What is naturalism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that we *know* and have proven that such is impossible, even in the limited arena of mathematics.

But that doesn't mean that everything is random, either.

Even though there are many self-consistent axiom systems, there are still systems that are better than others: more expressive, easier to work with, capable of better results, etc.

For example, trying to do math without the axiom of choice is an experience no mathematician will forget. Very quickly one learns why that particular axiom is adopted.

Nor does it mean that everything is physical/objective/reducible to observation and what not.

BTW Better is subjective and you can't express better in purely physical observation or detect it.
You really have to learn to catch, when you are subjective. That would be better.

 

[Polymath257]

3 options:
Natural
Supernatural
Neither works for everything, because everything is not coherent for only one methodology.

Further the supernatural is in practice subjective. That is how I subjectively can believe in God and you can subjectively demand in effect objective evidence for everything. Everything is neither objective/physical/natural nor subjective/mental/cultural, but you insist on a single methodology which must be coherent. That is your problem, not mine.

Once again, you haven't defined what the terms 'natural' and 'supernatural' even mean.

Specifically, what does it mean to say that something is 'natural'?

 

[Polymath257]

Nor does it mean that everything is physical/objective/reducible to observation and what not.

Give me something that you know exists in the real world that is not reducible to observation.

BTW Better is subjective and you can't express better in purely physical observation or detect it.
You really have to learn to catch, when you are subjective. That would be better.

Actually, in this case, that is wrong. The better/worse designation is for the specific goal of constructing models to explain observations. Some axiom systems make that easier. others make it more difficult.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, you haven't defined what the terms 'natural' and 'supernatural' even mean.

Specifically, what does it mean to say that something is 'natural'?

Well, any standard definition will do, which demand objectivity in the end. It is not that it is natural. It is that you in effect try to explain everything in strong objective terms. You can't.
It has nothing to do with the natural and supernatural. It is empiricism, everything can only be known through the external senses.
Well, I know that this is an idea. It is subjective, because it is cognitive. So I know what it is. How to do it. And how to falsify it and show the falsification of it. You can't only know through the external senses the meaning of this sentence. You need to see it, but the meaning is not seeing it.

So as always, you are the rational objectivist and I use subjectivity as a skeptic and retreat to this:
" "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Measure is not your instruments. It is what makes sense subjectively. It is limited cognitive relativism. The moment you in effect say objective, I answer subjective.
That is the trick with objective reality. The world/universe/everything is not just objective reality. I just have to do something subjective, which can only be sensed internally in the mind and you are in effect dead in the water.
You can't see meaning. It is that simple.

 

[Goddess Kit]

The word salad is intense in this one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

I take it to mean the claim / position that ONLY the natural exists. It's a claim to knowledge with high certainty.

While methodological naturalism, is merely like a working hypothesis to provide a context in which scientific inquiry is possible.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, any standard definition will do, which demand objectivity in the end. It is not that it is natural. It is that you in effect try to explain everything in strong objective terms. You can't.
It has nothing to do with the natural and supernatural. It is empiricism, everything can only be known through the external senses.

Not quite my position. For example, mathematics can be known without sensory input. So can logic.

But neither of those can give any information about the real world. For that, you need sensory information.

Well, I know that this is an idea. It is subjective, because it is cognitive. So I know what it is. How to do it. And how to falsify it and show the falsification of it. You can't only know through the external senses the meaning of this sentence. You need to see it, but the meaning is not seeing it.

No, it is not subjective. It is deifnitional. Those are two different things.

So as always, you are the rational objectivist and I use subjectivity as a skeptic and retreat to this:
" "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Measure is not your instruments. It is what makes sense subjectively. It is limited cognitive relativism. The moment you in effect say objective, I answer subjective.

Whether or not it is correct and appropriate.

That is the trick with objective reality. The world/universe/everything is not just objective reality. I just have to do something subjective, which can only be sensed internally in the mind and you are in effect dead in the water.
You can't see meaning. It is that simple.

But, ultimately, the mind is a physical process as well. So it becomes objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Give me something that you know exists in the real world that is not reducible to observation.



Actually, in this case, that is wrong. The better/worse designation is for the specific goal of constructing models to explain observations. Some axiom systems make that easier. others make it more difficult.

The specific goal is subjective, because it is a goal for somebody in a subjective sense.

Let me explain something to you. What I have learned, I have learned in part from your kind. The scientific skeptics. So they taught me to spot subjectivity . But most of them don't do well, when it comes to the limits of objectivity/naturalism/science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not quite my position. For example, mathematics can be known without sensory input. So can logic.

But neither of those can give any information about the real world. For that, you need sensory information.
...

Real is subjective. You can't see real. It has no objective referent. Real is no different than God. You have to believe in a positive sense for you to take it for real.

Here is a black dog. You can see that it is black. Now tell me how you see a real world?

 

[Polymath257]

The specific goal is subjective, because it is a goal for somebody in a subjective sense.

Let me explain something to you. What I have learned, I have learned in part from your kind. The scientific skeptics. So they taught me to spot subjectivity . But most of them don't do well, when it comes to the limits of objectivity/naturalism/science.

Yes, of course it is a subjective goal. But once you set understanding as a goal, the rest follows objectively. if that is not your goal, then no need to worry.

 

[Polymath257]

Real is subjective. You can't see real. It has no objective referent. Real is no different than God. You have to believe in a positive sense for you to take it for real.

Here is a black dog. You can see that it is black. Now tell me how you see a real world?

By, among other things, opening my eyes.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Real is subjective. You can't see real. It has no objective referent. Real is no different than God. You have to believe in a positive sense for you to take it for real.

Here is a black dog. You can see that it is black. Now tell me how you see a real world?

Instead of writing that there is a black dog there, why don't we meet in person so that you can show me the black dog?

You do see how that works, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, of course it is a subjective goal. But once you set understanding as a goal, the rest follows objectively. if that is not your goal, then no need to worry.

No, understanding e.g. the subjective part of being a human doesn't follow objectively. Now turn the subjective goal into only based on observation or detection through instruments. Subjectivity is not a part of the real world, remember! Rememer it has to be express in physical terms.
I demand in the name of science only objectivity. I learned that from you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By, among other things, opening my eyes.

So what does real look like?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Instead of writing that there is a black dog there, why don't we meet in person so that you can show me the black dog?

You do see how that works, right?

So if you open your eyes and see the real world, what does real look like?

 

[Goddess Kit]

So what does real look like?

Is it that you don't understand what something being real is or is it that you want to be obtuse? My guess is that you have decided that the latter provides you with more pleasure as you figures it annoys them.

 

[Goddess Kit]

So if you open your eyes and see the real world, what does real look like?

A world where nothing supernatural exists, including deities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it that you don't understand what something being real is or is it that you want to be obtuse? My guess is that you have decided that the latter provides you with more pleasure as you figures it annoys them.

I don't believe in real, because I can't see it. I have never seen it. Have you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A world where nothing supernatural exists, including deities.

I have never seen existence. What does it look like?

 

[Goddess Kit]

I don't believe in real, because I can't see it. I have never seen it. Have you?

There are other factors other than sight which allows us to determine the reality in which we reside, or have you forgotten those in your trolling adventure?