The Supernatural
Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature.
Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change magic to supernatural and you have the point of this post.
Imagine Thor is a primitive person who lives in a hut. Imagine hiding a wireless doorbell camera that has a speaker somewhere in Thors hut. Thor enters and hears a voice, Thor. I am God. Fall on your knees. Thor looks around, confused; he cant believe his ears. Thor. Stop looking around and fall on your knees. Thor complies. Later, he swears to everyone that he had a supernatural experience, that God spoke to him. When we perfect 3D free-standing holograms, we could project an image for Thor. Now, Thor would swear he heard and saw God, too.
The point is that we do yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, its presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond natures laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. In a few centuries, perhaps well construct a warp drive.
It seems to me that no one can have any better justification in declaring something to be supernatural than does Thor. Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.
Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change magic to supernatural and you have the point of this post.
Imagine Thor is a primitive person who lives in a hut. Imagine hiding a wireless doorbell camera that has a speaker somewhere in Thors hut. Thor enters and hears a voice, Thor. I am God. Fall on your knees. Thor looks around, confused; he cant believe his ears. Thor. Stop looking around and fall on your knees. Thor complies. Later, he swears to everyone that he had a supernatural experience, that God spoke to him. When we perfect 3D free-standing holograms, we could project an image for Thor. Now, Thor would swear he heard and saw God, too.
The point is that we do yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, its presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond natures laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. In a few centuries, perhaps well construct a warp drive.
It seems to me that no one can have any better justification in declaring something to be supernatural than does Thor. Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.
Comments (105)
I think "beyond" is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural".
An understatement of significant proportions. :roll:
Quoting Art48
I think you're confusing discovery with construction. Humans discovered that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in the entire universe -- not just our solar system or our galaxy, but the entire universe. We also discovered that humans can't fly like birds, and to this day, no one person had flown in the sky like a bird. There are mechanics in place that sets limits on the workings of the universe. No one can walk on water without camera editing, lol.
Although I get your point -- let's wait until we have the means and knowledge to find things that would undermine what we previously believe. But again, this is discovery, not construction. Why we haven't discovered that one piece of the puzzle that could show us that there is something faster than the speed of light is because it's not there. Maybe aliens are faster than the speed of light. But aliens, if there are aliens, are part of our universe too.
Agree
:up:
Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature?
The concept of nature is part of a philosophy that is out of favour because it proposes a triple fundamental division, Man, Nature, and God. As soon as one leg of the tripod is removed, the thing collapses. Man is unnatural, God is supernatural. That is the way theses terms have some meaning.
But when the conception is that there is no God, man is part of nature and so is everything else. The term does not have a distinct meaning at all. And from there it becomes "obvious" that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural. That nothing is supernatural is true by definition in the current cosmology.
I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. Example: if someone says supernatural pixies cause earthquakes, the burden of proof is on them and the burden is impossible to meet.
unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods.
Yes. It can be defined as the world.
If we try to define the supernatural as that which occurs outside nature, and we then define nature as everything we can sense, then we're left with a hopeless contradiction if we say that we have sensed the supernatural.
That is, if Casper is a supernatural ghost, but I've seen Casper floating around the living room, then he's not supernatural because I just saw him, which means he's physical. If we then say that some parts of Casper are supernatural and others natural, then I'm not sure what distinguishes Casper from anyone else if we assert that mental functions are not entirely physical.
Just so. A physicalist has no use for the term 'natural' because everything is natural. We all know that 'Natural Yoghurt' is just yoghurt, and there is no unnatural yoghurt or supernatural yoghurt that it is better than or not as good as."Natural", in modern cosmology, is a purely emotive term expressing approval. It is a hangover from a religious age when scientists didn't know everything about everything.
That depends on whether "God" is narrowly understood as referring to a specific type of causal explanation that rivals physical explanations as another type of causation, or whether "god" is understood as being an integral concept to the very meaning of cause and effect.
E.g for Melbranche, God is the only causal agency, indicating that for Melbranche science is the study of miracles, implying that any empirically valid scientific law is god choosing to follow a deterministic strategy. His position might seem ontologically superfluous, e.g why assume that the course of the universe is the strategy of a single player game, as opposed to assuming the universe to be a zero-player game that is driven forward mechanically without any intervention, divine or otherwise? Melbranche apparently believed the universe to be mechanically describable but resisted the elimination of causal agency, due to believing that the propositions of mechanics aren't analytic but synthetic, making similar arguments to the empiricists such as Hume who came after him.
