Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Indagator]

I don't think it's that weird. Its not that far an offshoot from the 'sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' idea. They believe ghosts exist, but as a natural, material part of the universe that's just not yet well understood. I don't believe it's evidenced, but I wouldn't call it incoherent.

Its incoherent because their atheistic arguments can easily be used against their own position.

 

[Polymath257]

At the moment I dont have a coherent definition for "non-material" that i would be satisfied with. But non-material=supernatural... i guess.

OK/ What characterizes something as 'natural' versus 'supernatural'?

Is light 'supernatural'? How about dark matter? How about consciousness? How about mathematics?

I am sure there are differences, but i use them interchangeably.

Fair enough. To the extent that I use the term 'material', I also use the two interchangeably.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Its incoherent because their atheistic arguments can easily be used against their own position.

Such as?

 

[Jumi]

If we are talking about idealistic atheists, then all i can say is i find them very illogical. I am not even sure how to approach them (their ideas)... Materialist that believes in ghosts are even weirder, their views are internally incoherent that's for sure.

Why? If they believe ghosts are made of quantifiable matter/energy, then it's clearly not a challenge to materialism. It's not just what many of the mainstream supernatural beliefs or western fiction books and movies say.

 

[Indagator]

OK/ What characterizes something as 'natural' versus 'supernatural'?

Supernatural must be beyond the laws of nature, perhaps it should not be deterministic and be self-aware. I think self-aware objects would be very unnatural.

Is light 'supernatural'? How about dark matter? How about consciousness? How about mathematics?

Light? Nothing special about it imo
Dark matter? Nobody knows.
Consciousness? Nobody knows.
Mathematics are non-physical but not supernatural.

Such as?

Every empirical argument.

Why? If they believe ghosts are made of quantifiable matter/energy, then it's clearly not a challenge to materialism. It's not just what many of the mainstream supernatural beliefs or western fiction books and movies say.

Materialistic foundation is empirical evidence and modern science. Once a materialist starts to argue for ghosts he will lose this foundation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If Odin would rise up from Valhalla, and spirits of orcs would be running around i am sure materialist would still claim that they are somehow material.

How would they not be? I'm pretty sure they eat and drink in Valhalla. Do nonmaterial things do that?

Materialist that believes in ghosts are even weirder

How? If ghosts have characteristics at all, they can be described physically. While I accept that electricity and magnetism (as well as pharmacology) can most likely account for most ghost stories (and I loves me some good ghost stories), I also know things like certain rocks have "fossilized" ancient magnetic data from the Earth, so maybe ghosts are just "recordings" or something? Anyway, I don't care as long as there's a good ghost story to be had.

Supernatural must be beyond the laws of nature, perhaps it should not be deterministic and be self-aware.

So AI sufficient to pass the Turing test is supernatural?

 

[Indagator]

How would they not be? I'm pretty sure they eat and drink in Valhalla. Do nonmaterial things do that?

How would i know? I am not even sure if there are orcs in Valhalla...

How? If ghosts have characteristics at all, they can be described physically. While I accept that electricity and magnetism (as well as pharmacology) can most likely account for most ghost stories (and I loves me some good ghost stories), I also know things like certain rocks have "fossilized" ancient magnetic data from the Earth, so maybe ghosts are just "recordings" or something? Anyway, I don't care as long as there's a good ghost story to be had.

Already answered above.

So AI sufficient to pass the Turing test is supernatural?

If AI is self-aware and thereby have "free will" and not completely determined by nature, but have ability (because it is self-aware) to determine it self... i would say that if it is not supernatural it is definitely in a way above nature.

 

[Polymath257]

Supernatural must be beyond the laws of nature, perhaps it should not be deterministic and be self-aware. I think self-aware objects would be very unnatural.

You mean, like human bodies? Why would self-awareness be unnatural? It seems that we know of many objects (humans) that are self-aware and are quite natural.

Light? Nothing special about it imo
Dark matter? Nobody knows.

What would be needed to tell?

Consciousness? Nobody knows.

What would be needed to tell?

Mathematics are non-physical but not supernatural.

Agreed. Games and languages are still natural. So is math.

Every empirical argument.

So would an empirical detection make ghosts physical? Why or why not?

 

[Polymath257]

If AI is self-aware and thereby have "free will" and not completely determined by nature, but have ability (because it is self-aware) to determine it self... i would say that if it is not supernatural it is definitely in a way above nature.

And that is where we disagree. I'd see AI that is self-aware and self-determinative in the same way as humans as being natural. In fact, it would help us understand how our own awareness is a natural phenomenon.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How would i know?

Why is it that when asked how nonmaterial things work, the answer is 99% "I don't know"?

i would say that if it is not supernatural it is definitely in a way above nature.

But why?

In fact, it would help us understand how our own awareness is a natural phenomenon.

I agree. However, that seems to be the problem, much like how being primates is a problem: people want to believe they are 'better' than they are.

 

[Indagator]

You mean, like human bodies? Why would self-awareness be unnatural? It seems that we know of many objects (humans) that are self-aware and are quite natural.

And that is where we disagree. I'd see AI that is self-aware and self-determinative in the same way as humans as being natural. In fact, it would help us understand how our own awareness is a natural phenomenon.

