So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[Subduction Zone]

I am far from convinced with all sheldrakes claims

However the "do you know who is ringing you" is conceptually very simple - easy to measure significance and to make procedure tight. And some experiments he did on that subject (like Nolan) do seem to show massive significance.


I was using this subject not to raise it for its own sake, but an example that is definitely polarizing in terms of apriori belief (Dawkins is not impartial , a definite non believer in it - and he uses the word "supernatural" to ridicule it)
But it is also an area in which there are results way beyond chance.

The point I make is -

If and only assuming the data is good and no holes are found in method - as a matter of definition it is "natural" not "supernatural" behaviour because it happened in nature. Whether or what the mechanism is.

I would have to disagree with this. Though not proof of the supernatural, events that run contrary to all known laws of physics may be supernatural. The problem is that the claim of something being "supernatural" is usually an argument from ignorance. The examples that you gave failed as being properly investigated. Proper records were not kept Methodologies were not revealed. All we can say at best is that we do not know and poor experimentation is only evidence of the incompetence of the one running the experiment. I do not know of any examples of the supernatural that exist when rigorously investigated.

The problem then is , without even a postulated cause it is hard to know what is important, so easy to make a change that could remove significance.

So I think it is vital that first repetitions are exact. Is the data good, before trying to explain it? And funding has problems then (althoughh I hasten to add, sheldrake has repeated variants of this)
When another tried to repeat it, they did not get the same results, but by their own admission changed a number of factors, which is the problem of new vs repeat for funding and publishing.

(As an aside sheldrake remarks that it is not even "extraordinary" because he claims that a significant proportion of popluation believe it true I assume he polled)

And as has been pointed out Sheldrake's lack of rigor makes his experiments all but worthless in support of the supernatural. He has an example of an unexplained phenomena but there is no way to tell if it was investigated properly.

Peer review exists to make sure that people do their work properly. The peers makes sure that the researcher dots every i and crosses every t. Sheldrake did not do this.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You contradict yourself time after time here so that I is very hard to believe any of your claims. Even aspects of Newtonian physics cannot be replicated in the laboratory, much less relativity. How would you test the physics of an orbit in the laboratory?

Second, relativity is no more wrong than quantum dynamics is. Both explain part of the world that the other cannot. We know that they are incomplete, but each can be tested and verified in ways that the other cannot.

In my experience anyone that claims to be an autodidact in physics is not. Quantum field theory is not one overarching theory and still cannot explain gravity. And the math involved is far beyond what the pay person can handle.

And what does Newton Physics or General Relativity explain? The dynamics of planetary systems or .1% of the universe.

They both do so to an astonishing accuracy without adding any kind of ad-hoc hypothesis to them. But the very second you go beyond the confines of the solar system and attempt to apply them to the other 99.9% of the universe, what was just 99.8% accurate without ad-hoc hypothesis, suddenly needs 95% ad-hoc hypothesis added to it to even fit a semblance of reality.

You all keep ignoring the very accuracy you spout as proof of its correctness.... and what that accuracy is trying to tell you..... instead taking that accuracy and nullifying it completely by dismissing it and adding that 95% ad-hoc theory to what we already understand is extremely accurate without it. You make a mockery of it and don't even "see" it.....

 

[Kaon]

Then start another thread. Usually if a thread is deleted there was a reason for it. Sop far your posts have contradicted your claims. Start a thread and perhaps you can convince someone.

I will not start another threat because I saw all I needed to see in the first one. You wouldn't know whether or not I contradicted myself, because you haven't seen any arguments I have made, and I made sure to be very short whenever you and other persons are involved. As I said, I know your work; my job isn't to entertain or prove anything to you.

By the way, like most creationists, you appear not to understand the concept of an ad hominem. Now you have made all sorts of false accusations again me, why not justify your claims. I can justify mine.

As I said, you are myopic in your judgments against me, presumptive even. I can justify anything I say, but I don't cast pearls before swine - to quote the bible.

For example, I am not a creationist.

You are looking at superficial things and extrapolating them based on your own naivete. I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will not start another threat because I saw all I needed to see in the first one. You wouldn't know whether or not I contradicted myself, because you haven't seen any arguments I have made, and I made sure to be very short whenever you and other persons are involved. As I said, I know your work; my job isn't to entertain or prove anything to you.



As I said, you are myopic in your judgments against me, presumptive even. I can justify anything I say, but I don't cast pearls before swine - to quote the bible.