I think beyond is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by supernatural. ~ 180 Proof
This very responsible approach comes with irony.
A law of nature is given value because it allows us to navigate and/or account for whatever-reality-really-is by way of proposed causal interpretations. But causality is a cognitive construct, a very useful exercise of rendering our lot intelligible; it does not actually exist in the physical world.
Definition of Supernatural: The non-existence of causality (X) that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the successful proposition of its existence.
Right. :up:
I'm using too this "burden of proof" principle in various cases where someone does not believe that something exists or occurs or can occur. E.g. If one does not believe in the existence of God --let's say the Christian God-- how can one prove that it doesn't exist? It's just absurd. The "supernatural", being something that is not visible or can be sensed in any other way, is one of these cases.
Hence the expression "Innocent until proven guilty". :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
How's it known that something is "inconsistent with the laws of nature"?
I think that to observe a change in nature which within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent, this would imply that that causal "something" is inconsistent with not constrained by the 'laws of nature'.
Not at all. If I did, I'd have a burden of proof. But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met.
Rogue waves is another example. Current fluid physics/oceanography/meteorology ruled out the possibility of rogue waves. It wasn't possible given what they knew or 'knew'. It didn't fit then current models. Later after changes in technology confirmed what was dismissed as faulty emotional judgments on witnesses, then scientists sought out to explain what was going on.
IOW saying something cannot be true can be rather tricky.
Doesn't (seem to) fit with current models should not rule something out.
And fits (or seems to) with current models doesn't get a pass, at least it shouldn't and not in science.
There's a well-known story of the death in Africa of a man called Anthony Lawrence, in 2012, who was known as the 'elephant whisperer' for his work in wildlife conservation and in particular helping elephants. When he died a herd of elephants appeared outside his home, although obviously they had obvious way of knowing what had happened. It's been documented often in the intervening years, here is an account by his widow.
Why beyond anecdote? If a friend calls and says your house is on fire do you dismiss it because it's anecdotal information? What if a trusted friend said he saw a ghost? What if he was with three other of your family members and they all saw it? What if 30 trusted people said they saw it? 300? What if a crowd of a 1,000 people say they witnessed a huge rock levitate and fly through the air?
At what point does the anecdotal evidence outweigh the prima fascia improbability of miracles/supernatural events? I would argue that there IS some amount of anecdotal evidence that makes belief in the supernatural a rational position to take.
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
I can think of a scenario: suppose you wake up and everyone- I mean the whole planet- is talking about how, for about five minutes, the stars all moved around and spelled out "THIS IS GOD. BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER". You slept through it. And then the stars went back to their original position. Also, no recording devices worked at this time. So all you have to rely on is anecdotal evidence, but I know you would conclude millions of people saw the stars spell out a message from God. You might further believe that you're in a simulation, so no miracle explanation required, but you're still going to have the belief that something extraordinary happened in the sky that night. And that belief is going to be based entirely on anecdotal evidence.
My point is that when enough anecdotal evidence piles up, it's OK to conclude something strange is going on.
Nice try but unrelated to the matter at hand. I wouldn't compare a piece of information like that - about a mundane event, coming to me from someone I have a trusted relationship with, about something which can be tested empirically - to an anecdote about a supernatural event.
I don't generally accept anecdotes as conclusive evidence about a given matter. But the more important part of this is context: where the anecdote is about, for instance, laws of physics being contradicted, I am going to need more than a personal experience account, right? If someone tells me they bought a kitten on the weekend I am unlikely to be sceptical and need more. If they tell me they bought a unicorn, I'm going to need more.
Pretty sure we can find thousands of people today who have been 'abducted and probed by aliens'. Do we have good reason to accept all these anecdotes? I would say no. The stories may well be interesting and may well be evaluated separately, but that's just the beginning of a process where actual evidence must be considered before any conclusion can be reached.
Yes, and that "more" could be other anecdotal information. It's evidence and evidence can confirm or disconfirm a theory. There's no reason, in principle, why anecdotal evidence can't confirm a supernatural theory. I posted a scenario just above your post. What do you think of it?
Do we have good reason to deny all these anecdotes? I would say no.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Quoting RogueAI
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That said, I think anecdotes can sometimes be interesting and they may well form a reason to investigate something further. But for the most part they are fairly useless in themselves.
