the asinine cretin

My bad. Btw, *high five* about James Randi. He's cool imo.

Irrelevant, as I'm not positing the existence of anything beyond our Hubble volume; I was only pointing out one way in which a certain definition of the supernatural is unsatisfactory to me. And again, you seem to be asserting such an unsatisfactory definition of the term. Well, if that's what you mean by supernatural, we're talking about two different things. I've given the gist of what I mean (perhaps you responded after only reading the first couple lines?), although consider it a tentative and fluid definition as I don't think it's that concrete a concept. If I may play God's advocate for a second, you're requiring that religion be a form of scientific knowledge. I don't know that anyone claims that religion is a matter of mathematical modeling and empirical testing. The relevant implication of religion, as I see it, is that there is a valid religious epistemology, and that this has its own rules and domain that are distinct from the epistemology and subject matter of the natural sciences, and perhaps that a purely positivist philosophy is depersonalizing and impoverished (aka, religious experience is valid, transcendent meaning is accessible, there is an ineffable dimension to human beings, all that jazz). I'm sure that for the most part a particular religious theory of knowledge is simply implied and quite unexamined, and probably illogical and easily refuted (e.g., because the bible told me so). However, there are plenty of sophisticated theologians and theistic philosophers, so I imagine the issues may not be as simple as you seem to suppose. Personally, I find myself being fairly reserved about the alleged monopoly on knowledge that scientific inquiry enjoys in your evident opinion. I don't mean to suggest that religion is likely valid, but perhaps the deeper issues deserve more than the smug James Randi treatment.

I can't quite agree and I think you've missed the point of my post. 1. I cannot accept your definition of the supernatural as that which defies observation. There are things that defy observation which I would not describe as supernatural, for instance, a galaxy beyond the threshold of our Hubble volume. Also, many things that are described as supernatural are in fact observable and perhaps repeatable, for example the alleged Hindu milk miracle. 2. I find your claims about knowledge to be unreasonably restrictive. There are valid avenues of knowledge which defy your limited empirical definitions. For example, the a priori study of formal systems and proof theory, or perhaps the quasi-scientific methods of historical research. "Saying something doesn't exist is not saying it's impossible." I agree that one rightly distinguishes existence and modality, but this is not a criticism of my previous post. I see no logical reason to conclude that the general epistemology of empirical scientific research defines the scope of reality. To me this suggests a commitment to a rather extreme form of positivism. To me this is unwarranted and in fact doesn't sufficiently accommodate the logical possibilities of reality, the limitations of human endeavor, and the fallibility of our understanding. I think the considerations I hinted at in my previous post reflect a more realistic point of view. So, I had written a longer and more involved post but something happened with my keyboard and the post is lost. I offered a tentative definition of the supernatural as that which is inexplicable in terms of the laws of nature. I then suggested a distinction between unexplained phenomena which may yet be explained scientifically in the future, and the hard supernatural, which is that which necessarily eludes explanation in terms of the laws of nature. As an example of the former I mentioned the once unexplained - and presumably supernatural - phenomenon of magnetism (which was a pretext for making an Insane Clown Posse joke); I then gave an example of the latter as a scenario involving the return of Jesus and his restoring missing limbs and healing anyone on the command of scientists and under controlled conditions, and importantly, in a way that contradicts the laws of nature. When I hear the term supernatural, especially in a religious context, I assume that something like the latter meaning is intended. Using the Hindu milk miracle as an example, (and assuming it was real for the sake of an example, although I know it was bunk), let's say scientists had brought an idol of Ganesha (or whatever) into the lab and it had started producing milk ex nihilo, and that this was confirmed repeatedly by independent teams of scientists. Would this then automatically become a natural phenomena simply by being observed? That would be playing games with the definition of words, in my opinion. It might suggest that a more expansive picture of reality is possible and that what we think about nature is far too narrow, but if it actually contradicted existing scientific understanding about reality it is hardly fair to say that it automatically "becomes science" and is "naturalized." Rather, I think it would rightly prop up the notion of the supernatural, and the supposition that there are layers of reality beyond our scientific investigation and comprehension - aka, the normal meaning of the term supernatural. So what do we mean by supernatural? Would Q be supernatural? For all intents and purposes, I suppose. Although, the Trek people seemed to have some vague understanding of a Q continuum and the like, maybe it would count as supernatural in the soft sense and at some point in the future we could expect to have a scientific understanding of Q entities - an understanding that accords with our general understanding of nature (i.e., laws of nature, logic, etc). (Regardless of our cognitive capacities, if beings from the Q continuum are just potentially capable of being described in term of natural laws I would call that supernatural in the soft sense. Although, since we're really talking about human words and definitions here, I suppose the term supernatural really depends on our capacities. Supernatural to us may be natural to archangels or gods. But unless we have a divine intellect and perspective on reality, which is beyond our nature, it's supernatural to us - definitionally and necessarily.) I think the point of miracles and gods is supposed to be supernatural in the hard sense. Miracles are meant to give testimony to an ineffable superstructure of reality which is beyond what we can here experience or conceive. A realm in which a transcendent being can snap all of physical reality into existence and maybe visit Earth now and again to demonstrate this power by completely violating the laws of nature. Something like that anyway. Ultimate reality, the "great beyond," and what not. Ghost stories, goblins, psychics, astrology, and the like, seems to be the chintzy, superficial kind of supernaturalism. Using that as a representative sample seems a bit unfair, perhaps. (Please excuse the silly examples.)

