RE: Open challenge regarding the supernatural
May 18, 2015 at 6:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2015 at 6:54 pm by bennyboy.)
Rob, I would argue that mind meets your definition of supernatural.
I cannot know that any physical system has a mind without making philosophical assumptions-- assumptions which are not in fact based on physical observations. In other words, I must believe that other humans are sentient BEFORE I have proof. Or if I want to call my observations of people "evidence," not requiring a rigorous proof, I must at least take that same philosophical position about my sense information: that it really does, as it seems to me, represent an objective physical reality.
As for proof-- well, I know that my mind exists, but I understand that someone who doesn't already accept that existence cannot be persuaded through any philosophical, logical, or physical means; in fact, I cannot show that ANY mind exists-- all I can do is sit here smugly in the knowledge that mine at least does, and that anyone who doesn't believe so is wrong, whatever the evidence or lack thereof.
Okay, so that's mind. Now substitute that word out and put in God, or spirit, or the Magic Invisible Space Monkey, and you'll see that we're in trouble. Maybe before struggling to prove that anything supernatural exists, we should attempt to prove that our assumptions about the natural world are valid. Prove, for example, that sense data represent an objective (i.e. "natural") reality at all.
I cannot know that any physical system has a mind without making philosophical assumptions-- assumptions which are not in fact based on physical observations. In other words, I must believe that other humans are sentient BEFORE I have proof. Or if I want to call my observations of people "evidence," not requiring a rigorous proof, I must at least take that same philosophical position about my sense information: that it really does, as it seems to me, represent an objective physical reality.
As for proof-- well, I know that my mind exists, but I understand that someone who doesn't already accept that existence cannot be persuaded through any philosophical, logical, or physical means; in fact, I cannot show that ANY mind exists-- all I can do is sit here smugly in the knowledge that mine at least does, and that anyone who doesn't believe so is wrong, whatever the evidence or lack thereof.
Okay, so that's mind. Now substitute that word out and put in God, or spirit, or the Magic Invisible Space Monkey, and you'll see that we're in trouble. Maybe before struggling to prove that anything supernatural exists, we should attempt to prove that our assumptions about the natural world are valid. Prove, for example, that sense data represent an objective (i.e. "natural") reality at all.