I'll be a lot more interested the moment Southern Baptist's start seeing visions of Shiva and Hindus start seeing Mary Magdalene... :wink:
Of course it is. One eyewitness might not be enough to nail a suspect but 20 eye witnesses all agreeing on the same appearance is MASSIVE confirmation to the theory "The suspect was at the scene of the crime".
One person complaining to the city council about the new stoplight could be ignored, but 500 complaints means something got screwed up. The plural of anecdote clearly is data.
Suppose I'm a research scientist you know really well, and I claim I have a guy I've given the ESP card test to 100 times and I say he aces it every time. What would you believe after that conversation.
'Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature' ~ Augustine.
You're confusing categories - perhaps an equivocation fallacy. We are talking here about feedback regarding a tangible matter of council business, not an anecdote about the improbable or impossible. Try getting council to deal with the matter of 'invisible vampires' hovering near the local tip....
Quoting RogueAI
I would believe nothing in either direction, it's just an anecdote. Isn't this the point we have been addressing?
If I cared about ESP testing I might say - 'So you think you have a good candidate for someone who has an ability? Let's test it independently with stringent conditions.'
I think we are probably done. You think anecdotes count as good evidence, I don't consider them good evidence. I get it... :wink:
Also not all evidence that comes to us is from scientific research. IOW I think we are forced to take from anecdotal evidence and other non-scientific sources evidence, given what life and the world is like. And we all make important decisions - in the sense of having effects on ourselves and other poeple - based on evidence from not scientifically controlled sources.
We parent, vote, try to find romantic partners, succeed at work and in freetime activites, seek out contacts, friends, employers..... based on all sorts of anecdotal and other less than scientific research level rigor sources.
We can make it all binary. Scientific consensus items here. Don't believe in any important way anything else.
But no one does this. They may seem to take that as an official position, but I don't think they could get by actually living it.
And if we go back to say the 50s it was scientific consensus that speaking about animal emotions, intentions, etc. was all ungrounded speculation. Meanwhile animal trainers, pet owners, indigenous people all went ahead and acted like and believed that animals were subjects with these internal states. It was actually professional damaging to speak about animals as fellow subjects with experiences, goals, emotions, etc.
There are paradigmatic biases in what is investigated and what models are allowed.
This doesn't mean anyone should be compelled to believe things on anecdotal and other not as rigorous as science is supposed to be. But at the same time it can be quite rational to believe in things that are not currently supported by consensus science.
I use the phrase not currently supported, to make a category different from 'contradicts or seem to current consensus science'. Since I believe this can be seeming and not outright contradiction I don't rule out a person being rational who believe something like this either. However it's shakier ground.
You may be right. I was talking specifically if we should believe claims about the 'supernatural' based on anecdotes. Needless to say this is a discussion lacking in precision and clarity and where supernatural begins and ends or what counts as supernatural is still open. I don't consider claims about animal behaviour supernatural, but I am not a scientist, so I'll leave it to others to comment further on this. I am also not trying to set myself up as some kind of scientistic fiend.
Quoting Bylaw
Indeed, but I don't know what this has to do with my position. I never claimed people make all decisions based on careful reasoning and evidence. I certainly don't - I go by intuition a lot. (This still contains experience and judgement.) I simply made comment on whether I would accept a belief in supernatural claims (let's say gods, ghosts, demons) based on anecdotes. Answer: no.
I do. Obviously not all anecdotes. But I make decisions all the time that use anecdotes, often unconsciously, as evidence. I more or less have to. If I can check with scientific research and be pretty sure the research is not tainted by corporate funding, then I may well do that. I have other paradigmatic based criteria also. But there are all sorts of situations where I choose to consider anecdotes good evidence. I might wish I had great evidence, but it is good enough to sway me towards decision X, following pattern of behavior Y, giving Z a try and so on.
And for me it doesn't matter how the phenomenon in question is categorized. It could have been seen as elephants were being attributed psychic powers.
Quoting Bylaw
or that rogue waves were magical entities cast by Poseiden.
What matters to me is the kinds of evidence I get and in many cases I cannot get evidence that matches the ideal rigor I wish it could.
Personally I think Supernatural is a poor term. It's a kind of unnecessary ontological claim (and one used by skeptics and believers alike).