For example, I am not a creationist.

You are looking at superficial things and extrapolating them based on your own naivete. I hope you find what you are looking for.

I have seen the claims that you have made. They were self contradicting. And I did not say that you are a creationist, but like many science deniers you do share some traits with them.

So far all you have is excuses. And promises to leave that you constantly break. Why not start a new thread? Someone that understood what they are talking about would have no problem doing so.

 

[Kaon]

And what does Newton Physics or General Relativity explain? The dynamics of planetary systems or .1% of the universe.

They both do so to an astonishing accuracy without adding any kind of ad-hoc hypothesis to them. But the very second you go beyond the confines of the solar system and attempt to apply them to the other 99.9% of the universe, what was just 99.8% accurate without ad-hoc hypothesis, suddenly needs 95% ad-hoc hypothesis added to it to even fit a semblance of reality.

You all keep ignoring the very accuracy you spout as proof of its correctness.... and what that accuracy is trying to tell you..... instead taking that accuracy and nullifying it completely by dismissing it and adding that 95% ad-hoc theory to what we already understand is extremely accurate without it. You make a mockery of it and don't even "see" it.....

Everyone plays a role of agency. I used to be the same way; blinded by the alleged light of the rockstars of my department. A few are Laureates. However, once you realize 1) you are a human, 2) you do not need another human to think for yourself, and 3) your work is a representation of 1) and 2), you begin practice thinking for self, and examining for self. I am very fortunate to have the position to prove everything I need with math, but most people believe they are intellectual degenerates because they do not have letters behind their name. This is untrue, which is why I brought up autodidacts.

And, it one of the largest perpetuations of control: that a full grown adult with a working brain, logos, ethos and pathos cannot figure out things of this life for one's self. That, we need human authorities to guide us. Academia is blind to its own folly, because of political reasons. There is a very strong foundation of dealing with heresy, as it were, perpetuated by the intellectual comparmentalization of academia AND layperson alike.

These are agents; they must behave this way because they are appointed to act this way for a certain time... just like I was, admittedly. I know you know the root of all challenges to lies is spiritual - as is the compulsion to defend them - whether one realizes it or not.

 

[Mountainmike]

This thread is about defining supernatural.

Give me your definition? If you use the word you must have a definition in mind?

I would have to disagree with this. Though not proof of the supernatural, events that run contrary to all known laws of physics may be supernatural. The problem is that the claim of something being "supernatural" is usually an argument from ignorance. The examples that you gave failed as being properly investigated. Proper records were not kept Methodologies were not revealed. All we can say at best is that we do not know and poor experimentation is only evidence of the incompetence of the one running the experiment. I do not know of any examples of the supernatural that exist when rigorously investigated.



And as has been pointed out Sheldrake's lack of rigor makes his experiments all but worthless in support of the supernatural. He has an example of an unexplained phenomena but there is no way to tell if it was investigated properly.

Peer review exists to make sure that people do their work properly. The peers makes sure that the researcher dots every i and crosses every t. Sheldrake did not do this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is about defining supernatural.

Give me your definition? If you use the word you must have a definition in mind?

I would say the supernatural is not only the unexplained, but things that cannot be explained by the sciences. "Not explained" does not mean the supernatural. The supernatural is not confirmable, but one could find reliable evidence for it if events occurred even when studied rigorously.

 

[Mountainmike]

I would say the supernatural is not only the unexplained, but things that cannot be explained by the sciences. "Not explained" does not mean the supernatural. The supernatural is not confirmable, but one could find reliable evidence for it if events occurred even when studied rigorously.

How do you know apriori the difference between not explained and cannot be explained?

Indeed what is an explanation? Just consistency with the scientific model?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know apriori the difference between not explained and cannot be explained?

Indeed what is an explanation? Just consistency with the scientific model?

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

If there was actual evidence found for the supernatural then it would not necessarily need to be consistent. It would have to be observable under conditions where it could not be faked or from a natural cause. And that is the problem with the supernatural. It does not show up reliably at all. The closer that people look at supernatural events the more that they do not appear to exist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Everyone plays a role of agency. I used to be the same way; blinded by the alleged light of the rockstars of my department. A few are Laureates. However, once you realize 1) you are a human, 2) you do not need another human to think for yourself, and 3) your work is a representation of 1) and 2), you begin practice thinking for self, and examining for self. I am very fortunate to have the position to prove everything I need with math, but most people believe they are intellectual degenerates because they do not have letters behind their name. This is untrue, which is why I brought up autodidacts.