This strikes me as a bit hasty. There may be assumptions here - about the nature of reality and the scope scientific methodology - that are not true. I think there are facets of human experience in which questions are not adequately addressed scientifically. Does this automatically validate existing religions or the concept of religion in general? Of course not. But I would not say that existence is wholly reducible to the scientific. Are you sure about this? To my way of thinking, the grounding of scientific truth is a negative pragmatism and this actually justifies a deep openness to the unknown. To absolutize our concept of science and its methods is unwarranted. For example, there may exist an infinite multiverse, the nature of which is completely beyond our powers of comprehension or even the range of our mathematical toolkit (or just in some way outside the scope of science - forever inaccessible perhaps). Okay, but then it doesn't exist, right? It's unknowable. In some subjective sense, I suppose; but it may be knowable to descendants of ours millions of years from now, and either way, if it exists, it is "reality." The problem I have is simply this: the assertion that scientific epistemology defines the actual bounds of reality. And no, I'm not trying to validate religion per se; I only suggest - if I may invoke the Hitchhiker's Guide - that we may be like tea leaves trying to understand the history of the East India Company. On a more personal note, I am fairly open to the possibility of something that might be called the supernatural. Perhaps that is not the ideal word. I find philosophical problems of mind, the ontology of mathematics, the experience of personhood, and many other things, to be quite suggestive of largely unknown vistas of reality. I must be clear that I reject illogic, bad epistemology, pseudo-science, superstition, and the like. That is not where I'm trying to go with this.

To my way of thinking God (in se) cannot be described in terms of being, as the term God refers to the ultimate origin and so-called ground of being. To me, the idea of a scientific concept of God makes little sense as science and religion are predicated upon two quite distinct branches of epistemology. The validity of scientific epistemology is to me practically beyond question; the nature and validity of religious epistemology is something that I do not currently understand but I am open to it. Such a fundamental bifurcation of truth is a problem, in my opinion. Also, the possibility of opening the door to pseudo-science and absurdity is a problem. The thinking of people like Spinoza and Leibnitz is somewhat compelling to me, but there are so many questions. How do we know anything about God at all? What is the role of private religious experience and mysticism? How does this account for the problem of conflicting religious experience? What are the criteria of truth in questions of the supernatural? Appeals to authority (texts, institutions, persons, warm fuzzies) seems to be the norm in mainstream religion. This fails basic logic and epistemology in my opinion. Sorry for ranting a bit.

What do you mean by free will? Is it somehow exempt from the kinds of natural causality that we can investigate scientifically? If so, how is this not a non-explanation dependent on an ignorance of the underlying processes? It seems to be a wholly non-scientific (and even anti-scientific) concept in any case.