If we read your comment (and of course one gets to be polemical) it is as if this example shows that anecdotes cannot and should not be used as evidence. I don't see it as this binary.
I don't think it necessitates dualism. Idealism, a monist ontology might be an equal explanation. But even if it does imply dualism, what of it?
Right but in a philosophy forum it is an immediate claim to dualism
Now you are using the word proof. Before it was evidence.
UFOs seen in the sky by navy pilots on hundreds of occasions. This included only instances where they were near enough to see that the objects changed directions in ways other planes and balloons (and other usual suspects cannot).
Note, this doesn't mean it's aliens, could be some kind of human made craft. But I think it evidence that something very out of the ordinary is happening.
Not proof, yes.
As for the rest. Yes, some people may think their single personal experience is proof. Those people exist. Also they make leaps in what it might be evidence for, such as in my UFO response.
However I think this is leaving out a lot of middle ground instances. Where some of the criteria I mentioned above for the speakers makes a difference.
I do follow a pragmatic theory of truth (a lot of the time) so this affects how I view things. I also see no reason to decide that if someone labels something supernatural it should be treated differently. The categorization may be wrong. I've met people who believe in some of those things, who do base their beliefs in part on anecdotal evidence, generally including their own experiences, but who do not assume that there is enough evidence for non-experiencers to be convinced by.
This thread, it seemed to me, began with the idea that we can rule out things like things batched under supernatural per se and anecdotal is meaningless and could never be evidence.
I think that's problematic because observations are anecdotes meeting criteria. (More criteria than the ones I mentioned around what we generally think of as anecdotes (scientific protocol stuff).)
And then because we all act based on anecdotes. I see that has twisted my reaction to your posts which are not following the OP line.
But if anecdotes are not evidence, period, well, most people are acting with great lack of care in relation to themselves and others and irrationally a large percentage of the time.
Do you mean presently-known laws of nature or known and unknown laws of nature. In the original post, Thor experiences something beyond the laws of nature his culture knows. Bylaw makes a similar point.
Look at the original post. What was done to Thor could be done to his entire tribe, a wireless doorbell camera in each hut. And then there's the well-known scenario where someone knows a eclipse is about to occur, waves his hands, and the primitive tribe sees the sun go dark. A few minutes later, another wave of the hand restores the sun. In the mind of the tribe, the man has clearly demonstrated "supernatural" power.
In principle any (mathematized) laws of nature. Remember: 20th c Conservation Laws are not significantly inconsistent with 17th c Newtonian Laws of Motion.
We have better than anecdotal evidence for lightening; we have eye-witness testimony. I've even seen it myself. For centuries, lightening was thought to be supernatural. "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom" by Andrew D. White (you can find it online) has an account of how preachers condemned Ben Franklin's lightening rod as trying to frustrate the artillery of heaven. They couldn't explain it so they dubbed it "supernatural."
Google "frogs rain from the sky". Another natural event someone might dub "supernatural."
We just don't know everything that's possible. Walk on water? Change water into wine? Raise the dead? These all may be natural events that we haven't discovered how to do yet.
What do you envisage happened when Thor found the hidden camera/speaker combo? (why did you choose one with a doorbell?). Who planted the camera/speaker? Technically advanced aliens? A time traveller? Why did you choose to reduce the deity Thor to a primitive person? Why is it not just 'Fred,' the primitive person?
Do you think it's possible to fool all of the people all of the time?
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay. So, logically a follow-up question for me is, how's it determined what, in principle, "the constraints of the laws of nature" are?
I almost agree. Since our Epistemology (knowledge) is entirely based on sensory perceptions, we can never know anything that is outside-of (or above) Nature. However, since Ontology (being) is derived from rational inference, we can follow a chain of reasoning back toward it's source, even back in time : as Astrologers did to conclude that the beginning of our space-time (world-being) was an ex nihilo emergence from an unknown source.
Hence we have no empirical knowledge of anything before the beginning. So making positive epistemological "declarations" would be presumptuous. But it would not necessarily be "foolish", if our love of wisdom (philosophy) leads us to speculate into the darkness beyond the bang. As you said, we can conceive of a supernatural existence, but we can't perceive such a thing. Therefore, supernatural "declarations" are unsupportable, but preternatural "speculations" are legitimate for both scientists (multiverse) and philosophers (creator). If you are philosophically curious, it may enhance your personal worldview to bracket your known-world with a pre- and post- existence ontology. :smile:
PS__"In the beginning, God . . ." is a declaration. But, before-the-Big-Bang is like north-of-the-North-Pole" is an analogy. And the number-before-number-one is merely a mathematical challenge. Negative number, infinite number, imaginary number?