And, it one of the largest perpetuations of control: that a full grown adult with a working brain, logos, ethos and pathos cannot figure out things of this life for one's self. That, we need human authorities to guide us. Academia is blind to its own folly, because of political reasons. There is a very strong foundation of dealing with heresy, as it were, perpetuated by the intellectual comparmentalization of academia AND layperson alike.

These are agents; they must behave this way because they are appointed to act this way for a certain time... just like I was, admittedly. I know you know the root of all challenges to lies is spiritual - as is the compulsion to defend them - whether one realizes it or not.

They are just unwilling to accept the accuracy of the very theory they claim to follow, but in reality do not at all.

They continually fail to see that what it explains accurately (planetary systems, non-ionized matter) is but .1% of the universe. That the reason they need that ad-hoc theory is because the physics for non-ionized matter is not applicable to the other 99.9% of the universe, plasma.

And so they are required to ignore the accuracy of the very theory they claim to follow and add 95% ad-hoc theory to it because they didn't really believe it was accurate at all......

They continually ignore that only particle physics and electrodynamic theory is used in every plasma laboratory to describe the behavior of plasma - ionized matter. But they didn't trust their theory and what it was trying to tell them with it's extreme accuracy. and so they had to add Fairie Dust because they were of little faith.....

 

[dad]

It also seems to me...
Science must treat the evidence the same whether or not people "Like" the conclusion!

Think of science as a cult. They have very limited definitions for what they will allow to be called evidence.

By their criteria, we cannot accept ancient wisdom or records because they cannot verify them with their little physical only tools and testing methods/limits.

So they wave away basically all evidences of human existence and experience because you can't bring it under their nose and 'prove it'.

Did God answer a prayer in a way you know it really was God? Well, unless you can get physical evidence of this...it never happened as far as science is concerned. Even if you brought in a job confirmation paper, or a marriage certificate, or a healed arm or organ etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...they would say you either were a liar, a con, or that something else was responsible, and your connection with God and reality is completely skewed or imagined.

Did hundreds of people see Jesus risen from the dead, and die to verify it was a true record? Never happened as far as they are concerned. Miracles through the ages? Nope...all liars and imagination and no proof. Spirits affecting history and lives for good or bad? No. Unless you have a physical spirit that has time and inclination to visit the lab...they don't exist.
It really is time mankind realized that as far as science is concerned....that really is not very far at all!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Think of science as a cult. They have very limited definitions for what they will allow to be called evidence.

You are projecting again. The version that some Christians follow is rather cultic. They have to deny reality because their personal interpretation of the Bible cannot hold up to it.

By their criteria, we cannot accept ancient wisdom or records because they cannot verify them with their little physical only tools and testing methods/limits.

Again that is wrong. The reason that "ancient wisdom" is not accepted is because all too often it contradicts another "ancient wisdom" and can be shown to be wrong to boot. That "ancient wisdom" can be found in your personal religious text does not give it any authority on its own. Modern ideas are observable and testable. If you could find some valid way to test your ancient wisdom it might become testable. But the Bible, and other religious books, shy away from testing.

So they wave away basically all evidences of human existence and experience because you can't bring it under their nose and 'prove it'.

Again, they are not "evidences" unless you can demonstrate that they are reliable.

Did God answer a prayer in a way you know it really was God? Well, unless you can get physical evidence of this...it never happened as far as science is concerned. Even if you brought in a job confirmation paper, or a marriage certificate, or a healed arm or organ etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...they would say you either were a liar, a con, or that something else was responsible, and your connection with God and reality is completely skewed or imagined.

Once again, contrasting religions, and even contrasting sects getting different answers from others means that prayers are not reliable. Also people that get "healed" usually are being treated by doctors and people also get well on their own. Don't blame others when you cannot find reliable evidence.

Did hundreds of people see Jesus risen from the dead, and die to verify it was a true record? Never happened as far as they are concerned. Miracles through the ages? Nope...all liars and imagination and no proof. Spirits affecting history and lives for good or bad? No. Unless you have a physical spirit that has time and inclination to visit the lab...they don't exist.
It really is time mankind realized that as far as science is concerned....that really is not very far at all!

There is only a record of one highly biased source saying that hundreds of people saw him. If you want the claim to be reliable you would need others besides those that share your beliefs to have seen this.

For the same reason that you will deny that other ancient gods arose from the dead non-Christians will deny that Jesus rose from the dead. And both appear to be correct in this denial.

