Supernatural epistemology?

[Shike]

any word has infinite meaning for each most infinitesimal part of that word and every most infinitesimal part of that def has infinite meaning about it and on and on it goes like this ad infinitum , not to mention the def is completely different in each mans mind

I suppose this is just explanatory hyperbole.

But I wonder, what would be the chances that you ended up here in this forum to talk about the same things we’re talking about, that is, if your statement was strictly true.

Perhaps it would be proof of the supernatural

 

[Neithan]

“Causes” is nebulous. To use another metaphor, the “mind” is to the brain, as the “program” is to the computer. On the same “hardware” a lot of “programs” can run. No, the mind cannot be reduced directly to the neurons, just like the “wetness” of water cannot be reduced to the 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atoms it is composed of. The mind is an emergent property or activity of the brain, just like “walking” or “kicking” are dependent on the muscles, but cannot be fully reduced to the muscles. Observe, the walking or kicking are two, very different activities both performed by the muscles, just like there are very different activities perfomed by the mind.

The whole neurophysics, with all its achievements. Admittedly we barely scratched the surface of the problem, but so far results support the hypothesis.

You are conflating a scientific hypothesis with a philosophical proposition. Neurophysics studies brain function, and does not need to venture out into the speculative ‘mind-body problem.’ To simply observe that “mental activity is a function of the brain” is rather different than proposing “the mind emerges from the brain.” Subtle, but significant.

You might try to invoke Occam’s razor and say there is no need to posit an immaterial mental substance; but such a position is, in fact, necessary, because identifying the mental source (however you want to construe it) with physical properties (however they are organized or arranged) is self-referentially incoherent. As the argument from reason goes: if our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, they cannot be the consequent of a reasonable ground. Rationality cannot have its source in nonrationality.

So either our minds have no physical source, or all physical things are minds (panpsychism).

 

[Areopagite]

I apologize if I’m repeating previous things in this thread … I skimmed the posts.

**How do we know if a proposition concerning the supernatural is true or false? ** In other words, what are the means or methods of supernatural epistemology?

One principle that is of essential use is, of course, the principle of non-contradiction. Obviously.

God, as defined by Catholics (but don’t worry, it’s also defined this why by many non-Catholics) is that which has all being. Oh no! Don’t role your eyes! What I mean by this is that all that all positively exists also exists in God (and this includes all that can intrinsically exist, that is, anything hypothetical thing that doesn’t break the rule of non-contradiction). There is nothing that exists that doesn’t exist in God. Things only exist because God made them exist, and since God (or anything) can’t give what He doesn’t have (you could call that another principle that I’m using here) it follows that (given that He created everything) all things that can exist actually or potentially also exists in God. That’s what I mean when I say God is that which has all being (and as a side-note, there can’t be two such beings, because that would imply that one has something that the other doesn’t have, which by definition is impossible since such a being has everything).

Right. Since God has all being, He thus also has all knowledge (because knowledge is something that can exist and is thus a being). How do you define knowledge? I guess we can say that it’s the correct relation that the mind has to existence. Now, the only “things” that do not exist either actually or potentially are those, of course, which break the principle of non-contradiction. Hence, God cannot know things that break the principle of non-contradiction; that is, He cannot know that them as existing things. I’ll give an example:

People often say something like, “God knows what you would have done if you hadn’t chosen to go through door number 1” (supposing, let’s say there are five doors). But given that you went through door number 1, God doesn’t know what you would have chosen given that you didn’t go through door number 1. That is, for example, God doesn’t think, “I know you would’ve gone through door number 3 if you hadn’t gone through door number 1.” But such a thing breaks the principle of non-contradiction. This is because it is saying something is actual and purely potential at the same time (which is logically impossible). You see, it’s potentially true that you could have gone through any door, but none of them would ever be actual except one, if you, in fact, chose one. The four other possibilities only exist as past possibilities and never became actualities, so God cannot know any of those four to be actual in any way. They were only potentials, so God can’t saying, “Entering Door 3 is actual in a non-actual way.”

