because natural law isn’t a set of codes that you follow or else you get in trouble: natural law is descriptive, not prescriptive. If something behaves in a manner contrary to our understanding of natural law, that points out a failure in our understanding, not a supernatural property of the contrary phenomenon.

Daniel

See, you’ve just defined the supernatural away! If it exists, it is natural. If it is not natural, it doesn’t exist. You are thus assuming that existence is the property of natural things only. This may be correct, and I think it is, but I’m going to need better justification than that we haven’t any evidence for te supernatural yet. (And several departed friends would argue with that premise, which we both accept.)

Natural laws are based on observations. Additional observations might cause the law to be modified - it would still have to cover existing observations while also covering the new ones. So, if we had evidence of the supernatural, and were able to infer laws of the supernatural, we might have a system of laws where natural laws were orthogonal to supernatural laws. For example, in the old Unknown stories about magical societies, like Heinlein’s Magic Incorporated, Newton’s Laws and the laws of Magic both worked.

[mswas]

@Psilocybe

I know the best definition!

supernatural = altered state of consciousness

All “altered” states, caused by hallucinogens or otherwise, are ineffable so they remain in a place very hard to examine. Language doesn’t apply and they’re almost impossible to truly integrate so people tend to push it into the “supernatural”. In a lifelong effort to integrate these experiences, almost everyone turns to religion and calls these experiences “God”. The experiences themselves are intensely personal so most people have a hard time equating these experiences with those caused by drugs, or even as a byproduct of the brain. As a last resort, some say God caused the changes in the brain which caused the experience. So you see, this makes them closed the possibility to examining them with science, though neurology or pharmacology. Consciousness is truly the last thing science will understand, if ever. It will remain in the “supernatural” for quite some time.

As for a definition of “altered state”…I’m stumped on that one.

Well just because a person cannot explain something, doesn’t mean it cannot be explained.

Are you going for a definition of supernatural as anything we can’t currently explain?

Erek

[mswas]

This is why I think that Voyager is not a skeptic.

@Voyager

If the supernatural is impossible, then so is god

This does not follow. It only follows if supernatural is a necessary property of God, something I disagree with.

He makes an assumption that supports his bias, and he needs the word supernatural in order to make these claims to support his assumptions and bias.

He’s using the word “Mystical” incorrectly when he says “There is nothing ‘Mystical’ about 3Dimensions.” Saying there is nothing ‘Mystical’ about it is an implication that he knows everything there is possibly to know about 3Dimensionality. I doubt that he knows every possible implication of 3D. Mystical and Mysterious are related terms. Voyager are you claiming there is no mystery in 3Dimensions? And if so, what does that even mean? Mysticism is a study of the Mysterious, no more, no less. That’s why mystic traditions are referred to as “Mystery Schools”.

Again his definitions are serving to support his bias, nothing more. This is anti-skeptical.

He’s using the ‘2+2=4 therefore there is no such thing as magic.’ logic. Where he makes some assertion to explain some random phenomena then somehow links it as evidence worthy of dismissing another idea unrelated to that which he is showing evidence for. 2+2 equaling 4 tells us absolutely NOTHING about magic, and it’s exsitance or not.

Erek

[Voyager]

@mswas

This is why I think that Voyager is not a skeptic.

This does not follow. It only follows if supernatural is a necessary property of God, something I disagree with.

I was of course referring to the definition of god used by 99.99% of the people, not by you. You’re experimental error.

He makes an assumption that supports his bias, and he needs the word supernatural in order to make these claims to support his assumptions and bias.

Actually I’m defending the possibility of the supernatural. My bias is against it. How is my defense of its possibility supporting my bias again? I’m actually saying I am willing to accept the existence of the supernatural given evidence, as opposed to Daniel who thinks that the supernatural cannot exist even in principle.