So state it differently then so that your meaning is more transparent. You cant read for your readers, but your readers can't write for you either.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/787051
The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". For example, a thousand years ago, lightening was something that could not be caused, even in principle, by any KNOWN natural event, force, or agent. The OP says we cannot with confidence declare anything supernatural until we know the full extent of what is possible in the natural world. We don't have that knowledge now, and may never.
If that's the OP's point, then, IMO, then it's based on a profound misunderstanding of how nature must be in order for natural sciences to work. Given that contemporary natural sciences, in fact, do work as intelligible, reliable practices for learning about, experimentally modeling and adapting to aspects (at all scales) of nature, it is self-inconsistent (i.e. impossible) for any natural event, force or agent to cause any fundamental constant of nature to change because the causal efficacy of every natural event, force and agent is dependent on both enabled and constrained by the fundamental constants of nature.
So my point is, in sum, that we know enough today about what is the case in order for us to have known and, even if only in principle, what can and cannot be known (though not, of course, what we will learn). To my mind, a fundamentally inexplicable occurance deemed "supernatural" would invalidate knowledge itself just as inferring from contradictions invalidate arguments (via the principle of explosion). If "the supernatural", then nature is unintelligible and its regularities (i.e. order, law-likeness) are nothing but cognitive illusions or a metacognitive bias.
I don't see the relevance of this remark to what I've said.
Quoting 180 Proof
We don't. For 2 or 3 centuries Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as true; warping of space and time appeared "obviously" impossible and outside the realm of natural law.
Can't see how that works.
Seems to me that if something happens that is contrary to some posited law of nature, then the law is wrong.
So the choice then is to fall to your knees in prayer, or to do some further testing and change your hypothesis.
Which you choose seems to be a measure of character.
Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change magic to supernatural and you have the point of this post. ~ Art48
The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". For example, a thousand years ago, lightening was something that could not be caused, even in principle, by any KNOWN natural event, force, or agent. The OP says we cannot with confidence declare anything supernatural until we know the full extent of what is possible in the natural world. We don't have that knowledge now, and may never. ~ Art48
Definition of Supernatural: ignorance of the mechanics behind a cognitive illusion which is not yet embarrassed by knowledge and it may never be embarrassed. That is my take on what you are saying. The OP is less about the supernatural and more about human progress from one ignorance-ceiling to another, and we can too easily think of the undeniability of our latest ignorance-ceiling as a solid basis upon which we build a case for the supernatural. This would be arguing from ignorance.
If Ive read you right, I think you would agree with a follow-up sermon: why do we use the word supernatural at all when the word ignorance is closer to the point? Ignorance is a superior term in the context of philosophy or science because it is a red flag: we have problems to solve. Making it our goal to restrict our efforts to those problems which have the higher probability of yielding to mechanical description, we prioritize intelligibility over unintelligibility. However, the word, supernatural, when it does not risk declaring a specific exception to cause-effect interpretations but only confesses that we cannot really know of any such exception, prioritizes unintelligibility over intelligibility. The word supernatural is too often a green light on the other side of an impassable brick wall. A red light would serve us better.
I don't disagree but I think what the OP says is easier to support, because it, in effect, puts an impossible burden of proof on the person who says something is supernatural; to know something is supernatural we need to know it's beyond all known and yet to be discovered facts about nature. Whereas calling something a cognitive illusion places the burden of proof on the person who calls it an illusion.
Quoting Experience of Clarity Yes. I like the green light/red light analogy. When we see something we cannot explain (like animals falling from the sky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_of_animals), it's better to stop and say we don't understand rather than take that as a green light to go ahead and conclude it's supernatural.
It went without saying in your OP that the burden of proof is on the one who advocates the supernatural. For good reason, it didnt need to be said. I liked the emphasis provided by your approach: what was explicit was the magic trick played on Thor the mechanical engineering of his belief.
You separate concept from behavior with, Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.
Along this line of reasoning, I appreciate your use of magic in your OP. It is noteworthy that, for Thor, the mechanical execution was pre-belief. In contrast, arguing against a believer in the Supernatural begins post-belief or else there would be no debate.