I would think that the origin of contingent being would be wholly transcendent and therefore beyond dimensionality, and indeed any categories of human thought. The way I see things, a description of the divine could be at best apophatic and would not refer directly to divine being in itself. What you describe - as being presumably the structure of divine being - strikes me as implying a metaphysical substrate. In what space is God a vector quantity? Et cetera. I realize you're trying to say that the divine nature is in some sense number, space and light as such, but why say this in terms of a vector quantity? Also, God is basically the categories of Aristotle? Huh? You've completely lost me with your explanation of God as light. Please elaborate. Cheers.

Hahahaha! Thanks.

My understanding is that there are other creatures that have thus far demonstrated self-awareness by the standard of the mirror test, for example: magpies, elephants, dolphins, orcas. I might agree that a mirror test may not be the best test of self-awareness as it assumes an anthropocentric conception of consciousness. But still, what better example and standard of self-awareness do we have? I am open to the possibility that there may be forms of self-awareness that exceed in areas where human consciousness is lacking, and yet which might have some sort of cognitive gap with respect to a mirror reflection.

Thank you for your response. Good stuff. I think the central claim is that brain scans somehow reveal that what we experience as conscious acts are actually predetermined in other regions of the brain and that the sense of free-will is therefore illusory. But seriously, what is free-will? How do you define it? It seems to me that people often mean to imply that there is some ghost in the machine that is exempt from material causality and/or computation. What is it exactly that is free? The topic seems often to be about an ill-defined metaphysical doctrine used to fill in an explanatory gap. If the physical processes underlying a supposedly conscious and free act can be described, what remains? Qualia? Some ever-elusive ontology of the person? ETA: As far as "blame" is concerned, I'm not saying that moral responsibility, culpability, and punishment are therefore invalid concepts. I think there are many concepts in our everyday thinking and in our social relations that are ultimately fictions. Inalienable human rights, concepts like private property, various moral imperatives. We may rightly experience such things as real in themselves, and in a sense perhaps they are, but must they really be more than human inventions to matter? I think in the past Western civilization had a view of history and of day-to-day events that was much more supernatural, providential, and therefore inexplicable. I doubt many today are concerned. Suggesting that things like the weather or the death of a loved one are not consciously willed events (by a deity, presumably), at least in our proximate control (supplications to the deity and the like) may have seemed an intolerable idea to many people of the past. (I'm reminded of a video in which Bill O'Reilly silences a guest who was speaking of global warming by declaring that "GOD CONTROLS THE CLIMATE!!") Is the question of the actual nature of free-will similarly taboo in modern society? I suspect so. If it is considered an inexplicable phenomenon, and therefore essentially supernatural, then I'd suggest that this is a problem. Now, questions regarding the methodology and reliability of the neuroscientific research that Harris alludes to is another thing altogether. Maybe there is something far deeper and more mysterious going on -- I don't know. I really know very little about this topic and have creating this thread primarily to learn. Cheers.

I don't understand this post. Are you replying to me or Aristarchus?

I was being intentionally melodramatic and really don't give a rat's ass about such things. Thank you for your sincerity though.

--

I hereby beg any moderator who happens upon this to put the word sex in the thread title (maybe "Sexual pleasure") since it has failed to generate views. There are younger threads with ten times the view count and I attribute this to saucy subjects. Sexual morality is related to this topic so it isn't pure BS.

Yesss mastah... I hereby draw attention to space-based solar power. It is very interesting and there are companies and governments looking into it as we speak. I think it is awesome. Here is a wikipedia article about it. Wiki: SBPS In my fantasy life I couple SBSP with the possibility of in-situ lunar manufacturing of photovoltaics (e.g., the work of Geoffrey Landis of Glenn Research Center, here, and here). Perhaps in the not-too-distant future lunar manufacturing and the deployment of vast space-based solar arrays will be real. CaptainP(sp?), I did it for you. I made this post to show that I'm sincere. I care. I salute you!

I watched the debate and was not won over by the skeptical side in the least. I found the spectacle to be disturbing overall. If I were more motivated I might go through the entire debate and comment on what I found to be illogical and/or false, and why. It was an interesting cast of characters though. As entertainment I enjoyed it. Thanks. P.S. Wait, you think that the "global cooling" canard makes a valid point with respect to the reliability of contemporary climate science?

