Does the Supernatural exist?
 

I'm curious, vote on the poll please and let us palaver.

Well, you know me Toosey, i believe you've gotta leave space in your beliefs for 'the unknown' and 'the unknowable' and all that. :)

...but...

I'm not particularly sold on ghosts.

Here's a natty little proof of how one type of ghost-experience can be generated.

Basically, there are certain types of 'vibration' that cause certain body parts like the eye to vibrate subtly, triggering a 'someone or something is nearby' type of feeling. The natural response, having turned round a few times, is to assume some nigh-invisible presence is about the place. [It can even cause the appearance of a blurred 'shape' to appear at the periphary of vision - as well as other unsettling physical effects]

Apparently, this is one of the many types of vibration that they make sure don't occur in cars. Which is handy, coz not only does it means your windows don't rattle on long journeys, it means you also don't spend the entire time convinced there's someone sitting on the empty back seat ;).

---

Generally, i'm not sold on ideas of afterlife etc. As for other Supernatural stuff, what sort of thing were you thinking of?

I believe the human mind can only percieve so much. We can only process a certain frameset of information and that's that. I don't know what is beyond our perception, but whatever lays beyond the wall of human thought might as well be dubbed the supernatural.

Be it ghosts or the past inhabitants of the universe who exist betwixt the particles of the twilight, I don't deny the possibility simply because not everyone is capable of being aware of it. I have great faith in genetic variation and I find it perfectly acceptable that some people were born more prone to recieving the unknown than others. It could be the next step in evolution for all we know.

That said, I think a lot of people tend to make **** up.

My parents are convinced that the house I was born in was haunted. They've told me stories, not 100% convinced, but I've not seen enough proof to make up my mind either way.
Had plenty of bad experiences involving spirits, especially vodka.......yup I've cracked that one before!!!!

Of course the Supermarket exists! I was there just yesterday and bought me some milk and a loaf of bread among other things. Lovely people too!

No. When you die, you die. Believe it.

You've addressed one item in the catalog of things that could be considered 'supernatural'. What about the rest?

Also, while most of modern day science as well as most of conventional wisdom allows for the possibility of the existence of things outside our realm of six senses, you stand firm in your belief that these things in FACT do not exist. Care to tell us why?


OG- I like your brain.

Darth, pour me three fingers and let us transcend the physical :D

Nope.

I had to go with maybe, though I lean towards the negative....

This is an interesting question, but not as interesting as the answers. I find the reason people generally say "no" is because they've simply resolved not to believe in anything unempirical; there's no scientific proof of anything supernatural, so why should I believe in it?

This appears very sensible at first, but I don't think that it is. Something supernatural, by definition, must exist outside of science. If it were measurable or observable or empirically demonstrable, it would cease to be supernatural. Therefore, saying that you don't believe in the supernatural because it can not be scientifically proven is really just a roundabout way of saying that you don't believe in the supernatural, period. You start with the assumption that nothing outside of the natural can exist, and since the definition of supernatural falls outside of that, you don't believe in it. There's no real reason; just a presupposition about what can and cannot exist. It's a slightly dressed up way of saying "that's just not the sort of thing I believe in."

Anyway, I went with "yes," if only because it's a broad enough term to encompass any sort of spirit, soul, life force or deity.

Who said that?

I went with maybe ;).

No one here. It's just the reason I most often hear when this topic comes up, and I can't really recall hearing any other reason.

I voted 'yes', which might suprise those here that know me.

Ay, sure. For those who insist all supernatural phenomenon are impossible. That'd be their stance.

But at the same time, it's good to have reasons for believing in things isn't it? Or at least, to have a sliding scale... (From 'almost certainly isn't true'...to...'almost certainly is' ;). In the case of the vibrating-ghost-sensation, i'd say there's almost certainly no ghost activity involved :))

(It's so cute when you argue for lack-of proof being a good thing btw ;))

---
EDIT
---

Incidently (and smoothly ignoring Djangles as he exhibits the classic symptoms you were talking about)...

I just wanna delve into your argument a bit more...

Well, to presuppose the existence of the supernatural without evidence would also seems to lack a firm 'reason' too. ;). Just saying :). Both sides are guilty of presupposition there.

I think what's bugging me about your stance here tho is that: Reasonable scientists don't assume that just because they can't test something it doesn't or can't exist. I know you didn't directly accuse the science world of that kind of mind-set, but it kind of felt like you were.

Amongst the less-extreme practitioners of the scientific method, there's a lot of acceptance of the unknown, and the unknowable - and the Supernatural fits in those kind of categories very nicely indeed ;).

Altho i'll admit that scientists do find it 'psychologically appealing' to try and forget about those type things

[or whatever that phrase was that we used to knock back and forth ;)]

Sure... in fact, the tooth fairy is telling me right now that it does exist! :D

I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in fairies... :rolleyes:

I'll explain my reason for answering "no," then. Although, it should be said that because "supernatural" is such a broad term (and so difficult to define), one cannot - in my opinion - answer either way, lest they begin to generalize. But for the sake of wanting to post something, I answered.

When we're talking about fairly tangible, grounded supernatural phenomena (apparitions, weeping paintings, cryptids, spontaneous human combustion), I've done a considerable amount of research. and I've found that most sources claiming the validity of these things don't really take into consideration the discrepancies (they just simply promote the "mystery" of it all, or ignore them altogether).

