Open challenge regarding the supernatural

[The Grand Nudger]

But you could equally assume God exists and start making up correlates for that, and studying God as though it were a thing. What's the difference?

People -did- do that Benny....they came up bumpkiss, eh?
(you asked for a difference between god assumptions and other assumptions - there's one)

[bennyboy]

Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means.  How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now.  In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

This comes down to semantics, I think.  For something to be identified as supernatural, I would argue it must have an observable effect, but its mechanism must be at least partly hidden to us: i.e. not only unknown, but unknowable-- because it is of a realm beyond nature.

However, such an entity or effect would exist in SOME realm, presumably: even God, if he IS, must be somewhere.  So what would stop us from saying that the presence of God is really just a wormhole to an otherwise inaccessible dimension/set of dimensions?

Only semantics.  We'd have to say "the buck stops here," and call supernatural all those things which we ourselves can never directly observe or interact with.


QM as supernatural phenomena, anyone?

---

But you could equally assume God exists and start making up correlates for that, and studying God as though it were a thing. What's the difference?

People -did- do that Benny....they came up bumpkiss, eh?

No, they didn't as far as I know.  "Mind" has been defined in terms that will work in a lab.  If the Christians were ever bright enough to define God in physical terms, and this "study" got into mainstrain science, it would be the beginning of the next Dark Ages.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Rob, god exists! I can prove it: God is supernatural. God is all-powerful, he created you and me, when I pray he answers me, and I just know he exists! I can feel him. I can feel his presence, but he is outside space and time so you can't disprove him.

That's my proof. In your face, you just got owned!

What's the fallacy count?

[The Grand Nudger]

 

If the Christians were ever bright enough to define God in physical terms, and this "study" got into mainstrain science, it would be the beginning of the next Dark Ages.

....that also happened...the first time...  

[ignoramus]

"Bright" enough or "deluded" enough?

[Pyrrho]

I am unconvinced that the mind is so special.  The way it is decided that a mind exists is through behavior.  The observation of behavior is how the mind is, to use your words, "tested, detected or measured" and such observation is "by natural means."  We make all sorts of determinations of the intelligence of minds (IQ tests, etc.), and there is nothing supernatural about how that is done.  We do the same sorts of things for determining how minds feel about various things.

These are all correlates, and there's a problem with science which can use only correlates-- none of them proves that any mind-- the mind I know which consists of the experience of qualia-- exists, or even adequately defines the term.

When I say someone is in pain, I determine this from behavior, along with the concomitant situation.  Thus, if I see a man, whose hand has just been chopped off, with blood squirting out, and see him screaming, I say he is in pain.  As for things going on in his head, I am guessing that there is a brain inside (though I do not cut it open to look), and suppose that signals from his nerves (which I am also guessing he has; I do not cut him open to look) travel to the brain.  Then there are processes in the brain.  (These guesses about nerves and brain are an addition from modern science; they were not a part of the original concepts.)  As for anything else, I have no claim about his pain beyond that.

If you "know" of mind, as you say, and regard it as extending 'further,' then it is up to you to prove that, not me.

 The problem with this is that if you take what you already "know" and associate it with correlates, then you're begging the question.  What if I already "know" that Zeus exists, and define measurements of Zeus in electrical terms.  Then I can claim "There's nothing supernatural about the way in which I collect information about Zeus."  I can show where Zeus' presence is strongest.  I can do things to create or influence Zeus' presence.  My Zeusology will produce results in the laboratory, which my startup company will package in interesting products to make me a trillion dollars.

But there's still no Zeus, or at least no way to prove such an entity exists.

It depends on what you mean by "Zeus."  If you simply are using the term as meaning "electricity," then I don't have a problem with "Zeus" existing in some sense.  I can use a meter to measure electrical current, and if you choose to call that "Zeus," it will seem odd to me, but there is no magic in the term "electricity;" one could use the term "Zeus" instead.

If you mean something else (and I am guessing that you do), you will need to explain yourself more clearly.

The fact that it is "indirect" observation, in that one views the behavior rather than the mind itself, does not make the situation special.  We do the same with gravity.  We do not observe gravity as a thing in itself, but as it affects other things.*  That does not make gravity supernatural or unreal.

The difference is that there is no mechanism other than gravity for those effects.  In fact, "gravity" isn't so much an assertion about the cause of the effect as a simple description OF the effect.  But it is not necessary to do this with mind: we do not need to know what causes mind-like behavior because we know about the brain.  So why talk about a voodoo entity like the mind at all?  Why not just spell it like you think it: "Entity A receives input B and outputs behavior C."  What's all this mind stuff even talking about?

I use the term "mind" as the aggregate of the processes in which A, when receiving input B, outputs C.  It is easier to use one word than a long phrase.

Additionally, with examinations of damaged brains, we know that the mind is altered by altering the brain.  We can be pretty certain that the mind is a subset of the activities of the brain.  (One also can do a self-test, where one drinks enough alcohol to become drunk, and one can notice the subjective aspect of mind changing, while others can observe differences in our behavior.  The alcohol in the brain affects the activities of the brain.)  Granted, the details are not all worked out yet, but before modern astronomy, we did not know what the stars were and could not be sure about them.  That did not make them supernatural.  That just made the details unknown.  Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."