To sum it up the reason that you do not have evidence is all of what you call evidence is not reliable. Even fellow Christians make different observations, much less non-Christians.

 

[dad]

You are projecting again. The version that some Christians follow is rather cultic. They have to deny reality because their personal interpretation of the Bible cannot hold up to it.


Again that is wrong. The reason that "ancient wisdom" is not accepted is because all too often it contradicts another "ancient wisdom" and can be shown to be wrong to boot. That "ancient wisdom" can be found in your personal religious text does not give it any authority on its own. Modern ideas are observable and testable. If you could find some valid way to test your ancient wisdom it might become testable. But the Bible, and other religious books, shy away from testing.



Again, they are not "evidences" unless you can demonstrate that they are reliable.



Once again, contrasting religions, and even contrasting sects getting different answers from others means that prayers are not reliable. Also people that get "healed" usually are being treated by doctors and people also get well on their own. Don't blame others when you cannot find reliable evidence.




There is only a record of one highly biased source saying that hundreds of people saw him. If you want the claim to be reliable you would need others besides those that share your beliefs to have seen this.

For the same reason that you will deny that other ancient gods arose from the dead non-Christians will deny that Jesus rose from the dead. And both appear to be correct in this denial.

To sum it up the reason that you do not have evidence is all of what you call evidence is not reliable. Even fellow Christians make different observations, much less non-Christians.

I say science has no way to say what is reliable about ancient records of miracles or spirits.

If non believers deny Christ rose, they do so against the evidence, and with no evidence.

There is no other claims to rising from the dead that are witnessed by hundreds and billions over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I say science has no way to say what is reliable about ancient records of miracles or spirits.

If non believers deny Christ rose, they do so against the evidence, and with no evidence.

There is no other claims to rising from the dead that are witnessed by hundreds and billions over time.

Ironically posted by using a modern scientific device.

And the reason that your "evidences" fail is that you have the same evidence that other religions have. That is why religions are faith based and not evidence based.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are still using two words you have not defined with precision, and the case of " explain" not at all. I jump to no conclusion till you do, because your sentence is rather meaningless without precise definitions.

This is an exercise in pure critical thinking.

You have said "supernatural" is that Which is not capable of "explanation" rather than that which has not yet been explained , implying a judgement of what is temporal lack of " explanation" from permanent.

I asked you two critical questions
First - what do YOU mean by "explanation" - do you just mean "consistent with the scientific model" as it currently is?

In which case and by which definition relativistic effects must have been "supernatural" Until the model was modified to include it - a direct consequence of that definition of " explain"

So define "explain." Precisely please.

Which leads on to the other obvious problem:

Second - how do you know apriori a phenomenon or data set will not be "explained" in the future, so how can you determine what is temporal or permanent lack of explanation in order to categorise anything as supernatural?

I.e. You would then be basing " explain" and so " supernatural" on a prediction of how the scientific model will evolve.

Such definition, clearly causes the need to predict the future of how the scientific model may evolve, so is certainly subjective opinion , and therefore "supernatural " is thereby proven a subjective classification.

Science and philosophy must be precise. You cannot use subjectivity for classification - which is then just opinion or prejudice.

So define PRECISELY what you mean by " explain" to give meaning to your proposed ( but so far blurred ) definition of " supernatural", and on that basis tighten up the definition of supernatural.

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

If there was actual evidence found for the supernatural then it would not necessarily need to be consistent. It would have to be observable under conditions where it could not be faked or from a natural cause. And that is the problem with the supernatural. It does not show up reliably at all. The closer that people look at supernatural events the more that they do not appear to exist.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is well worth reading such as Rizzi " science before science" to see how current culture and science has simply lost sight of "what is truth" , and is conflating its own model of a limited subset of reality , with reality itself.

Rizzi is a leading theoretical physicist with serious track record including solving a problem that einstein could not, and involved in ground breaking research on such as gravity waves that led to Nobel citation, his credentials are impeccable.
He articulates and justifies why many of us instinctively feel when hitting some of the paradoxes, that " this cannot be real, science screwed up"

Think of science as a cult. They have very limited definitions for what they will allow to be called evidence.

By their criteria, we cannot accept ancient wisdom or records because they cannot verify them with their little physical only tools and testing methods/limits.

So they wave away basically all evidences of human existence and experience because you can't bring it under their nose and 'prove it'.