For example, one guy claiming that spontaneous human combustion was a real phenomena couldn't explain the frequency of victims who smoked, were elderly or incapacitated, or used oxygen units for breathing (or all of those together). He also couldn't accept the likelihood that the residual body parts - usually a foot - were left because most victims burned sitting, and fire naturally burns up the body. His biggest argument rested on the fact that the victims didn't get up and run around (in fact, many of them were resting in their beds). Many of the victims, again, were incapacitated, but others were not. They didn't die from burning to death, though. They most likely died from smoke inhalation - and it's been scientifically proven that when one is sleeping deeply, pain receptors on the body also rest (otherwise, all our rolling around and kicking in bed would keep us up all night). This evidence was collected and presented by Joe Nickell, a CSICOP researchers here in Kentucky.

With ghosts, I read an article recently about a chemist who was working in his lab late at night, and who experienced all the standard "ghost" symptoms: irrational fear, cold sweat, flushed hands, hair standing up, and of course, the grey, disappearing apparition. Being a scientist, though, he studied what happened, and found that an internal fan in the lab wasn't circulating electromagnetic waves properly. It's been scientifically documented that an over-exposure of electromagnetic waves can cause anxiety, fluxuations in body temperature (cold sweating), and even hallucinations. The chemist had the fan repaired, and he never had another experience. For my money, this experience seems to explain more than the majority of ghost sightings.

When we're talking about the religious supernatural (not including weeping paintings, stigmata, and the Shroud of Turin), we're talking about purely subjective material. The whole point of believing or not believing in something is because it works for you, makes sense to you, improves your life, etc. Saying you don't believe in God is just as credible as saying you do, because one can't prove either way. In fact, believing that something isn't makes just as much sense as believing that something is.

I don't know about others, but here's how I feel:

I don't assume that anything unproven does or doesn't exist. But I do understand that something might exist, or it might not. Because of that, I think believing in something because it could be true is the same as not believing in something because it could be false. I lean toward the latter, and it's a matter of who I am, and what makes sense to me.

Check the link in my first post for that very guy's publication on his discovery... :)

I don't think Yods was particularly hitting at people with our mindset, but he provoked the same reaction in me ;).

I couldn't open it (it's a PDF file, and I don't have Reader here at home), but yeah, I think that's the one. The title sounds familiar.

Oh, I know he wasn't attacking anyone, and I wasn't defending myself. I was just trying to explain why I answered "no," and why that's a perfectly acceptable reason.

'Tis why I used the term supernatural instead of being more specific. The whole idea came about at Thanksgiving when people were having a ghost discussion in my back yard. Some one said that they didn't believe in the supernatural at all and I had to ask him then why he feels compelled to go to church every Sunday.

After some uncomfortable foot shuffling, we headed to the garage refrigerator for beers instead of finishing that conversation.

So, I decided to test it here.

Oh, the 'fairy' comment is retarded.

There is of course the reason of believing that everything can in fact be scientifically proven, sooner or later. Which is more open minded than just calling the so called supernatural humbug. You admit to the fact that something extraordinary has happened and even if it can't be explained right now, it probably will or can be in due time.

I have a friend who's a member of UFO Sverige ("UFO Sweden"). When they get a report of a unexaplainable sighting of some sort, they send one of their members out there. If the member does not find any valid natural explanation for the "thing" (they have some sort of checklist, I suppose), it is officially dubbed a UFO.

In other words, those who believe in the Supernatural often do so for romantic reasons. They don't seek natural explanations because that would take away the reason to why they pay so much interest in these things - the excitement for the unknown and unexplainable. Instead of trying to explain the unexplainable (or, rahter, the things hard to explain) or acknowledging those things that might offer an explanation, they choose to settle with "we can't explain this!".

I'm not saying that ghosts or spirits or other supernatural elements or phenomenons definitely do not exist. I'm probably more critical of those who seek out arguments to glorify the myths and ignore the facts or underlying reasons. I think these people are often not the ones who actually see supernatural things but the ones who go around looking for them or interviewing those who do experience this kind of things. Like a news reporter who's written the story beforehand.

I have never witnessed anything that I would call supernatural. They say that some people are open for these things and some are not, and some people for sure seem to see things on a regular basis. I probably lean towards the opinion that people simply have different personalities and people can see the exact same thing but react to it in completely different ways. I guess something really odd has to happen to me for me to call it supernatural.

My question would be, "Why would this be true, if it is? Why could some people be more prone to have supernatural experiences than others?" For me, it's just another unanswered question that is simply that: an unanswered question that needs to be answered. Obviously, we're dealing with things that aren't known or proven here, but there's an issue that inevitably comes up when the supernatural is involved: credibility. And sadly, some people like to claim credibility in the unknown, which is completely irresponsible.

As in the case of stigmata, some people buy into that because they simply can't explain it, so it must be real. They want to attribute that to God's great mysteries rather than find out for themselves if the phenomenon is genuine.

As in the case of mediums and psychics, they can't (and don't) explain why they can see or experience the things they can, so they hide behind some kind of false credibility that you and I can't explain - and thus disprove - it either. So they go about their work as if they are genuine (and maybe they are), but it all too easily goes unchallenged.