He’s using the word “Mystical” incorrectly when he says “There is nothing ‘Mystical’ about 3Dimensions.” Saying there is nothing ‘Mystical’ about it is an implication that he knows everything there is possibly to know about 3Dimensionality. I doubt that he knows every possible implication of 3D. Mystical and Mysterious are related terms. Voyager are you claiming there is no mystery in 3Dimensions? And if so, what does that even mean? Mysticism is a study of the Mysterious, no more, no less. That’s why mystic traditions are referred to as “Mystery Schools”.

Try reading the thread again. My statement referred to my Flatland analogy, and was to acknowledge that I was not claiming that the third dimension in the flatland universe was actually supernatural, but was just analogous to the supernatural in our universe, if it existed.

As for the rest I have no idea what you are getting on about. Try defining mystery. Does it mean scientific questions, with no good answers, answers to possibly meaningless why questions, or the books my wife reads?

Again his definitions are serving to support his bias, nothing more. This is anti-skeptical.

He’s using the ‘2+2=4 therefore there is no such thing as magic.’ logic. Where he makes some assertion to explain some random phenomena then somehow links it as evidence worthy of dismissing another idea unrelated to that which he is showing evidence for. 2+2 equaling 4 tells us absolutely NOTHING about magic, and it’s exsitance or not.

Erek

Bubbie, it is clear you have no clue about the point of this thread and analogy. Why don’t you start by saying what you think we can say about the supernatural, if you believe it exists, and whether you believe it can exist.

[mswas]

@Voyager

I was of course referring to the definition of god used by 99.99% of the people, not by you. You’re experimental error.

You are incorrect that 99.99% of people use your definition of God. I didn’t offer a definition of God btw. The CONCEPTION of God that I have is supported by Judaism and Hinduism however. In Qabbalah which is JEWISH MYSTICISM, something that Rabbis study intently there is a term “Ain Sof” it means “Without Limit” the word define means to set a limit.

Hinduism believes in one deity with a multitude of faces. Hmm, I wonder.

Ineffable

adj 1: defying expression or description; “indefinable yearnings”; “indescribable beauty”; “ineffable ecstasy”; “inexpressible anguish”; “unspeakable happiness”; “unutterable contempt”; “a thing of untellable splendor” [syn: indefinable, indescribable, unspeakable, untellable, unutterable] 2: too sacred to be uttered; “the ineffable name of the Deity” [syn: unnameable, unspeakable, unutterable]

What do you know? Dictionary.com has a reference to how I conceive of God, imagine that. Us 0.01% Experimental Errors must have an extremely powerful lobby. Or maybe you are as incapable at statistics as you are at skepticism, theology, and mysticism.

Actually I’m defending the possibility of the supernatural. My bias is against it. How is my defense of its possibility supporting my bias again? I’m actually saying I am willing to accept the existence of the supernatural given evidence, as opposed to Daniel who thinks that the supernatural cannot exist even in principle.

I agree with Daniel on this one.

Try reading the thread again. My statement referred to my Flatland analogy, and was to acknowledge that I was not claiming that the third dimension in the flatland universe was actually supernatural, but was just analogous to the supernatural in our universe, if it existed.

I think your analogy is flawed as simple as that.

As for the rest I have no idea what you are getting on about. Try defining mystery. Does it mean scientific questions, with no good answers, answers to possibly meaningless why questions, or the books my wife reads?

Mystery is the “unknown”. Anything that is unknown. Scientific questions with no good answers. Questions that you have deemed meaningless because you choose not to attempt to understand them, and the subjects of the books your wife reads IE solving an enigma.

Bubbie, it is clear you have no clue about the point of this thread and analogy. Why don’t you start by saying what you think we can say about the supernatural, if you believe it exists, and whether you believe it can exist.

I said it quite clearly. The supernatural cannot exist because it’s a nonsense word used by people to justify not delving more deeply into a subject.

God is natural not supernatural.

Erek

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Voyager

I agree that it sure looks like the supernatural is nonexistent. I’d bet big money that it is, not as much as Randi is betting, though. But I don’t think you can prove the supernatural does not exist, unless you assume it away in your postulates or define it away. If the supernatural is impossible, then so is god, and thus you would be one of those rare people who some theists think make up the entire set of atheists - those who claim they can prove god does not exist.

