Is there a supernatural?

[One Above All]

Anything could be reduced to 'chemicals released by the brain'.  So I don't see that meaning much. 

I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must present evidence for your claims.[1]

1.	In case you didn't notice, the claim you made is implied by your reply; the claim being that there are things that cannot be reduced to "chemicals released by the brain".

[Azdgari]

You should see it as meaning more than you do, Gill.  Especially when you're proposing the idea that the universe is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical (ie. that the supernatural exists).

[Gill]

Anything could be reduced to 'chemicals released by the brain'.  So I don't see that meaning much. 

I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must present evidence for your claims.[1]

1.	In case you didn't notice, the claim you made is implied by your reply; the claim being that there are things that cannot be reduced to "chemicals released by the brain".

http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

[Gill]

You should see it as meaning more than you do, Gill.  Especially when you're proposing the idea that the universe is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical (ie. that the supernatural exists).

I don't see how a supernatural thing makes it incoherent.  It just means naturalism cannot fully account.

[Hatter23]

You should see it as meaning more than you do, Gill.  Especially when you're proposing the idea that the universe is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical (ie. that the supernatural exists).

I don't see how a supernatural thing makes it incoherent.  It just means naturalism cannot fully account.

How many appeals to ignorance are you going to make before you figure out why an appeal to ignorance in't a good reason to believe in something?

[One Above All]

http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

According to some research I did (yup, I took your link seriously), it appears that her "NDE" started before she reached the "D" part. In fact, she reported hearing things (when her "NDE feeling" started) that she could only have heard while under anesthesia. However, the case does warrant more research into NDE. And I mean new research; not the same old, debunked cases I (and others) hear all the time when discussing it.

[Azdgari]

I don't see how a supernatural thing makes it incoherent.  It just means naturalism cannot fully account.

If the "supernatural" behaved in a describable fashion that did not contradict naturalism (ie., if it was coherent with reality), then it would not be suprnatural.  It would instead be an extension of naturalism.

[Gill]

I don't see how a supernatural thing makes it incoherent.  It just means naturalism cannot fully account.

If the "supernatural" behaved in a describable fashion that did not contradict naturalism (ie., if it was coherent with reality), then it would not be suprnatural.  It would instead be an extension of naturalism.

Ok, but things which contradict naturalism don't necessarily mean naturalism is false; it could just be an inherent limitation within the framework of naturalism itself....

[Gill]

You should see it as meaning more than you do, Gill.  Especially when you're proposing the idea that the universe is fundamentally incoherent and nonsensical (ie. that the supernatural exists).

I don't see how a supernatural thing makes it incoherent.  It just means naturalism cannot fully account.

How many appeals to ignorance are you going to make before you figure out why an appeal to ignorance in't a good reason to believe in something?

Nothing to do with appeals to ignorance.   Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline.   I.e. not everything can be measured and quantified;  that doesn't mean that which cannot does not exist....

[Azdgari]

Ok, but things which contradict naturalism don't necessarily mean naturalism is false; it could just be an inherent limitation within the framework of naturalism itself....

This does not address what I said.

[Hatter23]

Nothing to do with appeals to ignorance.   Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline.   I.e. not everything can be measured and quantified;  that doesn't mean that which cannot does not exist....

Yes, actually it is. The Flying Spaghetti monster is a demonstration as to why, so is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. One can make up an infinity of things that are outside the scope of what can be measured and quantified. Until there is a way to measure and quantify them, there's no good reason to think they exist.

[jeremy0]

Nothing to do with appeals to ignorance.   Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline.   I.e. not everything can be measured and quantified;  that doesn't mean that which cannot does not exist....

Yes, actually it is. The Flying Spaghetti monster is a demonstration as to why, so is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. One can make up an infinity of things that are outside the scope of what can be measured and quantified. Until there is a way to measure and quantify them, there's no good reason to think they exist.

Nice expl., hatter.

[Graybeard]

Nothing to do with appeals to ignorance.

I will show you that it is.

Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline.

Neither you nor I know what you mean by "a certain discipline", Nevertheless, you claim that we are ignorant of "Some things"?

So you ask us to accept ignorance and say it is not an appeal to ignorance?

You are in fact saying, "We are ignorant of it, therefore it must be a god."

I.e. not everything can be measured and quantified;  that doesn't mean that which cannot does not exist....

Not everything has a mass, length, width, temperature, etc.

The things that lack all these substantive attributes are often called , "abstract nouns" They have no existence as such but are recognised as attributes, just as "green" "hot" "long" "old" are attributes (or as we say, "adjectives")

You cannot have a bucket, pound, five foot, of hate or thought. These are abstracts. They have no existence of their own. A cloud of hate does not exist. Such nouns have to be attributed to someone or something.