I love you too. Hugs and Kisses, a lol kitteh P.S. How dare you give me a -1 just after I received my first +1... I'm heartbroken right now... But I forgive you, for that is love.

let me google that for you, 4$$|-|@ /\/\(DB49. this is teh interwebs biatch. SBSP FTW

I would suggest RealClimate and SkepticalScience as solid resources for the interested layman.

SBSP FTW.

Yup. S- Satisfactory U - Unsatisfactory M - Marginal N - Not known Sulfuric Acid 0-50% (21 deg. C): S (60 deg. C): S Sulfuric Acid 70% (21 deg. C): S (60 deg. C): M Sulfuric Acid 80% (21 deg. C): S (60 deg. C): U Sulfuric Acid 96% (21 deg. C): M (60 deg. C): U Sulfuric Acid 98% (21 deg. C): M (60 deg. C): U Sulfuric Acid, Fuming (21 deg. C): U (60 deg. C): U Source: HDPE Chemical Resistance Chart

P.S. Further (and perhaps tangentially), I imagine traditional Western sensibilities would ground free will, rights, justice, and related abstractions, in a supernatural worldview. The Judeo-Christian God is the source and ultimate explanation of these things, which are contingent upon our having immortal souls, which "animals" lack. I wonder what kind of information cultural anthropology might yield in this regard? To what extent, and in what respects, is free will an issue outside of Western civilization? I know that Hindu and Buddhist religious thought differs markedly with Western conceptions. What about the dominant worldviews of various societies and civilizations in history? Ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek, Imperial Chinese, contemporary Japanese, Khoisan, Dani, Aztec, et cetera, ad nauseum. It isn't difficult to imagine societies that function perfectly well without this concept. Might free will be then quite superfluous? Perhaps it can be argued that it is in some ways harmful to a society? If it really is merely a self-aggrandizing misunderstanding of the nature of reality I can see how it might be harmful. If many people, rather than being rehabilitated, or otherwise helped in some way, are instead stigmatized or needlessly "punished" because of a misunderstanding of human nature as being wholly self-possessed... Again, just trying to instigate a conversation.

NP. +1

Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape. Beginning on page 104, "The Illusion of Free Will." Video version (1 of 3). I don't think that a theory of free will -- in the sense of an inscrutable metaphysical locus of personhood that endows a faculty which somehow transcends ordinary causality -- is necessary for the validity of the concepts such as self-determination, virtue, culpability, and the like. I have not read Harris' book beyond this small selection and my remarks here are very willy nilly; I'm only trying to start a conversation. Sure, perhaps free will, as a metaphysical concept, is an "of the gaps" pseudo-explanation; I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it follows that because psychical causality can be probed empirically, and described in reductionist terms, therefore the concept is existentially and/or socially invalid. It seems to me a meaningful and valuable social construct, even if ultimately illusory from a perennial metaphysical point of view. I am inclined to agree with Harris about the dubiousness of "retribution" and I find containment and rehabilitation to be "more evolved sensibilities" (if I may allude to Trek), but of course he's not advocating the erasure of the concept of responsibility. An attenuation of it based on neuroscience perhaps. So, how far might this be taken? I think that a society might rightly create a "free will" concept and standard based on a pragmatism of sorts. It doesn't have to be "real" in some mythical or supernatural sense. It is "real" much as inalienable rights might be considered real, or distributive justice, or many other abstract concepts that are apparently evolved for social reasons. Can we have a truly efficacious and existentially significant concept of free will that is compatible with the kind of determinism that Harris believes to be the plain scientific fact of the matter? I realize that free will and consciousness are huge topics in philosophy, with plenty of baggage and rabbit trails, but it would be nice if philosophical responses here engaged what Harris is actually saying (I'm sure there are many here who are more familiar with his ideas than I am). I've not researched these topics so forgive my naivete and ignorance. I tentatively assume that Harris is accurate when he describes experiments that reveal the wholly illusory nature of our experience of free will. P.S. Again, just trying to start a conversation. I'm more interested in what others have to say in response to Harris than in quibbling over any of my thoughts above, so go easy. Regards.

lol. Obviously you didn't even click the link. It was to an asinine youtube video and was intended as sarcasm. I appreciate the zero tolerance of copyright subversion. Thanks anyway. hehe.