As for presenting the argument before a third-party judge, correctly assigning the burden of proof is a winning strategy. But the rational argument deconstructs already-established beliefs, concept definitions, and misconstrued readings. From life and career experience, I can say that the success rate of actually reaching someone is very low if they believe in the magic and not the trick and do not share your discipline. (It is humiliating to accept the mechanics behind ones own duping. Consequently, devotion rises to the degree necessary to resist awareness of the absurdity of ones own belief. The superiority of the Big Lie over the small one is frighteningly real.)
Society cannot solve problems that are not seen. If cleaning the lens is the priority, we need to deal with the formation of illusions at the very beginning. We need to interrupt the magic shows. But of course in exposing the mechanics behind the deceit, we will win fewer arguments because we will have precluded the need for them.
Good point.
Quoting Art48
Again, isn't claiming something as supernatural, by that very fact, claiming it to be unintelligible?
We might proceed by always asking, how could we tell that some event is supernatural? And the answer is, we can't. Given any posited supernatural event, we can modify our understanding of the laws of nature in order to render the event understandable.
Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible.
Nice. :up:
What advocates of "supernature' want is to say that some events are acts of volition by unusual beings - gods, ghosts or ghouls. But showing an event to be an act is itself problematic. Yet that's the way the analysis here must go if it is to progress beyond mere advocacy.
All such terms are just projections of the human ability to be completely illogical, an ability which DOES exist. As you say, any discovered supernatural, would become instantly natural. The term 'nothing' or 'infinite' are just as unintelligible. But, 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators, same as god, they have no more value than that.
[i]"Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible." Banno
" ., 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators ..." ~ universeness [/i]
These are two different stops on the same tour. Intelligibility depends upon the perspective anchoring the point in question.
Of two people who have just purchased a falsified map it is the one who lifts up his head and looks for a real-world landmark who is confused first.
The confused one declares the map unintelligible, while the other mistakes his failure to test the map as the maps intelligibility. So ironically, the confused one, in the very understanding of the maps unintelligibility, is relatively closer to an intelligible explanation of the problem with the map.
The confused one looks up from the map again and tries to find a landmark that should be to the East. It is not there, but to the West. This attempted real-world application provides an intelligible demonstration of how it can be understood that the map is unintelligible: it clearly fails to orient the map-reader to the destination. Importantly, the reason why the map is unintelligible is itself intelligible.
Art48s statement:Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.
What the map was supposed to do is intelligible. But for the purpose of actually orienting ourselves to our destination, it is unintelligible. The demonstration of the problem with the map is intelligible. What Supernatural as a concept was supposed to do is intelligible. But If someone were to demonstrate something they considered supernatural it would have to be extant in the natural world,( ~ GTTRPNK) The attempted proof or stated definition is easily shown to be unintelligible by GTTRPNKs intelligible refutation. The notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible."[ Banno] " .,and [this] 'unintelligib[ility],' EXISTS as a[n intelligible] 'notion.' [universeness]
I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc.
One of the rules of reason is 'non-contradiction.' A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map.
Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!
So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible!
The fact that unintelligible exists as a concept, should not attract anyone to it.
Living in a cave, waiting for a deity to communicate with you, would be a waste of life.
The unintelligibility of the existence of god/supernaturals, should be enough for any rational human to not waste themselves, via theistic or theosophistic dalliances.
Rubbish.
Just like your response then? Can you do any better?
Yep. But I'm far from convinced that you can.
Nothing and infinite are both quite "intelligible". Your comparison with supernatural fails.
The map-territory analog only works sometimes. In your account, the map was purchased, which ignores the art of cartography.
I suppose something is "supernatural" if it is found in the territory but not in the map. Your map-viewers are passive, and hence puzzled, but our cartographers will get out their pencil and adapt the map to fit what they see.
There is nothing in the territory that cannot be added to the map.
There is nothing that counts as "supernatural".
Yeah, right back at you!
Quoting Banno
Do you know what 'do better' means?
Is exemplification of nothing and infinite demonstrable using anything that currently exists in the natural world? If so, then reveal it, or just keep coming across as the annoying empty vessel that you can be at times.
This is shite. Like saying you can't teach a fish to ride a bicycle, hence fish are nonsense.
Are you referring to your thought processes that are producing your current responses here?