As in the case of ghosts, some people simply can't explain it, but because they were afraid, and because it matches other "ghostly" encounters they might have heard, they'll use these shallow ideas as evidence that ghosts are real. (And there's something to be said about the conditioning to see or experience ghosts: ever been in a graveyard at night? You expect to be frightened, and you've got the ghost thing in your head; and for that reason, anything and everything you see could potentially be construed as a ghost.)

The reason it makes sense to me that some people are more open to "the supernatural" than others is that some people have better vision than others. Some people are nearly deaf and others can hear frequencies that are rarely percieved by most. If there is a range of intensity in our other senses, why not in percieving this as well?

Also, the vibrations that were mentioned in Golgot's first post could still be a supernatural occurrence. Describing something in scientific terms doesn't change the qualities of the thing itself. As Golgot pointed out later, the most professional in the scientific arena reserve the possibility that there is more to our world than can currently be measured and studied by current means and methods.

While I know there are people who make a living by posing as psychics who are actually performers/hucksters, I also know that there are people who are better at sensing what is going on with another person than others are. And why not? On an atomic level, we're all energy. Our bodies work through electrical impulses. We have all witnessed electrical energy jumping from one solid body to another. Having done so, is it really logical to think it's impossible for that to happen between people?

Lastly, if you believe in evolution, then you believe that all life came from the sea. You are surely aware also that fish don't have ears. Fish "hear" (sense) what is around them by vibrations against their lateral line - a network described variously as "hairs", "pores", "nerves" - which tell them what is in the water around them. It hardly seems a huge leap to think humans could have a similar sensing mechanism for detecting who and what is swimming around our waters.

I offer none of this as proof. Just food for thought.

When I think about human perception, I always think about how human beings tend to "make order out of chaos;" that is, they attribute truth to things that may or may not actually be there.

Example: the Rorschach ink blot test. It's a silly example, but it illustrates what I mean pretty well. You look at the ink blot, and you extract perceptual images from it (airplane, two people kissing, whatever) because that's how you perceive the image. Some people are more likely to see the subtle details, while others only see the simple, uniform shapes. These variations, mixed with the variables of personality, generally determine what the viewer sees. But in the end, it's only a white piece of paper covered with black smudges.

Another example: the glass half-full or half-empty. Apparently, positive personalities see a half-full glass, while the negative personalities see a half-empty glass (which is, again, a matter of differing human perception). But it really is just a glass with an inconsequential amount of liquid in it.

Last night, someone was telling me about a widowed male goose living on her land. He joins the migrating Canadian geese, picks out a goose couple, and helps to protect their young until they move out. Every year, he does this. She calls him "Uncle," and later said, "poor Uncle." And I thought, huh...she's attributing human emotion to this animal's situation, perceiving pain and loneliness and a desire to reconnect. But the goose could simply be carrying out his role by instinct only, because his natural purpose is to be a goose, and do goose things.

The way we sense things is, of course, a variable. Some people see farther, and some people hear better. But it's what we naturally turn our perceptions into that becomes the subject of scrutiny.

When I was young and crazy, I had a Batman tshirt. I think it was black with a yellow Bat image on the front. When I looked at it, I couldn't see the Bat image. It looked like something else, even though I knew it was a Bat image. Sometimes I had to stare awhile before the Bat image became apparent. weird :D

Ditto :yup:

I believe the majority supernatural phenomenon can be explained by Nikola Tesla's laws and theories, the rest by hallucinogenic drugs.


nebbit, I demand you put your last avatar up!

There are a lot of con artists out there that promote the belief of the supernatural or life on "the other side", so it makes it hard for me to 100% totally believe in these things. Then there are also people who come up with these claims that they've experienced something, and I'll listen to what they have to say, but if it's too crazy, I probably won't believe it (ex. ghosts blowing up a house, someone becoming possessed, anything that reminds me of Beetlejuice).

There was a girl that I met last year and haven't seen her since, but she wanted me to attend a seance run by some woman at a psychic shop close to my old apartment. $20 to hear some crazy lady act all holier-than-thou, tell everyone that they were reincarnated gods, and listen as she channeled dolphin spirits. I'm serious... the woman channeled dolphin spirits. I told this girl friend of mine to stop wasting her money, that she was a fraud. She didn't believe me. I never went to one of these shows to turn myself into a believer, cause it wouldn't happen.

I'm very open to the possibility of being totally extinct upon my death. I do not want this to happen and I don't fear going to hell either if there is life after death. I think that life after death is possible and I have experienced a few things on my own that have made my belief in this a lot stronger, because if they didn't happen, I'd be a total atheist. I cannot rely on the stories of Jesus Christ to persuade me to have faith, although if he's real, I'd like to meet him. I voted maybe.

Up where ;D

How Ironic the name is more than a statement! :)

define your version of "supernatural."

I'm assuming this was directed at Toosie... and for now, he's window dressing on the side of milk cartons... so until he decides to rear his horny head around here again, this might help...

I've watched too many epidodoes of X-Files to say no.

not much more to say than:
of course.

what's supernatural too is for native speakers to write "perceive" with */-ie-/ as in "believe"... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh froggy, even I know the I before e, except after c rule. :)

Oh waiit, I was missspellingg things on purposeq to mess with the frqg.