You complain about not being able to measure them, yet we know when there is little love or much difficulty or deep thought - we quantify them. We can quantify them quite accurately using language.

However, one difficulty with abstract nouns and abstracts in general is "If nobody is sure what it is or if nobody can agree what it is, then the chances are that it really does not have an actual physical existence."

[Gill]

Nothing to do with appeals to ignorance.

I will show you that it is.

Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline.

Neither you nor I know what you mean by "a certain discipline", Nevertheless, you claim that we are ignorant of "Some things"?

So you ask us to accept ignorance and say it is not an appeal to ignorance?

You are in fact saying, "We are ignorant of it, therefore it must be a god."

I.e. not everything can be measured and quantified;  that doesn't mean that which cannot does not exist....

Not everything has a mass, length, width, temperature, etc.

The things that lack all these substantive attributes are often called , "abstract nouns" They have no existence as such but are recognised as attributes, just as "green" "hot" "long" "old" are attributes (or as we say, "adjectives")

You cannot have a bucket, pound, five foot, of hate or thought. These are abstracts. They have no existence of their own. A cloud of hate does not exist. Such nouns have to be attributed to someone or something.

You complain about not being able to measure them, yet we know when there is little love or much difficulty or deep thought - we quantify them. We can quantify them quite accurately using language.

However, one difficulty with abstract nouns and abstracts in general is "If nobody is sure what it is or if nobody can agree what it is, then the chances are that it really does not have an actual physical existence."

Qualia can't be quantified/measured;  yet, people seem to think they have qualia.   I know I do.

[One Above All]

Qualia can't be quantified/measured;  yet, people seem to think they have qualia.   I know I do.

"Qualia" being defined as perceptions? They certainly can be quantified. Ever heard of something called "the brain"?
Gill, seriously, you need to do some research before you open your mouth. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Gill]

Qualia can't be quantified/measured;  yet, people seem to think they have qualia.   I know I do.

"Qualia" being defined as perceptions? They certainly can be quantified. Ever heard of something called "the brain"?
Gill, seriously, you need to do some research before you open your mouth. You're embarrassing yourself.

   Quaila;  someone's internal subjective experience.   You can measure that?  Ok.......

[One Above All]

  Quaila;  someone's internal subjective experience.   You can measure that?  Ok.......

Yes. Once again, have you heard of an organ called "brain"? Clearly you must not be using yours, since you stopped reading after the definition I found of "qualia".

[Gill]

Um, yeah.  You can measure brain activity all you want;  that's not qualia.   Qualia is what that person is experiencing internally, not accessible to others.     

[One Above All]

Um, yeah.  You can measure brain activity all you want;  that's not qualia.   Qualia is what that person is experiencing internally, not accessible to others.     

And how do you think experience is processed?
Seriously, Gill, if you don't start reading, you're gonna make yourself look like an idiot.

[Gill]

Um, yeah.  You can measure brain activity all you want;  that's not qualia.   Qualia is what that person is experiencing internally, not accessible to others.     

And how do you think experience is processed?
Seriously, Gill, if you don't start reading, you're gonna make yourself look like an idiot.

I've read plenty on the subject; have you?  Have you read anything other than a definition?

How something is 'processed' has nothing to do with qualia.  I just said, you can measure electrical activity.  That doesn't give you access to someones internal experience.

[One Above All]

How something is 'processed' has nothing to do with qualia.  I just said, you can measure electrical activity.  That doesn't give you access to someones internal experience.

There's a difference between unquantified and unquantifiable. You don't seem to be aware of it. It is true that we can't know with 100% certainty and precision what a person is experiencing, but that's due to our lack of knowledge. If you want to posit otherwise, I recommend you show me some evidence.

[Gill]

How something is 'processed' has nothing to do with qualia.  I just said, you can measure electrical activity.  That doesn't give you access to someones internal experience.

There's a difference between unquantified and unquantifiable. You don't seem to be aware of it. It is true that we can't know with 100% certainty and precision what a person is experiencing, but that's due to our lack of knowledge. If you want to posit otherwise, I recommend you show me some evidence.

If you were born deaf, then went on to learn all the physical facts about hearing; how the ears/brain processed sound, you still wouldn't have the knowledge of the experience of hearing.   Well then clearly there's knowledge that can't be accessed by learning all the physical facts about something.

[One Above All]

If you were born deaf, then went on to learn all the physical facts about hearing; how the ears/brain processed sound, you still wouldn't have the knowledge of the experience of hearing.   Well then clearly there's knowledge that can't be accessed by learning all the physical facts about something.

Unless someone is brain damaged, they can experience anything someone else can, simply by stimulating the right parts of their brains. There are also devices that we've built that simulate hearing; specifically for deaf people. I'm pretty sure we've also built artificial eyes. Care to try again, though?[1]

1.	This is a joke. I am 100% certain that you cannot win.

[caveat_imperator]

I've read plenty on the subject; have you?

Are you sure you understood what you read, though? The evidence from your posts don't show that you do.

[Add Homonym]

Qualia are a bit strange, because not only do they convey things to us that appear logical, such as the colour red, which appears to map to a real frequency, but I'm darn certain that your brain could be (re)designed to convey entirely different colours, that we have never seen before, and map to no real colours. People taking LSD and DMT report strange and impossible things, such as as sense they were on the trip for an "eternity", which can't possibly true, or they would have gone insane, and not come back. On DMT, people have the illusion that their brain is expanding to consume the whole universe, and they can feel everything in it. (Obviously they didn't really, or they would come back with some useful info.)

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/lsd01.html  (from the same site, though I could find many others.)

Qualia are either true, or complete bullshit. I favour the latter, because it explains a few things. For consciousness to work, we need to be bathed in illusions, that tell us about the artificial world that we have to interact with. I say artificial, because we have to interact with something real, without knowing really what it is, using bullshit.

[Gill]

I've read plenty on the subject; have you?

Are you sure you understood what you read, though? The evidence from your posts don't show that you do.

Do you have anything specific to add about the topic, or do you prefer to just talk about me in abstractions?

[Gill]

If you were born deaf, then went on to learn all the physical facts about hearing; how the ears/brain processed sound, you still wouldn't have the knowledge of the experience of hearing.   Well then clearly there's knowledge that can't be accessed by learning all the physical facts about something.

Unless someone is brain damaged, they can experience anything someone else can, simply by stimulating the right parts of their brains. There are also devices that we've built that simulate hearing; specifically for deaf people. I'm pretty sure we've also built artificial eyes. Care to try again, though?[1]

1.	This is a joke. I am 100% certain that you cannot win.

I never said people can't experience x,y,z.   I said the experience itself can't be quantified.  'What it is like to hear'  is not a measurable thing.  Care to try again? 

You know nothing about me.  You don't know what classes I've taken; what papers I've read, yet, you act as if you do.   And what does 'winning' have to do with anything?    You think this is some sort of game to see who can win?

What a distorted way to look at things.  I really don't give a shit what you or anyone else here thinks about me or whether you think you won something.   I  came here to discuss topics, not to show off to people or prove anything to you*.

You're the joke.


*ignore*

Have fun playing your little games.

[One Above All]

I never said people can't experience x,y,z.   I said the experience itself can't be quantified.  'What it is like to hear'  is not a measurable thing.  Care to try again?

Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it's unexplainable. We couldn't explain lightning about 500 years ago, but now we can. Did it somehow become explainable? Or was it always explainable, and we just didn't have the information?
I could probably come up with an answer to that question ("What is it like to hear?"), but it'd be absurdly long and unnecessary. We can explain anything, if given enough time and knowledge.

You know nothing about me.  You don't know what classes I've taken; what papers I've read, yet, you act as if you do.

Not at all. I act as if I knew what classes I have taken, and what papers I have read. You see, unlike you, I am well aware of the extent of my knowledge. Sometimes anyway. Other times I amaze myself.

And what does 'winning' have to do with anything?    You think this is some sort of game to see who can win?

Do you really want an honest answer to that? Because the answer is "no".

What a distorted way to look at things.

So I can't possibly know what you know, but you can somehow know what I'm thinking? That's impressive! Please, tell me more about myself.

I really don't give a shit what you or anyone else here thinks about me or whether you think you won something.   I  came here to discuss topics, not to show off to people or prove anything to me.

Clearly. Your "I don't give a shit" statement reeks of self-confidence, rather than emotional outburst because someone had the audacity to question you.

You're the joke.

I am funny (on rare occasion), but I'm no joke.

*ignore*

Good for you. Way to show that you don't care what I think.

Have fun playing your little games.

My games involve real-time puzzles that constantly shift in ways that would boggle your tiny mind![1]

1.	The "boggle your tiny mind" thing is a reference to Futurama. It is not an insult.

[Gill]

You don't get it.   I do care what people have to say about the topic.  I don't care what people want to say about me.  You, nor anyone else here knows anything about me.   Yet,  you almost always get personal in your posts.   This is a clear indication that you aren't very knowledgeable about the subject; therefore have to resort to personal attacks.   Waste of my time.