I really think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that God is impossible: I’m saying that if God exists, then God is natural, by definition. I believe that the way I’m defining the words allows for precision of use, and it allows us to discuss things like ghosts, telepathy, and Harry Potter without the words getting in the way.

You’re still not getting the analogy. Sure there is nothing mystical about 3d, but it would be as unreachable to the Flatlanders as god’s realm is to us. I still contend that the analogous Flatlander position to yours would be to claim that some spooky 2d only thing is happening, and define away the possibility of 3d. A theist might say that if we could see God’s realm the existence of the supernatural would be as obvious to us as the 3d realm is to us.

You’re incorrect. I understand the analogy; I just reject the assumption in it that the Flatlanders can never hypothesize the third dimension.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It may help, Voyager, if I clarify that I consider this to be an entirely semantic argument. You can’t destroy the moon by closing your eyelids, and a redefinition of a word has no effect on the existence of anything except for a couple of neural pathways. Words describe the universe, they don’t prescribe it.

Daniel

[devilsknew]

The supernatural is the existence of the infinite. The very infinite universe is a factual supernatural entity. Consider the word infinite, what does it mean? It is a concept that we can only imagine, it is unbounded and without definition except as a construct… yet we are surrounded by it. Some say there are boundaries to our infinite universe, but when we reach the end, what lies beyond that…is that the supernatural?

The “natural” as we see it, especially within science, is merely the cataloging and compartmentalization of the supernatural… it isn’t true understanding, only nominal probing and nominal understanding. To understand the supernatural and the nature of the universe is not to seperate and define, it is found as a spiritual being and likewise integral part of the supernatural. And all of us are part of the supernatural, no matter how much we try to define, redefine, deny, or otherwise embrace the existence of the unexplained.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I don’t believe that there is a God or other “anthropomorphic creator entity”, but I do believe there is a supernatural aspect to the universe and to “being”, and there always will be. It is an impossibility that science will explain everything. There will always be the next mystery.

The supernatural is everything left to know, and that’s a helluva lot more than we do know.

[mswas]

devilsknew That sort of fits in with my structure/superstructure analogy I think.

Erek

[devilsknew]

I don’t know…I didn’t read the thread.

[Voyager]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I really think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that God is impossible: I’m saying that if God exists, then God is natural, by definition. I believe that the way I’m defining the words allows for precision of use, and it allows us to discuss things like ghosts, telepathy, and Harry Potter without the words getting in the way.

But a God who is natural, who is within the universe, is not a God at all in many religions. How is such a god different from a powerful alien - even a creator of universes, who certainly can exist within nature?

You’re incorrect. I understand the analogy; I just reject the assumption in it that the Flatlanders can never hypothesize the third dimension.

Daniel

Ah. the Flatlanders would be able to hypothesize the third dimension, given sufficient evidence, which was part of my story. So you agree. And I think we would be able to hypothesize the supernatural if we had some evidence for it, without definining it to be natural.

[Voyager]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

It may help, Voyager, if I clarify that I consider this to be an entirely semantic argument. You can’t destroy the moon by closing your eyelids, and a redefinition of a word has no effect on the existence of anything except for a couple of neural pathways. Words describe the universe, they don’t prescribe it.

Daniel

Sure. If something odd showed up, that was inexplicable by known science, you would point to it and call it natural if unexplained, and I might point to it and say I’d classify it as supernatural while trying to find either a natural explanation or even supernatural laws. We’d both proceed in exactly the same way while calling it different things.

[mswas]

@Voyager

But a God who is natural, who is within the universe, is not a God at all in many religions. How is such a god different from a powerful alien - even a creator of universes, who certainly can exist within nature?

Show me where you mind is. Not your brain. Where is your mind? Does your mind exist IN your being or outside of your being?