Your position on naturalism

[robvalue]

There is that which exists, in some form, and that which does not. Out of that that does, it's up to us what we label as "natural" and "supernatural". What is the distinction, and why do we need one?

[Pat Mustard]

Philosophical naturalist. 'Tis only natural to disbelieve what isn't real.

[Whateverist]

Philosophical naturalist. 'Tis only natural to disbelieve what isn't real.

Naturally I agree.

[Excited Penguin]

What do you mean, there? 

Emphasis added. 

I had to go back to look at the paragraph from which that snippet was taken to remember what I did mean there.  Thanks for bringing it up because I think it is important.  In that paragraph from which you quoted I meant to contrast what I think is the correct analysis of the mind/matter conflict with the one which seems to impress theists which I was referring to in the second paragraph of my post from which you took that quote.  This one:

---

In trying to understand what motivates the idea of the supernatural the best that I can do is to go back to a mind/matter dichotomy. It seems so silly to do this but I guess the idea of a divine supernatural is the idea that everything is ultimately but an idea in God's mind. Whatever order we think we find in the world is put there by a being fully capable of setting aside that order at any moment. So the idea of the supernatural is the idea of a supreme agency which sustains a reliable, natural world except when it over rules it instead.

---

The flawed mind/matter dilemma worries about how we from our point of view are supposed to differentiate between perception imparted by the world and that which is a product of the mind.  This view attributes to minds the capacity to create objects in a manner parallel to those encountered in the world.  Theists seem to find fuel for believing that a supernatural realm is a source for at least some of those mind created pseudo objects, especially that most revered of objects, God.  Believers attribute all objects to God's creations.  Those that we apprehend as being physical objects in the world are but a part of God's grand creation, an idea in God's mind.  In this resolution of the mind/matter dilemma primacy is given to mind.

But our modern way of looking at the relationship between minds and the world (matter) is very different.  We note that every creature has a perceptual array with which it finds its way in the world, toward food and mates but away from threats.  Those perceptual array's vary.  The dogs world is 'seen' through its nose, a bat's through its ears and much of ours world is colored by what our eyes see.  But any discrepancy between mind and matter is understood as arising from idiosyncrasies of the sensual medium.  In some cases perhaps we make mistaken assumptions about the world because of glitches in our perceptual/cognitive processing of the data we receive about the world.  But the only thing our minds are producing in these instances are mistakes.  Our mind's job is to create a mental analogue of the real world to help us to navigate our real physical bodies through the natural world.  No mind, not ours' and not God's, creates the physical world.  That is what I mean when I say matter is primary and mind is secondary.

That's great,  Whateverist. Now, if you could put all that mental energy you seem to have of late towards answering any actual questions I put to you that'd be even greater. As it is, you ignored the specificity of my inquiry and instead took it as an excuse to further expound on your session of fapping to your own thoughts.

[Whateverist]

How's this: "Get bent." That pretty much addresses you.

I think the problem here is your unwillingness or inability to put any mental energy toward framing a question any more specific than "What do you mean here?" You really don't have to be such lazy twit.

[Excited Penguin]

How's this:  "Get bent."  That pretty much addresses you.  

I think the problem here is your unwillingness or inability to put any mental energy toward framing a question any more specific than "What do you mean here?"  You really don't have to be such lazy twit.

I emphasized what I meant. Here, I'll do it again. 

  The limitations of any particular form of consciousness color the world we perceive in ways consistent with our kind. 

Did you mean their kind, possibly ? Otherwise, that phrasing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I was wondering if you could address this sentence in particular. Maybe repeat the idea via different terms? 
I agreed with everything else you said. Hard not to, really , it's all common sense. I do commend you on your excellent eloquence , however. That is always a pleasant thing to behold. 
That's my emphasis.

[Whateverist]

I see that you have responded, EP. I just don't see any reason to find out what you've said. What part of "get bent" didn't you understand? I refuse to converse with anyone as rude, lazy and childish as yourself. I continually over-estimate you. Off you go now.

[Excited Penguin]

I see that you have responded, EP.  I just don't see any reason to find out what you've said.  What part of "get bent" didn't you understand?  I refuse to converse with anyone as rude, lazy and childish as yourself.  I continually over-estimate you.  Off you go now.

Right . OK, then.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not a naturalist but I think if people want to walk around naked that's their choice.

Ok, but if you were a naturalist, would you be philosophically naked, or methodologically naked?

False dichotomy.

I'd be naked in all senses.

I know you weren't talking to me but my willy doesn't care.

[purplepurpose]

I think, its supernatural, that lifeless chemicals ended up with complex immaterial system like consciousness, which fear, desire, enjoy. Also, space itself, laws of physics, matter just popped in to existence. Its f creepy.