(November 25, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 2) Certainly not! Instead, we must seek to conform our thought processes to reality. What I have described in this thread ultimately derives from observation, even if I seem to present it as an a priori conclusion. The thread basically asked if we hold to a sort of super-naturalism as opposed to naturalism/materialism. I hold to neither, and have tried to describe my view (and not necessarily the arguments which lead to such a view).
It's a bit semantic-- you can define "natural" in a lot of ways. I think I'd argue that if nature is defined as the material universe, mind itself could be seen as supernatural. That's because while qualia may have physical correlates, even 100% correlates, the nature of experience itself cannot be said to be material. The "redness" I experience is neither a thing nor a property of a thing.
It seems that you are a catholic mystic to a certain degree. To what degree are you a literalist about the Bible, may I ask? Do you take the resurrection literally? The miracles? Or do you take these as a kind of Dan Brownian symbolism, or what?