What is Supernatural?

This: Contradicts this: Nothing that is empirically undetectable can also be claimed to exist. That doesn't make sense.Supernatural is a word that describes nothing...nothing at all. It's a made up term that lacks any kind of conceptual description. It is a cop-out word for anyone that is unwilling to admit that they are full of shit when they don't understand an aspect of reality, yet invoke some unknown element by default.- Oni

Really? And you amaze us with this example: Umm, who says it exists? Once again, as in the String Theory thread, you supporters of invisible things try to equate "supernatural" or "god/s" with certain hypothesis in theoretical physics. Give it a rest.Lets see: multi-verse. As opposed to uni-verse. Single uni-verse; multiple universes. We can see one, certain evidence points to the possibility of many. It's a workable hypothesis at best - currently.However: supernatural. You claim it's ''anything that is outisde of nature'' or our space-time. In other words, nonsense. You have explained it using a collection of words that mean nothing.But, the difference is, a theoretical physicist could explain to you what is meant by 'multi-verse' and provide equations, etc. to support their hypothesis.You on the other hand, have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support an "outside of nature/spacetime". In fact, you don't even know what that means.So it's not the same at all.My point stands: If you can't detect it, you can't claim it exists. At best, you can formulate a hypothesis based off of other empirically detectable evidence - in the case of the multiverse, you can use our universe as an example for the possibility of a multitude of other universes.In the case of the word supernatural, what would you use? Your beliefs?- Oni

Hi Slevesque, Again, who? From what I understand about it, it's a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. I took that tone due to your complete dismissal of my points by simply pointing to a multiverse and assuming it established your point.As for my definition of supernatural, I was clear in msg #4

quote:

---

It's a made up term that lacks any kind of conceptual description.

---

I think, iirc, cavediver has explained it many times to mean absolutely nothing. It, like supernatural, lacks any kind of conceptual description. There is no "outside of reality". Agreed.Again, the best you can do is formulate a hypothesis. Cool.- Oni

I would say that it can neither be shown nor claimed to exist, as in "exist in reality," because to do either, some element of empirical detection must come into play. At some point. If not, you are guessing at something that, for all extent and purposes, is a figment of your imagination.In fact, how could you distinguish between the two if no manner of empirical detection is available?- Oni

Ok. I agree. Which is how I explained it to Meldinor.Anyone can guess that IPU's exist, but it's nothing more than a guess. For this to be the case, at some point, there has to be some level of empirical detection - I don't see how we get around that?If 'experienced' then there, that's the empirical element. Now further investigation can proceed. So it's not inherently undetectable, it is a part of reality and nature, somehow this person experienced it.Now either the person is full of shit about their experience, or wrong that what they claim to have experienced is supernatural. If I'm wrong then explain cuz I'm stuck here. Perhaps you could clarrify.If an experience is claimed to be supernatural yet experienced in reality, on earth, in nature, by a sentient being, how can it also be considered supernatural? This doesn't make sense.By "nothing at all," I mean the word 'supernatural' itself means nothing at all. I'm sure something will motivate you back to the dark side. - Oni

Ummm, I guess. I have no idea. I would regard it as a story, turned into a movie, with special effects. Where would the supernatural part come in? Maybe I'm not following.- Oni

Well, sure, we can agree that the person has a concept, but a concept of what is where it falls apart. The person claims it's god. Ok. How do they know?So I wouldn't say the concept doesn't exist. I agree that it does. A concept of "something" exists, in whatever state concepts occur neurologically. Hmm, I believe, and we can debate this if you like, that objective reality and subjective reality are the same thing. They exist within the same parameters and restricted by the same things.To say that something exists subjectively but not objetively is contradictory. If you produce a concept, neurologically, it exists in objective reality. That science isn't technologically there yet to be able to read your mind is another thing.What the person who had the experience can't do is explain to you the emotional aspect the concept produced internally within them. They can't translate this to you using meer words. But even with emotions we know that they are simply chemical reactions, so it's still something we can objectively detect. Concepts of things that humans have claimed to be supernatural (with no evidence mind you) like god/s, spirits, ghosts, etc. are just words describing fictional things. And I mean fictional in the literary sense, since both of us can agree that these things don't actually exist.But can it have meaning? Absolutely. And it should. Humans created it based off their emotions; it's no wonder other humans can build an emotional attatchment as well. No. I love fiction. It exists in many areas of human culture, like in books and stories. I think it has value there (entertainment) and shows how creative we are as a species. In that sense, yes of course. Again, though, even concepts exist in reality. Unless you're going to take a dualistic view of reality where the mind is seperate from the brain? I believe in the past you've argued otherwise, not sure.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Oh yeah, sure. Of course. In that sense, what Straggler called a "vague sense of the word," sure.Don't get me wrong, I know what the definition of the word is in a fictional sense. I wasn't disputing that.- oni