No. I believe what we perceive as supernatural is just that...a perception. And interpretation. Phenomena that we experience may be external (lights, sounds, smells) or it may be internally generated (from the brain). We may interpret the phenomena as supernatural or natural that we can't fully explain.

That's what I believe the supernatural is... a natural occurrence that we can't explain. Sometimes we prefer a supernatural explanation over "I don't know what the hell that was."

And admittedly, the supernatural has more romanticism and mystery than a simple "I don't know."

So basically Twain, your theory is: we havent discovered it all, but its all there for the discovering?

Of course they are natural occurences. They occur in nature. But, again, clearly the "occurrences" are deviant from the normal plodding everyday occurrences of life. What are we saying - that these oddities can be explained away?

I refer to my original statement: define supernatural.

Supernatural being?
Supernatural occurrence?

All you seem to be saying is that everything is "natural," apropos, there is no "super" natural. Kind of puts the cart before the horse, yes? Very circular reasoning, seemably.

Some of the defs of natural are:

2. Forming an essential element, as arising from the basic structure of an individual: built-in, congenital, connatural, constitutional, elemental, inborn, inbred, indigenous, indwelling, ingrained, inherent, innate, intrinsic, native. See BE, NATIVE, START. 6. Produced by nature; not artificial or manmade: organic, unadulterated. Idioms: pure as the driven snow. See CULTURE. 7. Accurately representing what is depicted or described: lifelike, naturalistic, realistic, true, true-life, truthful. See REAL. 8. Of a plain and unsophisticated nature: artless, homely, homespun, rustic, unadorned, unpolished. See PLAIN. 9. In a primitive state; not domesticated or cultivated; produced by nature: native, rough, uncultivated, undomesticated, untamed, wild. See WILD.

Supernatural is:

1. Greatly exceeding or departing from the normal course of nature: preternatural, unnatural. See USUAL. 2. Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world: extramundane, extrasensory, metaphysical, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, superphysical, supersensible, transcendental, unearthly. See SUPERNATURAL.

So to the point: I think the "everything is natural" argument/vantange point falls squarely within definition 1 of "supernatural," which leaves definition 2 open for argument.

All in fun/sportsmanship/quest for knowledge-understanding! :D

vir loquitur qui omnium sapit! ;)

Suuuuper, super nature, suuuuper, super nature ;)
 

Eh? So, ultimately, you've just said that the 'supernatural' covers everything, so the only thing left to debate is the 'natural'?

Commendable conclusion, but i'm not quite sure how you got there ;)

If i invent the concept of "Ultra-natural" (defined as: 'Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the supernatural world') - will the term supernatural become open for argument then? ;)

Let's just debate the nature of the term 'supernatural' anyway. IE why do the phenomenon it describes have to be distinct from the 'natural universe'? We don't know the boundaries or composition of the universe anyway, so what's the point in drawing a realm that's distinct from it? Aren't there enough mysteries already? Why not merge the two concepts? God, meet Universe. Ghosts, meet Dark Matter. Telepathy, have you spoken to Schrodinger's Cat recently?

I wouldn't mind the supernatural concept at all, as it's used, except that sometimes strong believers in the 'other' can stop believing in the magic of what little we know about ourselves and the universe.

In Egyptian times the magnetic techniques used to heal were considered magic. Now, they're starting to be used in hospitals around the world (it can take a while to break down that 'worldly'/spiritual divide can't it ;)). To some people that takes the magic away, seeing them used in hospitals in that way.

There's nothing wrong with being beguiled by the mysteries of the unknown. I just don't see why they can't be considered a potential food source for the known. And one that's as infinite as our ability to digest it is finite ;). There'll always be more.

Yum :)

i see a talkative monkey man?

i just want to add to this, even though it probably won't really mean anything to anyone except for myself, but my mother has the sharpest...i don't know? radar? intuition? than anyone i've ever known. so many times upon meeting someone for the first time she will make little comments to me about them, things she suspects and I'll look at her and go, "what? you're crazy!" and more often than not, she was right on the button...

it's things like this that really makes me agree with what has been said here...though i am really not sure if i believe in anything supernatural...

great post Golgot! :cool: :) this frog totally agrees

hei! with that kind of intuition you have for translating, poor translators like myself could become obsolete and lose their job! :eek: :eek: ;)

Originally Posted by mack

So basically Twain, your theory is: we havent discovered it all, but its all there for the discovering?

More or less. But I don't presume to believe we WILL discover it all. Our knowledge of the universe is woefully incomplete and will never be complete.

Of course they are natural occurences. They occur in nature. But, again, clearly the "occurrences" are deviant from the normal plodding everyday occurrences of life. What are we saying - that these oddities can be explained away?

Not necessarily. They may never be explained. But retreating to a supernatural explanation may be premature.

Supernatural being?

Beyond the natural. A "magical-like" influence upon nature. Contrary to the laws of physics. Or was "being" a noun? :D In that case; a god, demon, angel, fairy...an entity not bound by nature or the laws of physics.

All you seem to be saying is that everything is "natural," apropos, there is no "super" natural. Kind of puts the cart before the horse, yes? Very circular reasoning, seemably.

