Posit: The Concept of the Supernatural Cannot Exist.

[lovemuffin]

But you can perfectly adequately argue it from a semantic point of view, it's simply that few people have a good understanding of semantics. So I could say: that if an event with the label 'supernatural' has a referent or an operant (that is, subject to an operation), then it immediately loses the label 'supernatural' and acquires the label 'natural'.

I'm OK with that.

Edit: although I separate natural and physical, which is likely the actual disagreement

 

[Faybull]

what orbits around what? Im guessing here i think it is a surprise.

like, uhm, how do they say it? irony? comedic tragedy? Or is it a tragic comedy?

 

[Mycroft]

I'm OK with that.

Edit: although I separate natural and physical, which is likely the actual disagreement

There's no need to separate the 'natural' from the 'physical'. 'Physics' after all is just another study of a facet of what we label 'nature.' And all of nature's mechanisms are 'physical' mechanisms (such as photosynthesis).

As a general semantic rule, the name is not the thing!

 

[Scott C.]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Whether we mean 'supernatural' in terms of religious miracles, or whether we mean it in terms of ghosts or other such events, I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

Conjecture:

Anything with the label 'supernatural' which is found to be a real part of the physical world (let us say someone proves ghosts exist), then whatever is behind that must be underpinned by a scientific principle and must, therefore, be a natural occurrence (assuming that no technology is the cause).

Anything natural cannot be supernatural, and anything supernatural which is proveable is, by default, natural, meaning that the concept fo the supernatural cannot exist.

Discuss.

I think I get what you're saying and I agree. This is not a question of semantics. The "supernatural" does not exist. Anything that exists in any form, be it physical or spiritual or "miraculous" is perfectly natural. Although we generally define the "supernatural" as that which appears to defy nature, such as a miracle from God. If we could understand how God performs those miracles, we would see that they are natural. The natural laws behind such occurrences may be entirely unfamiliar and incomprehensible to the human mind. But God has a perfect understanding of all things and can do anything. Everything he does is "natural" to him.

 

[Bunyip]

That by being so, it is a perfectly (what we call) natural thing and not a supernatural thing at all.

I'm not sure I understand. 'Spirit' comes from a Hebrew word for breath - because they believed the breath to hold the spark of life. The idea that it is some sort of energy or quanta is simply a later distortion. Spirit doesn't really exist whether natural or supernatural - it is just an example of an ancient concept metamorphosised by time. Not a quality, quanta or force of the physical universe.

And that this applies to everything else. So everything currently considered 'supernatural' that can be found to 'have a basis in physicality' (shall we say?) is automatically not supernatural. So there can be no such thing as the 'supernatural' as an entire concept.

But we have found no measurable componant to 'spirit', it is only considered supernatural because of the way the original concept mutated over time. Breath is already known to be natural.

 

[Mycroft]

I think I get what you're saying and I agree. This is not a question of semantics. The "supernatural" does not exist. Anything that exists in any form, be it physical or spiritual is perfectly natural and is part of the natural universe. Although I would say that we generally define the "supernatural" as that which appears to defy nature, such as a miracle from God. If we could understand how God performs those miracles, we would see that they are natural. The natural laws behind such occurrences may be entirely unfamiliar and incomprehensible to the human mind. But God has a perfect understanding of all things and can do anything. Everything he does is "natural" to him.

Therein lies the conundrum. Can anything defy nature? Anything kind of agency acting upon the physical (turning water into wine) must do so by physical, measurable, scientific means. Which means that the act has no defied nature.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think I need to clarify. I'm not happy with my last post. I'm short on time right now. What I would actually take issue with is the insistence on the ontology of fundamental physics being the only reality, and on the insistence of measurability, repeatability, and reductionism. Actually with regard to measurability QM already creates problems for that view, i.e in terms of the uncertainty principle.

Ultimately I don't think that physical reality is ontologically separate from the spirit, but it is distinct in its ineffability, incommensurability with the physical, reducibility to the physical and etc. And I can't solve the interaction problem but it's not a logical impossibility, just a difficulty.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not sure I understand. 'Spirit' comes from a Hebrew word for breath - because they believed the breath to hold the spark of life. The idea that it is some sort of energy or quanta is simply a later distortion. Spirit doesn't really exist whether natural or supernatural - it is just an example of an ancient concept metamorphosised by time. Not a quality, quanta or force of the physical universe.
But we have found no measurable componant to 'spirit', it is only considered supernatural because of the way the original concept mutated over time. Breath is already known to be natural.