Likewise, God cannot change the past because that would mean He made an existing thing (event) exist and not exist at the same time. Definitely, a crime against the principle of non-contradiction … unless there is SOMETHING that distinguishes the two things, like one happened in one universe and the other happened in an alternate universe.

Well, I hope that sheds light on your question. I want to honor you, Spock, for your deeply intellectual mind and love for thoroughness about everything. Few people have that.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I suppose this is just explanatory hyperbole.

But I wonder, what would be the chances that you ended up here in this forum to talk about the same things we’re talking about, that is, if your statement was strictly true.

Perhaps it would be proof of the supernatural

… not hyperbole , but fact , can’t you understand that ??? , never mind dear friend …

 

[hecd2]

As the argument from reason goes: if our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, they cannot be the consequent of a reasonable ground. Rationality cannot have its source in nonrationality.

So either our minds have no physical source, or all physical things are minds (panpsychism).

Would you like to spell that argument out in somewhat more detail for me please?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Shike]

… not hyperbole , but fact , can’t you understand that ??? , never mind dear friend …

So you agree with what I said? You see the logical outcome of saying our definitions are completely different in each individual? You realize that such a theory, if true, would destroy communication?

By the way, our existence isn’t the only thing we can prove (but we definitely cannot prove our existence in the way Descartes conceived since it undermines the very foundation of knowledge).

 

[Shike]

I apologize if I’m repeating previous things in this thread … I skimmed the posts.

You seem to have some important insights.

However, for my part at least, a metaphysical demonstration has been presented: Aquinas’ 1st way. Some alleged counterexamples have been offered but shown to be only misunderstandings of the argument.

We are now at the point where new metaphysical arguments about different conclusions have been asked for, without sufficiently giving closure to the first.

And even beyond that, a denial in the possibility of metaphysical knowledge altogether: still without foundation.

Good luck.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

So you agree with what I said? You see the logical outcome of saying our definitions are completely different in each individual? You realize that such a theory, if true, would destroy communication?

By the way, our existence isn’t the only thing we can prove (but we definitely cannot prove our existence in the way Descartes conceived since it undermines the very foundation of knowledge).

… my dear friend ,

… i only too well know the hopeless problem with all human communication , it does not work at all virtually with fallen humanity , it is hopeless , none even seem to know what human communication is for still less how to do it , it’s very sad indeed , can you think of any time human communication has worked perfectly in your exp , if so keep thinking because it has not dear friend – but give an ex if you have one – i’ll listen for sure , would you give me one example of anything else you can prove absolutely with no doubt at all , i’m open if you can , you need faith i’m afraid , how do you know your not dreaming or an angel or other creature dreaming your human and all these things are happening and real ??? , you cannot , you can only prove that one thing thru exp , i know we must rely on faith to have certainity or we’d go mad , and faith is the normal modus operandi for human belief and i accept this , but proof is another thing if you really think , atheists ask for absolute proof and i’m pointing out that is ridiculous and inhuman , we must use our god given faith to believe all and not just in the things of god , their arguments are ridiculous insisting they won’t believe in god without proof when we and they have to believe in all on the basis of faith – andf not just about god , that’s where i’m coming from dear friend , i’m open to discussion though , your entitled to contribute to the problem solving and this is normal human communication in the pursuit of truth , no offences or ostacles please though , they destroy the search for truth , this is a general statement to all and not just a request of you – don’t be offended dear friend , i look forawrd to seeing your opinins and thoughts too ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Spock]

You are conflating a scientific hypothesis with a philosophical proposition. Neurophysics studies brain function, and does not need to venture out into the speculative ‘mind-body problem.’

I do not conflate anything, merely point out which is relevant and which is superficial. Neurophysics does not “care” about the philosophical implications of its discoveries. However, philosophy should care and must care about the discoveries of the pertinent physical science, if it wishes to become more than some empty speculation. Example: it was posited a long time ago that the lightning is the flaming sword of God (a philosophical proposition) and then it turned out that it is merely a difference in electical charges.