Saying everything is natural is putting the cart before the horse? Well, you got me there. I don't quite see your reasoning. :D

Here's an example of circular reasoning: The Bible says we are made in God's image.

...How do you know?

Because the Bible says so.

It's not circular reasoning to presume things and events are natural but are sometimes interpreted in a supernatural way. That's merely a natural interpretation of phenomena as opposed to a supernatural one.


Supernatural is:

1. Greatly exceeding or departing from the normal course of nature: preternatural, unnatural. See USUAL. 2. Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world: extramundane, extrasensory, metaphysical, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, superphysical, supersensible, transcendental, unearthly. See SUPERNATURAL.

So to the point: I think the "everything is natural" argument/vantange point falls squarely within definition 1 of "supernatural," which leaves definition 2 open for argument.

I have no evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist. It's merely an opinion. But then, there's no real evidence that the supernatural does exist either. It's more of an interpretation or perception of a "realm" that can't be scientifically observed. For that reason, it can't be proven or disproven and will forever exist or not exist on the whim of the "observer." :D

Just for fun, I'm going to throw a wrench in the discussion.

Two plus two equals four, right? How do we know that? Because we can plainly see that if you put two objects together with two more objects, you end up with four objects. But what if I said that two plus two equals five? Would I be wrong?

"Two," "four," and "equals" are terms invented by humanity to designate words to specific numbers and concepts. They aren't physical truths. So, two plus two equals four because someone said so. Years from now, someone can come around and say "two plus two really equals five," and who are we to argue?

And before you say that no matter what we call numbers, a certain number plus a certain number will always yield a certain number. But that's a result of how humans process and organize information. Other beings process organization differently. Computers, for example, process information in binary. For them, nothing is tangible. And for an amoeba, there are no numbers, and everything is tangible.

(God love Orwell for screwing with my head.)

If the simplest equation - two plus two equals four - isn't even a constant truth, then what does that say about the existence of everything else? Again, I concede to my point that truth and belief, supernatural or not, stems solely from human perception. The real truth escapes us, because we can't be anything other than human. They say dogs see in black-and-white. If this is true, then grass must appear greyish to them. Is that no less true than the green grass we see?

We can perceive phenomena, but the supernatural is what we attach to it - not what is necessarily there. Dogs have better senses than we do. We can't see electromagnetic waves, but perhaps they can - and perhaps, for them, it's no less normal than perceiving a mailbox.

You want to ratchet things up? (sorry, sorry)
 

Are you saying amoeba's are innumerate and Godless? My lord! Can we not establish some kind of schooling facility to correct this? ;)

Erm, mainly bugger all. It says more about our perception of things, as you go on to say.

But that does not mean underlying realities do not contain consistancies etc - regardless of the extents to which we can or cannot perceive them. (And the boundaries to our knowledge have proved at least slightly mutable as time has gone by ;) - that's always an intriguing thing)

Well, we could apply that to maths too, or vision, or any perceptual construct, as you've shown. But i'm sure you'd agree that to blur the lines too much wouldn't be that useful. We could perhaps just say that there are things which we are 'closer' and 'further' from our understanding (and we're liable to put 'perceptual spin' onto all of those things).

Yup. And perhaps we should keep up our intriguing ties with them - and keep extending them - as the people who have discovered dogs that can 'sniff out' tumours have done, for example ;)

Seems there's lots of cheeky ways to gain curious little insights :)

Right. We perceive the world, and we categorize in terms of 'truth' and 'untruth' according to the understanding of truth we have created for ourselves. What exists outside our realm of understanding is beyond us. Things may exist, or they may not. But looking at and interpreting existence through the human filter is like looking through a cardboard paper towel tube. Which is the higher understanding I think we have to achieve: that perspective is a relative thing; that what seems to exist (or not exist) for us may not be the case; that we may not be as complex and enlightened as we like to think we are.

It's hard to guess either way. One could argue that reality is created by the senses. After all, one possesses no way to interact with the outside world, then does the outside world exist. For the deaf, does sound exist? And just because we can say yes, does that make it true? If everyone in the world is deaf, that truth would be much different. So, how can we step outside and understand that which we cannot perceive?

Yeah, I read that article last week. Interesting stuff. :yup:

Or 'more true'/'less true' ;) - or even 'conditionally true' etc ;). Ain't context a bitch :)

I think we might as well settle on saying something(s) exist. Makes things easier ;)

Sure - but it can't just stop there. If it's to be a higher understanding then there's a load of challenges to be faced up to - IE we need to refine our knowledge of...

a) the nature of reality
b) the limits of our perceptions

(duh ;))

The two intermingle and inform each other soooo frequently. (That's why study of the mind is such a interesting area of study too - coz it sits on the crossroads. I stumbled onto this slightly flatulant but interesting overview of theory of mind - and the difficulties it faces. It's worth a read. Plenty of 'psy' phenomenon mentioned too)

By learning about the limits of our perceptions we can sometimes step outside them. The dog example is one form of this. The fact that we're getting down to the 'quantum' level - and fathoming aspects of space which we can never visit, shows this. Many of these discoveries have evolved from attempts to explain the gaps in what is perceivable, as much as the gaps in what is known.