You're starting to go down a semantic rabbit hole. Define 'spark of life'.

 

[Scott C.]

Therein lies the conundrum. Can anything defy nature? Anything kind of agency acting upon the physical (turning water into wine) must do so by physical, measurable, scientific means. Which means that the act has no defied nature.

I agree that changing water to wine does not defy nature. But when Jesus suddenly and inexplicably changes water to wine, it certainly appears to defy nature and so we call it a miracle. If we were sufficiently intelligent, Jesus could explain how he used higher laws of "nature" to do what he did. But, we're not smart enough to get it.

 

[Bunyip]

It's fine to use words as "commonly defined", and I won't even argue about what the common definition is. But if you want to discuss either spirit or any form of dualism in regard to philosophy of mind, you're going to have to understand those who speak about those things to be using an "uncommon" definition.

Oh believe me I am painfully aware of that - they use a different definition (one which they generally refuse to express) and can't appear to get past criticising me for using the conventional one. As if simply attacking somebody and claiming that they are 'demanding', 'insisting', 'dictating', 'denying' etc etc etc just for using words as they are commonly used along with applying their own unspoken and unique definition establishes 'spirit' as some kind of quanta or existent quality. It is like trying to conjure up a spiritual universe from word games alone.

I apologize if I've simply misunderstood all your posts on the subject, to me it has never been clear at all that you were willing to do that, since the conversation kept sticking on whether or not it was possible for the non-physical to be "real". I don't think there's any real objection to stipulating that the word "real" has to be understood to include the possibility of that which is non-physical.

The conversation endlessly 'sticks at that point' no matter how I try to progress it - at this point I assume (pretty safely I think) that it is because word play is all the argument for the 'reality' of 'spirit' that there is.

It's sort of the same for what quartermass said about spirit needing to be measurable. If you assume materialism, there is no conversation, since materialism is logically incompatible with what people call "spirit". In order to talk about it, you have to at least suspend judgement on the question long enough to consider the possibility that materialism is false. Or else the conversation ends with Me: "I experience the reality of the Spirit" and You: "All that exists is material and therefore there is no spirit"

Change that to 'All that is known to exist and can be demonstrated to exist is material, therefore there is no good reason to believe in 'spirit''. But sure, you are saying that unless your opponant concedes your worldview from the outset - it is impossible to discuss this amorphous 'spirit' is 'real' idea.

 

[Bunyip]

You're starting to go down a semantic rabbit hole. Define 'spark of life'.

I believe I did so, but to clarify: The spark of life - The breath. The air expelled by a living creature.

 

[Bunyip]

That by being so, it is a perfectly (what we call) natural thing and not a supernatural thing at all. And that this applies to everything else. So everything currently considered 'supernatural' that can be found to 'have a basis in physicality' (shall we say?) is automatically not supernatural. So there can be no such thing as the 'supernatural' as an entire concept.

Sure, I can see that. Cheers.

 

[Bunyip]

I think I need to clarify. I'm not happy with my last post. I'm short on time right now. What I would actually take issue with is the insistence on the ontology of fundamental physics being the only reality, and on the insistence of measurability, repeatability, and reductionism. Actually with regard to measurability QM already creates problems for that view, i.e in terms of the uncertainty principle.

What insistence? Who is it you believe is 'insisting' that?

Ultimately I don't think that physical reality is ontologically separate from the spirit, but it is distinct in its ineffability, incommensurability with the physical, reducibility to the physical and etc. And I can't solve the interaction problem but it's not a logical impossibility, just a difficulty.

 

[Mycroft]

I believe I did so, but to clarify: The spark of life - The breath. The air expelled by a living creature.

so one possible referent of 'spirit' would be 'respiration'?

 

[Bunyip]

so one possible referent of 'spirit' would be 'respiration'?

Yes, that is what the Hebrew word 'spirit' is drawn from meant. 'Ruach' literally means breath, or wind. It is the only referent I know of.

In Hebrew breath, wind and spirit are synonyms.

The Latin 'spiritus' also means ' breath'.