Hi slevesque, I have to disagree, and the science geeks can confirm or correct my understanding of it.As I understand it, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. It is not a staement, it is not a belief, it is not a claim; it is a possible answer to an observable phenomenon.The difference with "supernatural" is it doesn't explain anything. It is the antithesis of an explanation in fact. It's basically a gap filler, a default word used when no known naturalistic explanation is available - or at least not known to the person. Yeah I see, but why? What makes you think some aspect of reality isn't natural?I get what you're saying, I just don't understand how it makes sense. Interesting. I personally don't see how you can make the distinction between one and the other. To me, reality is nature and nature is reality.There are aspects of reality that we are limited in our understanding of it and our ability to investigate it, that I can agree with, but it would still be natural and part of our reality - the difference being, our view of reality would extend beyond the current limits.- Oni

In complete disagreement. Experience when we die? Not unless Harry Potter himself waves his wand and brings you back to life can any sensory function in your body experience anything after the body is clinically dead.Here's something I always found rather odd: It is claimed that the afterlife is immaterial, unlike this reality which is made of atoms, elements, etc. Yet it is also claimed that there is a lake of "fire." Which seems rather contradictory: (a) it is immaterial, yet (b) it contains oxygen and atoms, heat, etc....?Likewise, after my sensory system stops working, it would be contradictory to say I'll "experience" something post death.It's all too confusing to me.- Oni

In this context I meant after one dies. There's a philospher, former physicist, named Max Velmans who has proposed a theory equal to what you describe above - which I actually agree with (not that that means anything, lol).His theory is called Reflexive Monism.

quote:

---

In its evolution from some primal undifferentiated state, the universe differentiates into distinguishable physical entities, at least some of which have the potential for conscious experience, such as human beings. While remaining embedded within and dependent on the surrounding universe and composed of the same fundamental stuff, each human, equipped with perceptual and cognitive systems has an individual perspective on, or view of, both the rest of the universe and him or her self. In this sense, each human participates in a process whereby the universe differentiates into parts and becomes conscious in manifold ways of itself, making the entire process reflexive.

---

Basically, we are all one consciousness experiencing life subjectively. Well in the context I was talking about, there definitely is an after death. When I die life goes on and I am left to decompose. Consciousness, or at least my conscious mind goes with it. Consciousness is a sum of all parts, so once the system is done functioning one is no longer conscious.At least that's how I've understood it.- Oni

Sometimes even by they themselves, like Hawking did. I wouldn't be confident enough to speak for everyone in science. Perhaps some are more stuborn than others, but that seems irrelevant for science as a whole. How can you approach reality in any other way? The only way to understand the world you exist in is through a naturalist approach, no other way has given any answers.I go where the evidence takes me. I don't start with any preconceived notions. Any phenomenon requires an explanation. The best, and only, method to understand it has proven time and time again to be naturalistic. Can you provide evidence otherwise? My approach to any question is using the scientific method. If I see a bag flying through the air I don't assume invisible pixies are carrying it; I assume it is the wind - this is a naturalistic approach.Can you provide evidence that another type of approach has proven successful?- Oni

Hi ICANT, Actually I've heard it from many religious people from many different religions. Including christianity.Whether they are right or wrong I couldn't tell you; I just found it odd that they could hold to such contradictory beliefs - or cognitive dissonance. Is it clear? Does it state "physical"?Can you provide a verse (or whatever it's called) from the Bible that states it (just for my own knowledge). That's interesting. I wonder if we would try to understand that world in the same manner that we investigate this one? Would we try to do science there or try to figure out where it is located in the physical space that it takes place in?If we are conscious then we come to it with our knowledge, but many, especially those who died last, would be much more educated than those who lived 10,000 years ago; would we try to teach them? Would there be school? Or is that kind of information even relevant?Have you, being someone of faith, every asked questions like that before? Again this is just for my personal knowledge.- Oni

So no point of creation, thus god was never needed. I think you're finally getting it. - Oni

Wow, that was deep, dude...you've changed my whole outlook on reality. - Oni