Quoting Banno
I asked for you to exemplify 'nothing' and 'infinite' so, put the fish back where it belongs, and put the bike back wherever you got it from. Try to pull on your big boy pants, and provide an actual argument.
But don't pretend that they are unintelligible just for rhetorical purposes, on a philosophy site, and then bitch when you are called out.
I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc. ~ universeness
The use of the word compare is equivocal, but in either usage it fails to deal with my prior post in a meaningful way. With a comparison we must find parallel elements. What are we comparing?
1. Are we to compare the severity of the social damage with the mediocrity of my chosen metaphor? This would then suggest that we must supply a superior metaphor. But this is probably not what was meant because no substitute was then offered. If such a comparison was intended, please offer a substitute.
2. Are we to compare the evaluation process with the target of the process and conclude with the removal of the evaluation process itself? This would be irrational. But this, so far, is the best explanation for your later arguments, which gut my original argument of an evaluation process.
What did you mean with the word, compare? Although its use is awkward, perhaps you meant some reasoning akin to a six-foot tape measure does not compare when measuring a seven-foot tall NBA player. If so, then I must get a more suitable tape measure. If there is no substitute intended, then using the inadequacy of the shorter tape measure to compare with the taller target as a reason to eliminate the use of measuring devices, as such, will then end with the declaration of immeasurability. But if I throw away tape measures as such, my claim of immeasurability is a result of my own manipulation of the original question. How tall is the NBA player? requires a real-world process of evaluation external to the NBA player. The measuring process is indispensable to resolving the issue.
Likewise, How intelligible is my argument? requires a real-world processor, in this case, a human processor in the act of processing. When rendering some argument intelligible something happens in the real world. It is a mechanical event with a before and an after. Intelligibility is in no way embedded in either the medium or the code etched into it. It requires a human processor processing. In reading, its not extracted from the text so much as it is extracted by the human processor as stimulated by the text. Your post continues:
A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map. ~ universeness
So far so good, but as you admit, that was my argument, but next we are going to throw away the appeal to reality, like the map reader who did not check for landmarks. But this is not just repeating my argument; it is repeating my argument as if a rebuttal. Below, the phrase such is not the same refers to what difference from the sentence above? To one which is gutted of the appeal to reality
[i]Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!
So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible![/i] ~ universeness
What you consider new and improved about your version removes from consideration the appeal to the real world and to real human processors. The passage guts the concept of its relevance to reality in the same way that the duped map-reader in my post has not conferred with reality. If you remove the elements that make that appeal to reality, you can, in this manipulation, declare your own new version to be unintelligible. Somehow you consider the inadequate appeal to reality as an objection to my presentation and not itself, as youve written it, a demonstration of one of my points.
Where is your disagreement?
The map-territory analog only works sometimes. In your account, the map was purchased, which ignores the art of cartography. ~ Banno
Introducing someone skilled in the art of cartography would not change the outcome of the demonstration. Either character could have been a cartographer.
I suppose something is supernatural if it is found in the territory but not in the map. Your map-viewers are passive, and hence puzzled, but our cartographers will get out their pencil and adapt the map to fit what they see. ~ Banno
One is passive and the other is not. That was a key point in illustrating the distinction. For the purpose of the metaphor, the one who lifts up her head to spot landmarks is adapting her orientation (cognitive map) in the same way that a cartographer would. I could have made her a cartographer, but that wouldnt change the human mechanics involved.
There is nothing in the territory that cannot be added to the map. ~ Banno
That is exactly what happens with the confused map reader who looks up for a landmark and adds it to her cognitive map.
There is nothing that counts as supernatural. ~ Banno
1. My post focused on the intelligibility of a concept such as the supernatural.
2. And nothing can count as supernatural. Where do we disagree?
"infinite" and "nothing" are well understood terms. That's not a mere "claim". You said
Quoting universeness
You are mistaken.
Your bitching at me makes no difference to that argument. It does say quite a bit about you.
Only in repeating Davidson's point, from The Very Idea of a Conceptual Schema. Roughly, if we can recognise that what is before us is a map, then by that fact we must be able to read at least some of the territory in that map - a map cannot be utterly unintelligible and yet still be recognised as a map.
But I see now that I misread part of your previous post, where you were quoting @Art48, as your own work not realising that you were not using the quote feature. My apologies.