 

[Sees]

Yes, that is what the Hebrew word 'spirit' is drawn from meant. 'Ruach' literally means breath, or wind. It is the only referent I know of.

Önd, ki, chi, prana are all similar.

 

[Bunyip]

Önd, ki, chi, prana are all similar.

Thankyou, I am not familiar with those terms. But yes, many languages have words that are synonymous.

 

[lovemuffin]

Change that to 'All that is known to exist and can be demonstrated to exist is material, therefore there is no good reason to believe in 'spirit''. But sure, you are saying that unless your opponant concedes your worldview from the outset - it is impossible to discuss this amorphous 'spirit' is 'real' idea.

I don't think it requires concession to the correctness of that worldview, but certainly an openness to put in brackets ideas that are contrary to your own.

With regard to demonstrations, what I would say is that you can't approach a demonstration of the spiritual in the way you approach demonstrating the reality of an electron. Every field of study has its own methods that allow it to approach it's subject. The nature of "spirit", as it is proposed, is not like the nature of an electron. Within the Christian tradition, what is needed is purity of heart. That means a way of life and a practice which allows a person to approach the spiritual with their whole being, not as a purely intellectual exercise. It's not a purely objective demonstration. But prayer, meditation, dispassion, silence of the mind and body, those are the methods. The only possible objective evidence is whatever can be gleaned from the near universality of these kinds of paths and the testimony of those who have walked them.

What insistence? Who is it you believe is 'insisting' that?

I was referring to this post, "then it must be measurable".

If the 'spirit' did/does exist, then it must be measurable, and made up of materials familiar to the natural and scientific world (like atoms, electrons, quarks, etc).

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think it requires concession to the correctness of that worldview, but certainly an openness to put in brackets ideas that are contrary to your own.

What idea 'contrary to my own' are you imagining that I am not open to? And why assume so much based only on my use of words as they are commonly used? Please be specific.

With regard to demonstrations, what I would say is that you can't approach a demonstration of the spiritual in the way you approach demonstrating the reality of an electron. Every field of study has its own methods that allow it to approach it's subject. The nature of "spirit", as it is proposed, is not like the nature of an electron. Within the Christian tradition, what is needed is purity of heart. That means a way of life and a practice which allows a person to approach the spiritual with their whole being, not as a purely intellectual exercise. It's not a purely objective demonstration. But prayer, meditation, dispassion, silence of the mind and body, those are the methods. The only possible objective evidence is whatever can be gleaned from the near universality of these kinds of paths and the testimony of those who have walked them.




I was referring to this post, "then it must be measurable".

How are you defining 'spirit'?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Whether we mean 'supernatural' in terms of religious miracles, or whether we mean it in terms of ghosts or other such events, I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

Conjecture:

Anything with the label 'supernatural' which is found to be a real part of the physical world (let us say someone proves ghosts exist), then whatever is behind that must be underpinned by a scientific principle and must, therefore, be a natural occurrence (assuming that no technology is the cause).

Anything natural cannot be supernatural, and anything supernatural which is proveable is, by default, natural, meaning that the concept fo the supernatural cannot exist.

Discuss.

Many people would say things that are supernatural are just unexplained phenomena. If it can be explained, it's natural, the existence of this natural thing makes sense, does not contradict reality, and can be shown why it exists.

If it can be explained, and the existence is rational, it's natural. If it cannot be explained and it shouldn't have happened. Those are hard to come by, at least in the physical side of reality.

I do agree though, most of these things constantly associated with it (eg. ghosts, magic, demons, etc), have the potential of being understood and reasonable, we just haven't found it yet. I personally don't like to call things supernatural if they will one day be naturally explained, just not today. This understanding of 'supernatural' is more common than cats that like boxes

But I do believe there are some things that are supernatural. What I mean by supernatural, I mean, there are things that have no reason to be that way, they just are. Such as the laws of physics themselves, the fact there is something and not nothing, and the "stranger" operating this meat suit is actually yourself.

Like I said though, it's not too often to happen in physical nature. IMO, the last supernatural event might have been the big bang itself. The very instant that existence began to exist is random and has no 'why'. Thus it is supernatural. Everything after this bang is natural, as far as we know, reality is predictable to us humans. At least the materialistic part is.

The very instant of the big bang has determined that I ate reese's puff cereal. So to put that into effect. hope this made sense