Here's where a lot of the problems are. Human nature. No matter what potential steps forward we can make in understanding, there's the problem of daily application and communication. Every new day is an increasingly weirder one in this world - whether it be because people have become entrenched in: an old rut in a new world; a whole new rut; a whole new potential 'world'; or whatever.

Even before we get to psy-phenomenon etc - there's a load of 'magical' new skills that are gonna become available - and are available now - which make the nature of perspective and approach even more important. Do we want people to have DIY genetic modification kits? Will we skewer reality into a butterfly bow while searching for the Higgs Boson? Who knows. It's all worth keeping an eye on tho.

There's lots of interesting games to be played out. And lots of potential for us to actually end up looking down a narrower cardboard tube, simply because of being overwhelmed by the mass of information around us - or by habitualisation to a few successful perception techniques.

So, yeah, to this, conditionally. But it seems we're still able to shift the boundaries of what we can't know at the moment. And there's still knowledge 'within us' that is yet to be tapped in the modern world. I'd say many things that are currently unknowable will slowly sift into being merely 'unknown' (and from there, potentially become 'known' :)). But that some things are ultimately unknowable - i think we should take that as read. (And then read 'around' them anyway ;) - what else can we do?)

Bah. Always disliked this one. Used to drunkenly argue a lot with my mate who would say the world would die when he died. Bah.

With difficulty, and often not at all. But nevertheless... it is possible. Some deaf people can now hear, because of the shared experiences and knowledge increases of both the deaf and hearing. Some blind people are getting closer to seeing thanks to various work (including this
tongue device i linked to elsewhere). And all of these 'leaps into the dark' help us understand ourselves, our limitations, and our potential, a whole lot more :)

I think referring to truths as "more" or "less" true, depending on from where you're looking, muddies up the understanding of truth. It seems like it can get really confusing designating degrees of truth, especially when our very definition of truth really doesn't allow for the understanding of degrees to begin with. Remember, the understanding of "context" you mention also comes from us. We can try to think like a dog (context), but what we're really doing is thinking like a human thinking like a dog. Who knows how a dog really thinks? Again, we can't step out of the human filter.


Everything stems from our perceptions, though. We can't step outside them unless we cease to be what we are. We can never understand the "true nature of reality," because we can only experience reality through the human filter.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. :nope:

It sounds stupid, but how could you prove otherwise? You'd be dead. You'd no longer possess the capacity to perceive the "outside world." Is it still there? Who knows? Perhaps living is nothing more than a condition of the brain...

A: well to be blunt, the supernatural is a very generic term...in this thought you must decide what it means to you; either scientific-being able to touch it and say it's real, matter or energy, or is it is spiritual...If scientific, then you'll probably say no, simply because it isn't proven; but you must remember even gravity was supernatural to begin with...Ans if you say spiritual, then my friend that is along the lines of the belief system, which is completely and internal decision unfir to be voted on; and that is not to say other peoples ideas and thought cannot be a powerful determining factor...

B: Do you think if we knew any more that we did about the supernatural, that we would call it that?

Have you seen What the *bleep* Do We Know? Highly recommended for anyone interested in this sort of thing. :D

Quantum mechanics is some weird shiite. And probably the closest to the supernatural a materialist like myself will ever get.

It is circular reasoning to say that there is no supernatural because everything is natural, hence, no supernatural. :confused: (ok, not really confused! :D)

Ex:
I saw/experienced something that normally does not occur.
What I saw/experienced was supernatural.
No, what you saw was natural.
Why?
Because everything that occurs IS natural, thus, nothing is supernatural.
:confused: .....circular!

Of course! Just tossing another thought into the fray. ;) Actually what I was trying to posit (from a theoretical standpoint - not that I go one way or another), was that according to definition "supernatural" can be (1) EXTRA-natural -which is what it seems you are saying, or (2) UN-natural - being completely foreign to nature.

If you look at it this way, Supernatural encompasses most theories. In fact, if you believe that everything is natural, then odd occurences/experiences are only "natural" experiences that outside the norm (or "EXTRA-natural"). However, it also encompasses the idea that there are experiences and occurences that are completely foreign to nature (or "UN-natural").

Bottom line: the word "supernatural" is expansive enough to cover all of our definitions well. Interesting, no? So then it would not be correct to say you do not believe in "supernatural" occurrences because according to the definition, you do. ;)

Whoops. big answer.
 

Ah, i was referring to 'objective' variance, not subjective variance, making a truth's truth vary :D (Subjective issues, like communication, add a whole 'nother level of confusion - as that last sentence proves ;))

'Truth' is muddy by default. Or at least, if a 'truth' is to in any way reflect the complexities of the universe, it ain't gonna be a clear-cut simple thing.

Out of necessity humans break truths down into the smallest 'clearest' chunks possible. But when applying those truths to the 'bigger picture', we have to factor the messy issues of context and timeframe back in. Even laws of physics have multiple outcomes which are tempered by the environment in which they are operating. On these grounds even they can be 'less' true at certain times than others.

To use a cheeky example, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is much 'truer' in a closed system than 'out in the real world' ;) (In a closed system, the entropy actually happens).