In other words, any “philosophy” which flies in the face of science, is irrelevant and empty speculation. Science started out as speculation (philosophy and religion) a long time ago. As science kept gaining ground, the unfounded speculations (philosophy and religion) lost ground - since there is no real reason for them. Of course the practitioners don’t like this trend, and fight it tooth and nail. That is a natural response, but futile. The more science will explain, the less ground will be for the “God of the gaps” and for the “philosophy of the gaps”. Don’t be a sore loser.

To simply observe that “mental activity is a function of the brain” is rather different than proposing “the mind emerges from the brain.” Subtle, but significant.

Why would it be? Is there a similar objection to “walking and kicking is the activity or function of the leg muscles” as opposed to “walking is an emergent property”?

You might try to invoke Occam’s razor and say there is no need to posit an immaterial mental substance; but such a position is, in fact, necessary, because identifying the mental source (however you want to construe it) with physical properties (however they are organized or arranged) is self-referentially incoherent.

Nonsense. There is no “self-reference” anywhere. (I can see an obsession with self-referece and an attempt to invoke it when there is no such problem.)

As the argument from reason goes: if our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, they cannot be the consequent of a reasonable ground. Rationality cannot have its source in nonrationality.

So either our minds have no physical source, or all physical things are minds (panpsychism).

Just another unsubstantiated, empty proposition.

 

[Spock]

One principle that is of essential use is, of course, the principle of non-contradiction. Obviously.

That is obvious. But that principle is part of any discourse.

God, as defined by Catholics (but don’t worry, it’s also defined this why by many non-Catholics) is that which has all being.

That is simply a re-definition and it has some serious problems. According to this definition there is no such thing as “natural” existence, the world is not different from God. On the other hand it is a Catholic dogma that God created the world ex-nihilo. Another Catholic dogma is that God is “simple”, God has no parts. So your proposition is contradicted by Catholic dogma. As such the Catholic definition is self-contradictory. (Not that I am surprised. It is loaded with self-contradictions.)

Well, I hope that sheds light on your question.

Unfortunately it did not. But I wish to thank you for your kind words at the end of your post.

 

[Neithan]

Would you like to spell that argument out in somewhat more detail for me please?

Wikipedia has a decent outline here.

You may be familiar with Plantinga’s spin-off called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

 

[Spock]

Wikipedia has a decent outline here.

You may be familiar with Plantinga’s spin-off called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

Two pitiful articles on the theme of: “Weell, Ah jest cain’t b’lieve that reezon caime about from some naitural processez”… which is a shining example of the “argument from incredulity”. And these people are considered intellectual giants of philosophy. Sad, sad…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…However, philosophy should care and must care about the discoveries of the pertinent physical science. if it wishes to become more than some empty speculation. Example: it was posited a long time ago that the lightning is the flaming sword of God (a philosophical proposition) and then it turned out that it is merely a difference in electical charges.

… Scientific observations such as the one you mention above do not lead to the conclusion you imply. For instance “I observe that lightning is the result of a difference in electrical charges” does not yield the deduction “therefore it is not G-ds flaming sword”. Can you see now how being light on philosophy leads one to make simple errors in reasoning?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…That is simply a re-definition and it has some serious problems.

We have always been pan-en-theists. It’s nothing new

…According to this definition there is no such thing as “natural” existence, the world is not different from God. On the other hand it is a Catholic dogma that God created the world ex-nihilo. Another Catholic dogma is that God is “simple”, God has no parts. So your proposition is contradicted by Catholic dogma. As such the Catholic definition is self-contradictory. (Not that I am surprised. It is loaded with self-contradictions.)

Not really, it’s one of those philosophy things again. G-d is logically necessary, the world is contingent. The rest of your argument falls apart with that one misunderstanding. There are no contradictions that result from that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

… Scientific observations such as the one you mention above do not lead to the conclusion you imply. For instance “I observe that lightning is the result of a difference in electrical charges” does not yield the deduction “therefore it is not G-ds flaming sword”.

It doesn’t yield that conclusion nor does it eliminate the possibility that lightning is a tool of Zeus, Thor, Raijin, Yahweh or some other deity. But the explanation it provides is less dependent on invoking a deity and can be used generate such electrical discharges and in some cases (re)direct such discharges in nature. It explains the presence of lightning on earth (and Jupiter) and is useful in taking measures to prevent getting killed by it. I don’t know of the existing justifications for the flaming deity sword theory of lightning (and I’m assuming “flame” is a metaphor since lightning is not a flame). But as I understand this thread it’s main goal was to make known methods for knowing about the supernatural. So if/when an answer is found to the main question of this thread it may be something that could be further discussed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It doesn’t yield that conclusion nor does it eliminate the possibility that lightning is a tool of Zeus, Thor, Raijin, Yahweh or some other deity.

Then you agree that Spocks implied argument is irrational?

But the explanation it provides is less dependent on invoking a deity and can be used generate such electrical discharges and in some cases (re)direct such discharges in nature. It explains the presence of lightning on earth (and Jupiter) and is useful in taking measures to prevent getting killed by it. I don’t know of the existing justifications for the flaming deity sword theory of lightning (and I’m assuming “flame” is a metaphor since lightning is not a flame)…

If it is a matter of utility to which you refer, I cannot help but to think that the greater utility to men is in the understanding of lightning as G-ds wrath. For if I understand that G-ds wrath is terrible, powerful and beyond my comprehension, then I may alter my ways to more closely conform to G-ds, thereby receiving the benefit of eternal life. The utility of understanding lightning as solely particle interactions benefits me only slightly, and temporarily at that. It makes my physical existence more comfortable for what time I am here on earth, but it matters not one wit more. So if we are to justify a belief by utility, then the greater utility to mankind is to understand lightning as the wrath of G-d.

…But as I understand this thread it’s main goal was to make known methods for knowing about the supernatural. So if/when an answer is found to the main question of this thread it may be something that could be further discussed.

The answers to the thread were ruled out at the beginning based on false reasoning as I pointed out.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

As science kept gaining ground, the unfounded speculations (philosophy and religion) lost ground - since there is no real reason for them.

I wanted to tackle your assumption by stating you have a deep misunderstanding about science. The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."
2. “A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.”
3. “Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.”

We have always been pan-en-theists.

I am not a panentheist nor a creationist. I suggest everyone review my earlier contribution (msg. 107) and watch the video with Father George Coyne and Richard Dawkins. I agree with Father George Coyne. I am involved with science thus support: “Science is a worldwide endeavor and ought to be open to anyone — regardless of ethnicity, gender, religious commitment, or any other personal characteristic.”
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_worldwide

“Science is not everything, but science is very beautiful.”
–Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoted in Look, 1966

Yes, I am a woman scientist and have every right to speak the truth!

Thank you for your undivided attention. Enjoy what is left of summer. I for one love the intensity of warm breezes and magnificent sunsets.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I am not a panentheist…

All mainstream Christians are panentheists as far as I know. Your religion tag says Roman Catholic, so I am curious as to why you do not consider yourself a panentheist in the Catholic tradition.

 

[Neithan]

Why would it be? Is there a similar objection to “walking and kicking is the activity or function of the leg muscles” as opposed to “walking is an emergent property”?

Lol that can’t be right? Better analogies might be: “cooking food is a function of the stove” vs. “food emerges from the stove”; “internet browsing is a function of the computer” vs. “the internet emerges from the computer”; “musical notes are a function of the piano” vs. “music emerges from the piano”; etc. etc. See? The source of the thing need not be comprehensively identified with the functional apparatus.

Even walking doesn’t ‘emerge’ from our legs; rather, there is a neural process that connects with our brains.

Nonsense. There is no “self-reference” anywhere. (I can see an obsession with self-referece and an attempt to invoke it when there is no such problem.)

To say “the mind emerges from the brain” leaves you with no valid grounds for judging the truth of it.

Just another unsubstantiated, empty proposition.

Just asserting it doesn’t make it so Spock.

 

[Neithan]

Two pitiful articles on the theme of: “Weell, Ah jest cain’t b’lieve that reezon caime about from some naitural processez”… which is a shining example of the “argument from incredulity”. And these people are considered intellectual giants of philosophy. Sad, sad…

Well. Heh. You’re really exposing yourself here… If you’re not going to take the answers to your questions seriously, why ask them?