A question regarding proof

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there anything that is currently classified as supernatural that you feel should be removed from this category and studied more closely?

[frankiej]

Is there anything that is currently classified as supernatural that you feel should be removed from this category and studied more closely?

Magical puddings.

[Fred]

Is there anything that is currently classified as supernatural that you feel should be removed from this category and studied more closely?

I'd have to know what you meant by supernatural, because my understanding of it is something that cannot be derived or explained by the laws of the universe.

But, ironically, if that's so, it means that consciousness is either supernatural or the laws need a +1 because if consciousness cannot be derived from physical laws, then by definition it cannot be said to be natural. Yet, nobody is arguing that, so something doesn't square.

As Chalmers puts it: "a key observation is that not all entities in science are explained in terms of more basic entities. In physics, for example, space-time, mass and charge (among other things) are regarded as fundamental features of the world, as they are not reducible to anything simpler."

[All good, but it wasn't always so:] "In the 19th century it turned out that electromagnetic phenomena could not be explained in terms of previously known principles. As a consequence, scientists introduced electromagnetic charge as a new fundamental entity and studied the associated fundamental laws. Similar reasoning should apply to consciousness. If existing fundamental theories cannot encompass it, then something new is required."

That's what its all about. Not saying that the existing laws or the science investigating them are incorrect, for that is not the case. But they are incomplete inasmuch as they cannot sufficiently explain the phenomenon of conscious experience. This is not saying they are wrong or should be replaced, because that is stupid. It's saying something needs to be added to the mix in order to sufficiently explain the hard problem of consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

All these pages then for nothing? WTF man? You could have simply said "Haha I don't think science has explained everything" 15 pages ago and it would have been nothing but nodding heads. I think after all of this your courage to offer up what it is you're arguing for is faltering. The current understanding of consciousness is that it is a product of the brain. If you wish to modify this you need only devise experiments (or show the inadequacies of the experiments done) that would invalidate conclusions of those whose efforts have produced the mountainous body of evidence that we refer to when we make this claim. Complaining about evidence on this forum will not do that, neither will whatever you believe to be a well constructed philosophical argument.

GO DO SCIENCE.

[Ryft]

1. And the evidence for these causal relationships is... what? There is none, Rhythm. Again, as I said, "What we have evidence for, and lots of it, is correlation." All of these examples you cite are evidence of A occurring in correlation to B (e.g., head injury and amnesia). You are attempting to conclude a causal relationship from this, which commits the aforementioned fallacy: A occurs in correlation to B, therefore A causes B.

2. You asked me what I think is going on, whether observation or something else. I already answered that question: the observation of A occurring in correlation to B. "It is the correlation that is observed empirically, while the causal relationship is inferred inductively." The problem for you is that your inference is drawn fallaciously. The question of evidence is "how science is done," you said. So provide evidence for your position, Rhythm—not of A occurring in correlation to B, but of A causing B.

3. There are any number of things that philosophy is not the appropriate tool for, but all of our tools—including science—presuppose a philosophical conclusion. Whether it is something as fundamental as assuming the uniformity of nature or as mundane as filing your taxes, it all presupposes a series of philosophical conclusions. Without philosophy, science is meaningless.

4. You said that "a great many things exist that we have not yet discovered." Such as?

---

---

Our understanding of what is 'natural' expands. A description what was going on at the quantum level would have been seen as absolute batshit crazy supernatural bullshit if someone had been spouting it 50 years before its discovery. Now, well, naturally, that's the way things operate.

"All truth passes through three stages. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is violently opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes Ryft, the sun shines and light falls on the earth, but is there a causal relationship? If you have an issue with our current understanding of consciousness as a product of the brain (and who know's why you would argue against such a thing )I'd advise you to do the exact same thing I advised Fred to do, science.

You said that "a great many things exist that we have not yet discovered." Such as?

The location of all of my lost left socks, for one. No, in all seriousness, take "dark matter" as an example. "Something" is there, but we do not know exactly what it is. An example closer to my heart, we know that the process of photosynthesis exists, but we have not yet discovered a way to replicate it in a lab with anything even approaching the efficiency that we find in nature. Their must be a way to do so, because plants do so, we have not discovered it yet. This list could go on and on, of course.

Imagine, btw, being able to replicate photosynthesis in a fashion that allows us to deliver that power to the grid directly thereby ending the worlds energy worries forever. That's the kind of science that produces results, should consistently unproductive experiments in "supernatural phenomena" take precedence over something like this Fred?

[Skepsis]

On top of what Rhythm posted, we have not and I have good reason to believe that we cannot ever know everything. To ask what we DON'T know is an ignorant question to ask, as there is an infinite amount of things we do not know.

The nature of a paradox or how modern day scientists might terraform mars to be a habitable planet come to mind. To be able to ask what science hasn't answered tells me you don't think before you post something, or that you are very narrow-minded.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah Skepsis, it was neither of those, Ryft thought he smelled a gotcha moment.

[Skepsis]

Is that so?
Well, I typically don't like making judgements before I even know who I am talking about, and reading off of one post gave me that impression.

A gotcha moment? What page does this conversation start? My computer is slow so I don't like to take any unnessesary moves in navigating the forums.

[Ryft]

If you have an issue with our current understanding of consciousness as a product of the brain (and who knows why you would argue against such a thing), I'd advise you to do the exact same thing I advised Fred to do: science.

It is exquisite irony that you talk about "our current understanding of consciousness as a product of the brain" and then advise Fred and myself to do science, as if that current understanding is a result of scientific observation. I guess that is what happens when you assiduously avoid the questions I asked you regarding that very issue. Whatever it takes to cling to your position, I guess.

... dark matter ... photosynthesis ...

You said that "a great many things exist that we have not yet discovered." We clearly have discovered dark matter and photosynthesis. We have a long way to go in understanding what dark matter is or how photosynthesis works, but their existence certainly have been discovered. I suspect your initial claim may have been improperly framed.

---

---

To ask what we DON'T know is an ignorant question to ask, as there is an infinite amount of things we do not know. [Asking] what science hasn't answered tells me you don't think before you post something, or that you are very narrow-minded.

Your brutally non-sequitur opinion of me notwithstanding, I have never asked what we DON'T know. What I have asked for is the alleged observation of A causing B (because I hold that such is a product of inductive inference, not observation; it is correlation that is observed, while causation is inferred, something we have understood as far back as the Enlightenment). Furthermore, asking questions that science has not answered is eminently a scientific-minded approach; it is the very driving force behind scientific inquiry and discovery to ask questions that science has not answered—so that science may answer it! How you call that ignorant or narrow-minded is truly bewildering.