What is unknown is whether any other mind than my own exists at all.  You keep talking about correlates, and haven't addressed the first question that really needs answering: Do any minds-- defined as agents capable of experiencing qualia-- exist?  All you can is assume they do, and start working with the correlates.  But you could equally assume God exists and start making up correlates for that, and studying God as though it were a thing.  What's the difference?

I think you need to say more about what it is you mean by the term "mind."  What, exactly, do you mean by "agent" and by "experiencing qualia?"

You seem to imagine that there is a something more, like Descartes, thinking that there is some soul/mind attached to a body.  I see no reason to believe in such a thing, and don't believe in it.  The mind is nothing more than physical processes.  That people are confused about it and imagine it to be a thing, makes it like the way primitive people thought of fire.  They thought it was a substance, but the modern view is that it is a process, the rapid oxidation of a material (fuel).

As for my disagreement with Descartes, it could be described as me saying that I do not believe in the existence of "mind" that he discusses.  Or, alternatively, it could be said that I think he is wrong about what "mind" is.  Which is preferable as a description depends on one's point of view.

As for how this relates to what you are saying, you will need to be a great deal more clear about your meaning before I will be able to explain how our opinions differ, if they differ (as some differences are merely matters of words).

[bennyboy]

It depends on what you mean by "Zeus."  If you simply are using the term as meaning "electricity," then I don't have a problem with "Zeus" existing in some sense.  I can use a meter to measure electrical current, and if you choose to call that "Zeus," it will seem odd to me, but there is no magic in the term "electricity;" one could use the term "Zeus" instead.

If you mean something else (and I am guessing that you do), you will need to explain yourself more clearly.

That's right. Zeus means one thing, and "Zeus" means another, as I've defined it. I insist that Zeus and "Zeus" are the same, and that the science I do about "Zeus" is therefore not only science of Zeus but proof of Zeus. ("Zeus" meaning my physicalized definition, and Zeus with no quotes meaning the Greek god of that name).

The same goes for mind. There's mind, as in the word for my subjective experience of life, and then there's "mind," which is physicalized in terms of brain function: waves, blood flow, structure, electrochemistry, etc. But the problem is that while you can show "mind" all over the place, you cannot prove in a philosophically satisfying way that no-quotes mind event exists, or that it is what you say it is.

I use the term "mind" as the aggregate of the processes in which A, when receiving input B, outputs C.  It is easier to use one word than a long phrase.

To me, mind means the subjective experience of thoughts, ideas and sensations. I do not recognize your "mind" as my mind, though many will insist until they are blue in the face that they are the same thing.

I think you need to say more about what it is you mean by the term "mind."  What, exactly, do you mean by "agent" and by "experiencing qualia?"

By "agent," I mean a single unified being, and by "experiencing qualia" I mean experiencing the "what it's like" of things, rather than just mechanical processing.

You seem to imagine that there is a something more, like Descartes, thinking that there is some soul/mind attached to a body.  I see no reason to believe in such a thing, and don't believe in it.

No. I believe that mind meets the OP's definition of supernatural. That is all.

The mind is nothing more than physical processes.  That people are confused about it and imagine it to be a thing, makes it like the way primitive people thought of fire.

You are now making a positive assertion. Show me a mind, and show that it is nothing more than a physical process. My prediction is that you will make operational definitions of mind-- brain function, etc., but that you cannot show me someone else's "what it's like" of experience. You will, in essence, be proving that Zeus is an electrical field by defining it as such and then pointing at an electrical field.

Now, keep in mind that I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think you have enough points filled in between points A and B to confidently make positive assertions. Specifically, you cannot locate (or even adequately) define what "A" even is or how one will know when one finds it.

---

"Bright" enough or "deluded" enough?

If Christians could operationalize definitions of the presence of God in ways that were taken seriously in a lab setting, then they would bring the whole scientific method, and the scientific institutions, to a screeching halt.  Given the goals of Christians, this would be a major coup, and I'd say it would represent a kind of evil-genius brightness, for sure.

[ignoramus]

ignoramus Wrote:
"Bright" enough or "deluded" enough?

If Christians could operationalize definitions of the presence of God in ways that were taken seriously in a lab setting, then they would bring the whole scientific method, and the scientific institutions, to a screeching halt.  Given the goals of Christians, this would be a major coup, and I'd say it would represent a kind of evil-genius brightness, for sure. 

That's a good thing, right?
All knowledge is a good thing!

(We both know that ain't happnin any time soon!)

[Faith No More]

But then we would have to conclude that the set of things to which the word supernatural applies is the empty set.  Is this not the same as saying there is no such thing as the supernatural?  First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means.  So if we conclude on the basis of your hypothetical that there are no supernatural events or forces, are we not begging the question prior to examining the phenomenon?  I feel supernatural as a term has a sense, even if that sense is not satisfied by any real world object.  So how do we bridge the gap between the sense of the word, and the fact that we have not examined all things to which the name supernatural might apply?

I think that the empty set is actually things to which you can prove the word "supernatural" applies. It doesn't negate the existence of the supernatural. It just makes it an unprovable concept, because if something supernatural did exist, it's possible it would simply remain in the "unknown" category. Where supernatural claims really come into trouble is their history and their lack of evidence. The human fallibility factor really hurts those claims, too.

As far as bringing that gap, I think it's best just to relegate the supernatural to a metaphor until we even get the hint of something supernatural that we could observe and study, and I'm not even sure if that is possible.