Most other facts ain't even as clear cut as physics laws tho. The truth seems to be messy. (Quite fun to splash about in tho ;))

You seem to be talking about absolute Truth rather than the average daily flawed human truth. As you've mentioned, the former is a basically unobtainable thing. Only silly people think they know it ;)

You seem to be being a touch defeatist about this tho. We can find the dog who's willing to do what we can't. Thanks to variance we can learn about things we lack from others (the filter comes in varied forms). Thanks to pooled knowledge, we can learn about things 'beyond the filter' which we can never directly experience.

Who cares if you can't experience what the dog does? Who cares if you can't know God's/The Universes Truths? We can't experience what's 'beyond' the filter, but occasionally, we can still 'divine' something about it ;)

Sure. (Altho, on the 'ceasing to be what we are' thing, change is fairly inevitable anyway. Some day we'll be something else. At the very least, the filter will be slightly different ;))

I was tackling some subjective/social aspects of dealing with complex 'objective' truths (and how our increased understanding of the universe has increased our ability to affect it - tho not necessarily our subjective and daily ability to handle it. IE We're more powerful now, but we ain't all that much smarter ;))

Well, i always just think that all of us existing after all those have died before as good a proof as is necessary ;)

It's either that or you buy into some sort Descartes-Devil (or God) thing - where some all-powerful being has created everything you perceive just for you.

And if that were so, i'd still say... so what? ;) Doesn't exactly seem worth worrying about if you can't change it :)

Nice posts guys :)

Looks like the supernatural is un-debatable then. It encompasses everything and nothing ;)

Ugh, i've heard it's a bit of a twisty production - and not in a good way. Cult funded, dodgy interpretations of the good science, with some pseudo-science thrown in (the ice-words guy particularly).

Might give it a whirl, but i've been put off by most of what i've read. There's plenty that's fascinating about both quantum physics and self-determination, without people going round saying the two together mean you can walk on water :D

This is the point I was wondering if someone would bring up. This is most often the end result of my thinking when considering the supernatural.

We either base our concept of reality on what we can detect with our own five senses, or we accept that things can exist outside of that set of limitations.

To go a step further, if one were to believe that the former is truth then does that make humankind the center of the universe since nothing can exist outside of the human experience? That's a slippery slope.

Can't we do both? :)

Ay. But on the other hand, the people who think they've received information from the unknowable 'realms', for example, are sliding off into a whole world of worryingness n'all ;)

It's so slippy out there it's amazing we can walk upright at all ;)

Everything real has a scientific explanation, we may not know it yet, we may never know it, but it does. The idea that anything lies beyond science is ridiculous as science by definition exists to explain the way things work. Therefore, the answer is no.

Why is it ridiculous? Science is based on the empirical observation of physical phenomona. By definition, then, it can have absolutely nothing to say about the possibility that something non-physical exists. We're left, then, to weigh that possibility philosophically.

This is the reason science and religion do not ultimately conflict, and are very poor substitutes for one another.

That's a pretty large assumption.

Just coz science has helped us delve ever further into the unknown and the previously-unknowable, that doesn't mean it can do so indefinitely - or that its 'tools' of explanation and exploration will be compatible with all the universe's mysterious twists.

After all, we do have plenty of evidence (both scientific and 'philosophical') that human beings operate under various mental/physical limitations.

Those facts suggest that not everything is liable to fall within our ken. Or our barby.1

1 - This was a very poor joke

Ugh, that was horribly 'anthropic' reasoning, and a tautology to boot, so about as redundant as saying 'God exists coz God exists' ;)

Science exists to explain our universe, however it manifests itself. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by something 'non-physical'? To exist something must have physics of some sort - even a vacuum has physics. I'd also argue that science is more based on explanation than observation, although that doesn't have much relevance in this argument.

Well, no, it wasn't quite that redundant, it was more like saying 'religion explains everything by definition because it's all God's will.' Which is a valid point, if you choose the religious school over the scientific one.

I lived in a haunted house when I was at university, so I definitely believe in ghosts.

I dunno. I reckon your original claim can be reduced to 'science explains everything because science explains everything' - and the above statement can be reduced to the 'God=God' one. In both cases the caveats don't change the fact that the conclusion is the same as the premise, i'd say :)

Heh, i've tried to persuade Yods that that term is a tad peculiar, but at the end of the day it serves its purpose, which is to draw a line between the knowable and the unknowable - just dressing it up in 'intangible spirit' trappings at the same time ;)

Um, what sort of ghostly activity did you witness Punchy? If it was the 'sensing a presence' kind, you might want to check out my first post in this thread ;)

It may be something of a semantic argument, but when something is conceived with the specific purpose of explaining everything, you can't argue that something can be beyond it. Even if two parts are somehow disconnected, they still fall under the science bracket. A much more interesting argument would be to consider the question of whether it is possible that there are two, or more, completely distinct aspects of science? I suspect the answer is 'no' but I'd find it a lot harder to be confident of that than I would of the answer to the question of whether anything can not have a scientific explanation.

Conceptually, perhaps not, but in reality, you certainly can - coz intending to do something ain't the same as achieving it.

In what sense? As in untestable hypothesises compared with Popperistic experiment, for example? Those discplines certainly have contrasting aspects to them.

Something i find intriguing about the discipline of science is the scientists themselves. It seems that people with certain 'mindsets' are regularly drawn to science [and are undoubtably further molded by it]. In some ways that may be limiting the potential 'bredth' of understanding that science is capable of attaining. Stuff like that anyway, it intrigues me ;).