On most devices, if you highlight a piece of text you wish to quote, a "Quote" pop-up will appear, allowing you to copy-and-paste with attribution. See Forum Tips and Tricks - How to Quote
I intend no personal offense to you, by my next three sentences, it is more about personal preference and my personal tastes.
I found your response to be a little top heavy in prose and word salad.
I tried to ignore that and find any significant points that I thought you were trying to make.
I always try to adhere to the scientific KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
I find the term supernatural to be unintelligible. I also find most other placeholder terms such as 'infinite' and 'nothing,' to be unintelligible. This adds to the credence level I have for atheism, and against all theism and theosophism. So, Quoting Experience of Clarity
Your 'incorrect map,' being compared to the 'real' surroundings in the scenario you offered, was, in my opinion, a poor way to exemplify the reasoning used by theists, or anyone else, who accept the existence of the supernatural.
'True believers,' need no evidence and require no test or measure of the supernatural. They believe the supernatural is fact, because they have been indoctrinated to accept the supernatural from an early age, and they have been terrorised into accepting the content of a book, as the word of their god, Or they make a living from selling the concept of such proposed existents.
As long as the supernatural remains completely hidden, and is not empirically verified, then I maintain my very high credence level that it has no existents, and IS unintelligible. Same for other concepts such as 'nothing' and 'infinite.'
Quoting Experience of Clarity
I don't see why, as I am employing 'reality' and my human processor (brain). I just found your 'incorrect map' analogy, along with its observational solution, a bit weak.
Quoting Experience of Clarity
I agree, but again perhaps it's just down to personal preference and taste. Many people favour their own way of arriving at much the same position.
If you bitch at me Bammo, I will bitch right back at you. Have your wee tantrums, in your own padded room. Don't try to spew over me. I hope that explains ME very clearly to you.
I tried to explain my position to you, I could not give a flying f***, if you disagree with it.
Learn to be a better interlocuter or continue being surrounded by rubbish and shite of your own creation.
Oh yes it is! Do you like panto Mr Bammo?
The appropriate thing for you to do is to reply to that issue.
Perhaps I will, after you apologise for your insulting mannerisms.
Whilst you are making up your mind!
Consider the following:
1/0.5=2 days. He eats half an apple a day.
If he wants to eat the apple for three days, then:
1/0.333=3 days. The amount of apple he gets to eat per day, is reduced. Lets reduce it further.
1/0.1=10 days. Further more..
1/0.05=20 days.
1/0.001=1000 days.
1/0.000001=1000000 days. So,
1/0.0 ..001=100 00 days. And it goes on. Which means
1/0=?. So, literally we can suggest 1/0=?. But lets now consider these answers..
1/-0.5=-2 (dont ask me how there can be negative amount of apples, please)
1/-0.1=-10
1/-0.0001=-1000 and so
1/-0.00 001=-100 00. Which means,
1/-0=-?
We all know that zero is unbiased, which means there is no such thing as -0 and +0. This makes us conclude that -?=?. Which is not true.
So the above observations 1/0=? and 1/-0=-? are wrong in terms of strict math.
So the mathematicians call it UNDEFINED.
What do words like 'undefined' and 'not true' mean to you?
Do you consider the supernatural undefined and untrue?
Or do you think such questions are rubbish and shite?
You're doing the maths wrong.
BTW, how amazingly arrogant of you, to advise anyone on what is appropriate, when your manners are so low.
:lol: Are you related to @Bartricks by any chance? I know you really do want to apologise properly. Shave your knuckles first, that might help!
Then you can tell me where you think the maths I posted 'from Quora,' is wrong.
I have often heard mathematicians refer to 1/0 as 'undefined.'
I am surprised you did not know that?
Have you practiced acting like a troll for a long time, or just sometimes, on TPF?
Notions of the supernatural have little use as they are 'fringe'????
Some people make their full living from the notion.
It is an enormous aspect of traditional human storytelling.
It's been used to justify the divine right of kings to rule!
It's the foundation of all human theism and theosophisim!
The notion of the supernatural has easily as much 'USE' as the concept of infinite has in maths and physics. What are you on about????
Please try to bring it back to arguments.
Well, I have included some points, as well as respond to banno's initial insults towards me, in this thread. But, I am happy to cease and desist, even though he has not yet properly apologised, and then I would return the gesture, for being unable to resist responding in kind to his initial cheek. :halo: