Is there a supernatural?

[One Above All]

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.

Gill, if you have something to offer that proves me wrong, do so. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your childish "I don't care" claims.

[Graybeard]

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

It is worth looking at the definition of the word [wiki]Qualia[/wiki]: from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."

So, your idea of "evidence" is "subjective conscious experiences"?

As they are subjective, do you expect anyone else to share them?

If they are subjective (and they are), is this not just a part of your mind? Essentially you are saying God is in your mind.

We atheists call that "a delusion".

[Gill]

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

It is worth looking at the definition of the word [wiki]Qualia[/wiki]: from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."

So, your idea of "evidence" is "subjective conscious experiences"?

As they are subjective, do you expect anyone else to share them?

If they are subjective (and they are), is this not just a part of your mind? Essentially you are saying God is in your mind.

We atheists call that "a delusion".

In the original context of why I brought qualia up: yes, it's 'evidence' of something naturalism cannot account for.    It's not a delusion to experience a red quale, for instance; yet, the quale cannot be measured.

Brain activity can be measured;  but how would one differentiate between a quale of red, and a quale of 'I enjoy red'? (unless the person communicated that of course)*  Both instances would be voltages. 

So then; it's something beyond the scope of naturalism to account for.  One could call that 'supernatural'.   I don't see why not.  Supernatural doesn't have to mean something magical or whatever,  just beyond what the discipline can be used for imo....

[One Above All]

Brain activity can be measured;  but how would one differentiate between a quale of red, and a quale of 'I enjoy red'?  Both instances would be voltages. 

The brain is an electrochemical "machine". Emphasis not on "electro-". Different chemicals are released for different sensations.

[Gill]

Brain activity can be measured;  but how would one differentiate between a quale of red, and a quale of 'I enjoy red'?  Both instances would be voltages. 

The brain is an electrochemical "machine". Emphasis not on "electro-". Different chemicals are released for different sensations.

Well, I guess I'll anti-ignore if the statements are topical.

Yeah, a neuro could measure all the electricity/chemicals and other physical quantities in the brain.   But from that information,  I don't see how he could derive the knowledge of , for instance, 'what it is like to be One Above All'.   But if such information is inaccessible to physical measurement/quantification, I see no reason why to consider it physical.

[One Above All]

But from that information,  I don't see how he could derive the knowledge of , for instance, 'what it is like to be One Above All'.

Personal incredulity is not an argument, Gill. That said, at this moment we can't derive that knowledge. But it's only a matter of time. To claim that we can't[1] derive that knowledge when we've only been studying neuroscience for about 50 years is premature and illogical, given all that we've learned in those few decades.

But if such information is inaccessible to physical measurement/quantification, I see no reason why to consider it physical.

Since it's not inaccessible to physical measurement/quantification, it's physical, as are all things.

1.	In the sense that we will never be able to.

[Gill]

But from that information,  I don't see how he could derive the knowledge of , for instance, 'what it is like to be One Above All'.

Personal incredulity is not an argument, Gill. That said, at this moment we can't derive that knowledge. But it's only a matter of time. To claim that we can't derive that knowledge when we've only been studying neuroscience for about 50 years is premature and illogical, given all that we've learned in those few decades.

But if such information is inaccessible to physical measurement/quantification, I see no reason why to consider it physical.

Since it's not inaccessible to physical measurement/quantification, it's physical, as are all things.

I don't believe that knowledge can ever be derived; I see it as fundamental limit of physical science, and there's plenty of well-known philosophers who agree; which I thought I'd add before being called crazy.

[One Above All]

I don't believe that knowledge can ever be derived; I see it as fundamental limit of physical science, and there's plenty of well-known philosophers who agree; which I thought I'd add before being called crazy.

I know crazy, and you're not crazy. Delusional, but not crazy.
Anyway, philosophers don't mean dick to me. If you can't pony up some evidence, you might as well be a homeless preacher babbling about the dangers of gamma radiation emanating from our feet.

[Gill]

I don't believe that knowledge can ever be derived; I see it as fundamental limit of physical science, and there's plenty of well-known philosophers who agree; which I thought I'd add before being called crazy.

I know crazy, and you're not crazy. Delusional, but not crazy.
Anyway, philosophers don't mean dick to me. If you can't pony up some evidence, you might as well be a homeless preacher babbling about the dangers of gamma radiation emanating from our feet.

Well it seems you're limiting yourself then if you disregard philosophy so quickly since it's all about examining these types of questions. 

[One Above All]

Well it seems you're limiting yourself then if you disregard philosophy so quickly since it's all about examining these types of questions. 

I disregarded philosophers; not philosophy. However, philosophy doesn't really mean much in this case since you're making a physical, objective and verifiable claim. As such, you either verify it with some evidence or admit you're pulling "facts" out of your ass.

[Graybeard]

In the original context of why I brought qualia up: yes, it's 'evidence' of something naturalism cannot account for.

I don't see how or why this is so.

Brain activity can be measured;  but how would one differentiate between a quale of red, and a quale of 'I enjoy red'? (unless the person communicated that of course)*  Both instances would be voltages.

I think you have answered your own questions: I should imagine that the pattern of the voltages would be different. (I can't lay my hands on it now but thee is a post in the Science section that shows thoughts being translated into images - most interesting.)

However, and to accept your point on voltages, if qualia are brain activity and brain activity can be measured; what is your point?

So then; it's something beyond the scope of naturalism to account for.

No. This is an error on your part. Qualia are experienced by all of us, thus they are natural in that they are part of the function of the mind. Doubtless they are explicable, definable and, presently and to an extent, measurable.

One could call that 'supernatural'.

One could but one would be incorrect   

I don't see why not.

I hope you see "why not" now.

Supernatural doesn't have to mean something magical or whatever,  just beyond what the discipline can be used for imo....

Unfortunately it does have to mean that. Your having an opinion of a word's meaning is not much use, is it? E.g. If you meant Coca Cola each time you said Beer, things would not go well. We agree meanings of words, otherwise we have a private language, which is no language at all.

Oxford English Dictionary (full on-line edition v. March 2012)

Supernatural:  That is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.

The very idea is that natures laws are not followed.

You may enjoy this from Alice Through the Looking Glass"

[Humpty-Dumpty speaks] 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Let's keep to real definitions. ; )

[Gill]

Well it seems you're limiting yourself then if you disregard philosophy so quickly since it's all about examining these types of questions. 

I disregarded philosophers; not philosophy. However, philosophy doesn't really mean much in this case since you're making a physical, objective and verifiable claim. As such, you either verify it with some evidence or admit you're pulling "facts" out of your ass.

I don't see what there is to verify.   I'm saying if you knew every physical fact about my brain;  the location of every atom, molecule, neuron, chemical;  this evidence, these facts, don't give you any direct knowledge of the qualia.   Since, qualia cannot be physically measured/quantified.  So then; why would we call qualia physical?   The only reason I can see is if a person believes in the philosophy of physicalism; which I don't. 

[One Above All]

I don't see what there is to verify.   I'm saying if you knew every physical fact about my brain;  the location of every atom, molecule, neuron, chemical;  this evidence, these facts, don't give you any direct knowledge of the qualia.

Bold mine. That's what there is to verify. Put up or shut up, as they say.

[Gill]

I don't see what there is to verify.   I'm saying if you knew every physical fact about my brain;  the location of every atom, molecule, neuron, chemical;  this evidence, these facts, don't give you any direct knowledge of the qualia.

Bold mine. That's what there is to verify. Put up or shut up, as they say.

I don't see what else to 'put up'.   Hypothetically I have all the physical information about person x's brain.   Masses, voltages, chemistry, etc... ; where in that information do I find the qualia?  I have a knoweldge of physical information.   I don't have a knowledge of 'what it is like for person x to experience a,b,c,d...' .   I don't know how else to state the matter...

[One Above All]

I don't see what else to 'put up'.   Hypothetically I have all the physical information about person x's brain.   Masses, voltages, chemistry, etc... ; where in that information do I find the qualia?

Once again, personal incredulity is not an argument. Just because you don't know how to interpret the evidence doesn't mean anything.

[Graybeard]

Hypothetically I have all the physical information about person x's brain.   Masses, voltages, chemistry, etc... ; where in that information do I find the qualia?  I have a knoweldge of physical information.   I don't have a knowledge of 'what it is like for person x to experience a,b,c,d...' .   I don't know how else to state the matter...

With such data could we replicate the feeling in your brain? We can certainly probe in brains and have a person remember things, emotions, music, smell, sights, etc. These things are there to be investigated and replicated.

So, what when these qualia of yours are demonstrable and repeatable? What will you say then?

Are you arguing "The God of The Gaps?" = Appeal to ignorance; "I/We don't know, therefore there must be a god and that god is my god."

[Gill]

Hypothetically I have all the physical information about person x's brain.   Masses, voltages, chemistry, etc... ; where in that information do I find the qualia?  I have a knoweldge of physical information.   I don't have a knowledge of 'what it is like for person x to experience a,b,c,d...' .   I don't know how else to state the matter...

With such data could we replicate the feeling in your brain? We can certainly probe in brains and have a person remember things, emotions, music, smell, sights, etc. These things are there to be investigated and replicated.

So, what when these qualia of yours are demonstrable and repeatable? What will you say then?

Are you arguing "The God of The Gaps?" = Appeal to ignorance; "I/We don't know, therefore there must be a god and that god is my god."

No, I'm talking about the 'explanatory gap' in consciousness.  Nothing to do with God.

[One Above All]

No, I'm talking about the 'explanatory gap' in consciousness.  Nothing to do with God.

So appeal to ignorance, as Graybeard said.

[Gill]

So straw man; again.

... it could just be an inherent limitation within the framework of naturalism itself....

...Some things are inherently beyond the scope of certain discipline

'Inherent' : adj Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".  (google)

'Limit'  :  n  a : something that bounds, restrains, or confines   (webster)

I don't know how to be any more clear;  'inherent limitation' doesn't mean 'we don't know yet, therefore consciousness is non-physical'.    It means you can't know , ever, using naturalism/physicalism.

Am I speaking English.. err..?

[One Above All]

I don't know how to be any more clear;  'inherent limitation' doesn't mean 'we don't know yet, therefore consciousness is non-physical'.    It means you can't know , ever, using naturalism/physicalism.

So put up or shut up, as I said. Show us how there are things that we can't ever know, rather than things we don't yet know.

[Azdgari]

...and if there are things we can't ever know, then they're 100% irrelevant to our existence as a result.

[Gill]

I don't know how to be any more clear;  'inherent limitation' doesn't mean 'we don't know yet, therefore consciousness is non-physical'.    It means you can't know , ever, using naturalism/physicalism.

So put up or shut up, as I said. Show us how there are things that we can't ever know, rather than things we don't yet know.

I already did; why repeat myself.

[One Above All]

I already did; why repeat myself.

All you did was post arguments from personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

[Gill]

...and if there are things we can't ever know, then they're 100% irrelevant to our existence as a result.

Yeah I agree.  Except; I was referring to what can be known using naturalism.   Not simply, 'what can be known' in general...

[Gill]

I already did; why repeat myself.

All you did was post arguments from personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

No, I mentioned the knowledge argument.   

[One Above All]

...and if there are things we can't ever know, then they're 100% irrelevant to our existence as a result.

Yeah I agree.  Except; I was referring to what can be known using naturalism.   Not simply, 'what can be known' in general...

The supernatural is unknowable by definition.

No, I mentioned the knowledge argument.   

Which was an argument from personal incredulity.

Seriously, is this so hard for you to understand?

[Gill]

So, I can't know my internal experience?  Course not; I know them.  Never said qualia can't be known period.  I said knowledge about them can't be derived from physical measurement.   That's not an appeal to ignorance.   It's an argument about the inherent limitation in the epistemology of naturalism in terms of consciousness.     

[One Above All]

I said knowledge about them can't be derived from physical measurement.

Which has already been proven wrong. We can translate thoughts into images, as was pointed out by Graybeard, and that's only from electrical patterns. With more information we could easily make other people feel what we feel and vice-versa. Why do you insist on sticking to something that has been proven wrong? Try some evidence instead.

[Azdgari]

...and if there are things we can't ever know, then they're 100% irrelevant to our existence as a result.

Yeah I agree.  Except; I was referring to what can be known using naturalism.   Not simply, 'what can be known' in general...

If it can be known then it is natural.  Regarding qualia - what is unknowable about it, in principle?  Your brain state is objective.  It can be observed.  It is knowable.

Unless, as you've suggested before, the laws of physics break down within one's skull.  That's knowable in principle, too, though.

Why do you insist on sticking to something that has been proven wrong?

That's what faith is all about.