Your confidence that science can, in all practicality, explain everything does strike me as slightly ironic - coz surely there isn't enough evidence to back up such a claim ;)

As in if it is possible to start at one point in the scientific field and work through various relevant discoveries etc to every other point. 'This ties in with this which in relevant here, which applies in this case, which...' etc etc. Sort of like that Kevin Bacon game.


I suppose not. And I am positive that it will never explain everything, but I have faith in its potential to, save for a few axioms that ultimately we will have to accept. Perhaps the point of science is to discover these fundamentals that one just has to get used to? Afterall, you can always ask 'why?' and eventually you won't be able to go any further; the same is true in mathematics. However, I doubt very much that ghosts are one of these truths. Religions already have their explanations of everything, which may be why so many people choose to follow them.

I saw a book fly off a shelf seemingly on it's own, and that wasn't a one time deal, it happened a few times, as well as hearing someone upstairs when there was't anyone but myself at home...was definitely not "I sensed a presence." it was more like "oh holy crap, that glass just jumped off the desk!" A little girl had died in the house back in the 1900's, so thats who we thought was doing it.

Heh, huge task :D

I think science is obviously fractured down 'disciplinary' lines, for a start, but they're increasingly merging - and have influenced each other anyway.

I was kinda taken with this little 'cross-discipline' 'theory of everything' recently...

Here's a taster of the huge mash of issues this guy is tackling, and how he's trying to draw a line through them...

And here's a trippy factoid that he throws in, which kind of feels at home on this thread :)...

Jolly good ;). I think it's only realistic to admit that science isn't a 'cure all', or an 'all seeing eye'.

Ay, faith. That's the spirit ;)

I think the way it tests those boundaries, and reveals them (or changes them) by doing so, is one its greatest assets.

Science certainly delves into doubt in a way which often makes it a 'counter-balance' for religion. I think it's this constant questioning that sometimes drives science-minds into over-stating the facts and discoveries that have been made. But there's no denying what it has achieved. It's worthy of a bit of worship ;)

Fly as in 'hurl itself'? Or fly as in drop off the shelf?

I'd definitely be impressed by the first one :)

(Was it always the same book incidently?)

yeah, what he said. heh.

in more detail with my own mind working here, i feel there is no way to fixedly define "supernatural" ... because some people mean, "anything yet to be supported by science and absolute fact across the board, like the fact the world is definitely round and that our bodies are made of a large amount of water." others mean, "anything outside of what we know which could be fact eventually but hasn't been verified by science or research across the board."

ie, to claim the world was round was heresy and the concept was "supernatural" to a world convinced by "fact" that the world was flat. eventually this was disproven. so what was deemed "fact" then was actually wrong. where does the supernatural lie in that conundrum and how does it apply to what we're thinking of as "supernatural" today?

ie, we don't believe, generally, in ghosts now. in 20 years, that may change. we don't have proof, generally, in living beings on other planets existing in our time and presence. in 50 years, that may change. we may be only using 10% of our brains now, and in 30 years discover how to use an additional 25% that allows us to discover telikinetic powers, the power to see through things, the power to predict the future, etc. these things seem supernatural now, but may become fact and reality later. we can liken these "abilities" to a person's talent to sing amazingly, dance incredibly, discover new mathematical theories.

and i concur re: the religion vs. supernatural thing. religion IS supernatural. it cannot be proven by absolute fact, and exists only becaues of absolute faith, which is not tangible and measurable.

the same people who dreamed up variations on christianity and other denominations dreamed up the existence of witches. if one is "true," to the groups who follow the faith, why isn't the other?

Not the same book every time, no, but it did hurl itself off the shelf. If it just fell, I wouldn't say "Oh, My house is haunted," I'd say "wow, what crap shelving." :D

Heheh :D

Hmm, that does sound peculiar. Don't know if it means a young ghost girl was having a strop, but still, very peculiar :yup:

Oo, didn't see this before...

And others mean the stuff that can't ever be classified by science. It's a stretchy, intangible word ;)

I agree with the whole thrust of this para, but thought i should point out that the '10%' stat is a bit misleading. As i understand it, we're only using certain areas of our brain at any given moment (say, the 'walking, talking, chewing and perusing bits', for example. Immediately shifting into the 'hopping, swearing and glowering bits' after we step in some dog **** ;)). Overall tho, we seem to use the whole blessed lump. Just not all at once.

That's not to say that we use it to 'full effect' tho. (Intriguing examples abound of how we can get 'further' potentials out of our minds-n-bodies - such as meditation techniques, for example).

So, as you were ;)

Then what it comes down to Sleezy is that you are putting 100 percent of your faith in the idea that a supernatural does not exist without the proof that it does not. Pretty much the same way a Chrisitan is poked fun at for saying they have faith though on the opposite side of the spectrum. Is this what you mean?

His whole post was quite clearly stating that that is precisely not what he meant.

Before i started studying English i did two years of physics, so that will lead me quite fast to a strong NO :p. However, i can imagine that there are actually things that are unexplainable at this time and which seem supernatural, but i believe if those things are real they're explainable through physics, we're just not there yet. There's still such an enormously long way to go.