Well, are we truly conscious? Maybe consciousness is just an illusion? I have yet to find any satisfying materialistic theories on conciseness.

What would be needed to tell?

dont know

So would an empirical detection make ghosts physical? Why or why not?

I would say it would make the detector schizophrenic. But we can talk about this when we will detect ghosts empirically.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Every empirical argument.

In what way?

 

[Indagator]

Why is it that when asked how nonmaterial things work, the answer is 99% "I don't know"?

Because how can anyone claim such knowledge?

But why?

umm... i actually answered it in my previous reply.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, are we truly conscious? Maybe consciousness is just an illusion? I have yet to find any satisfying materialistic theories on conciseness.

Whatever the definition of consciousness is, if we don't satisfy that criterion, it isn't a good definition of the term. And why consciousness would not be an aspect of 'natural law' is very unclear to me.

dont know

And yet, you seem to be very clear that some things would have to fall in the category of 'supernatural'. What makes you so sure?

I would say it would make the detector schizophrenic. But we can talk about this when we will detect ghosts empirically.

And I agree that the mere existence of ghosts would require such detection. The lack of detection is good evidence of their non-existence.

But that isn't the question. How would we determine if they were 'natural' or 'supernatural' once they are found?

 

[Indagator]

In what way?

just from top of my head.... Hitchens's razor

atheists usually dismiss the idea of God because they want evidence... an atheist that believes in ghosts should then apply the same reason to his believes.

 

[Indagator]

Whatever the definition of consciousness is, if we don't satisfy that criterion, it isn't a good definition of the term. And why consciousness would not be an aspect of 'natural law' is very unclear to me.

Because consciousness gives you (potentially) free will, thus control over your own nature and nature around you, more or less of course, so it puts you above the "natural law" because you can defile it (again, more or less, although with modern science it seems to be more).

And yet, you seem to be very clear that some things would have to fall in the category of 'supernatural'. What makes you so sure?

nah, not at all, i am just speculating.

And I agree that the mere existence of ghosts would require such detection. The lack of detection is good evidence of their non-existence.

But that isn't the question. How would we determine if they were 'natural' or 'supernatural' once they are found?

One could begin to see if they are beyond the laws of nature. Like if they can make sounds without vibration etc etc........

 

[ADigitalArtist]

just from top of my head.... Hitchens's razor

atheists usually dismiss the idea of God because they want evidence... an atheist that believes in ghost should then apply the same reason to his believe in ghosts

First of all, not all atheists are materialists, so we already know not all atheists accept Hitchen's razor. Second of all Hitchens razor only applies when you're trying to convince the other party, and an atheist materialist who believes in ghosts might not be trying to make an argument for their belief. They could easily say they've experienced something they can't demonstrate, and the weight of their experience is enough reason to convince them.

Not unlike the first people who saw black swans before it was officially documented. They wouldn't have been able to demonstrate their findings, but Hitchens razor would have meant, ultimately dismissing a claim which was valid until evidence could be obtained.

An atheist materialist would respond to requests of evidence with 'I believe it's currently (but not absolutely) beyond our means to obtain evidence, but I have my reasons for believing it to be true.'

 

[Polymath257]

Because consciousness gives you (potentially) free will, thus control over your own nature and nature around you, more or less of course, so it puts you above the "natural law" because you can defile it (again, more or less, although with modern science it seems to be more).

1. Why would consciousness give free will?
2. Why would free will automatically give you control 'above' natural law (as opposed to being one aspect of natural law)?

nah, not at all, i am just speculating.

Fair enough.

One could begin to see if they are beyond the laws of nature. Like if they can make sounds without vibration etc etc........

Hmmm...making sounds without vibration is simply a contradiction. If a sound is picked up by a microphone, it is because of a vibration. In any case, they would be interacting quite strongly with natural objects, including a strong violation of the conservation of energy unless they are counted as physical. That seems to be good reason to classify them as physical.

 

[Indagator]

First of all, not all atheists are materialists, so we already know not all atheists accept Hitchen's razor. Second of all Hitchens razor only applies when you're trying to convince the other party, and an atheist materialist who believes in ghosts might not be trying to make an argument for their belief. They could easily say they've experienced something they can't demonstrate, and the weight of their experience is enough reason to convince them.

I know that not all atheists are materialists, but i thought we were talking about the material kind because of this post:

I don't think it's that weird. Its not that far an offshoot from the 'sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' idea. They believe ghosts exist, but as a natural, material part of the universe that's just not yet well understood. I don't believe it's evidenced, but I wouldn't call it incoherent.

An atheist materialist would respond to requests of evidence with 'I believe it's currently (but not absolutely) beyond our means to obtain evidence, but I have my reasons for believing it to be true.'

If an argument that you use to "debunk" other people beliefs can also "debunk" your beliefs, it is either a bad argument or the position that you are using the argument from is inappropriate for the argument. Materialistic atheists that believe in ghosts are in a very bad position since when it comes to evidence, God and ghosts are in the same boat, well almost.

Also lets not forget that "where is your evidence?" is perhaps the most important atheistic argument.

 

[Polymath257]

just from top of my head.... Hitchens's razor

atheists usually dismiss the idea of God because they want evidence... an atheist that believes in ghosts should then apply the same reason to his believes.

And atheists that don't believe in ghosts?