Did God answer a prayer in a way you know it really was God? Well, unless you can get physical evidence of this...it never happened as far as science is concerned. Even if you brought in a job confirmation paper, or a marriage certificate, or a healed arm or organ etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...they would say you either were a liar, a con, or that something else was responsible, and your connection with God and reality is completely skewed or imagined.

Did hundreds of people see Jesus risen from the dead, and die to verify it was a true record? Never happened as far as they are concerned. Miracles through the ages? Nope...all liars and imagination and no proof. Spirits affecting history and lives for good or bad? No. Unless you have a physical spirit that has time and inclination to visit the lab...they don't exist.
It really is time mankind realized that as far as science is concerned....that really is not very far at all!

 

[DogmaHunter]

It also demonstrate faith in concepts : you clearly believe in dark matter because of assertions you make.

Dark matter is very well motivated. It is the proposed explanation for very measureable and detectable gravitational effects.

It is not "believed", nore is it "believed because of assertions".

Only because you would rather not let go of the present model of matter, so label a hole in that theory "dark"...

What "hole"? We observe gravitational effects in the universe that visible matter can't account for. Those detectable gravitational effects require additional explanation. Dark matter is the proposed explanation.

You can call it a "hole" in knowledge if you want. I'm okay with that. Science's job is to plug holes with explanations. It's hard work. Dark matter is the current hypothesis on the table for that. It might be correct, it might be wrong - time will tell. That's okay.

it has to be there, because otherwise your modelof matter is conceptually wrong

No..... something has to account for the effects being observed.
Dark matter is just proposed as being that something.

and you refuse to accept that possibility. That matter is just a model, that doesnt work everywhere.

Huh?
The whole reasons that darm matter hypothesis exists, is precisely because observable matter alone isn't sufficient to account for the gravitational effects we observe.
The very existance of the hypothesis, is an acknowledgement that the model of only observable matter isn't sufficient.

Yet, you claim that science doesn't want to accept the possibility that the "ordinary matter model" isn't sufficient?

You're not making any sense.

Hawking accepted the limitations of models with his concept of "model dependent reality" It is the logical and philosophical deathknell of the "universal theory of everything" - but he never drew that obvious conclusion

Humanity is so fortunate to have a guy like you with deeper insights in physics then legendary physicists like Hawking....

 

[DogmaHunter]

For the last time, drop the normal mixture of adhominems , insults, non sequiturs, straw men and off topic

And give me YOUR precise defintion of supernatural.

I am genuinely interested.

Let us see if it survives critical thinking or whether it dismisses a lot of mainstream science as supernatural.

Just wondering.... why would you expect an atheist to come up with a definition of "supernatural"? Isn't it the job of the one who believes the supernatural exists, to define it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Many on CF are not open to change.

Many on CF are firmly bias in their views. Talking to them is like a brick wall, unfortunately.

Irony.

 

[Mountainmike]

You prove my point entirely.
Just critical thinking.

Problem-

The model doesn't work.
It would need much more "mass" to make it add up.
Noting that most ( not some) of it is missing!


You have choices.
1/ Alter the axiomatic concept of mass or
2/ Alter the axiomatic relationships with mass
Or
3/ keep the definition of mass and presume there is just more of it
For which
4/there is a need to define a mass field or particle(s) that account for 3/ and also explain invisibility.

For the poster to say "dark matter " is somehow " real"
- he is first treading the dangerous philosophical road of assuming any of it is "real" outside the model

But notwithstanding that:
In deciding the model needs changing and saying dark matter is " real" he is preferring choice
3/ over 1/ or 2/
And since he has no evidence for 4/ to support it

It is clearly just belief which is
" confidence in absence of sufficient evidence"

Please note also that very fast particles also increase mass, ( i.e. Some Evidence that modifications type 1/ 2/ may be possible) so dark matter approach 3/ is not the only one possible. Relativity altered 1/ AND 2/ - until relativity mass was not linked to behaviour - after relativity - mass was made dependent on speed. The model is just a model. It changes.

And if I were you I would study Hawking concept of model dependent reality before trying to play a card you don't understand which will lose you this card trick! I will throwback Anthony Rizzi. Read " science before science"
Even Feynman was far more questioning of how science really relates philosophically to the real world than his oft quoted " shut up and calculate"implies.


QED from critical thinking.

Dark matter is very well motivated. It is the proposed explanation for very measureable and detectable gravitational effects.

It is not "believed", nore is it "believed because of assertions".



What "hole"? We observe gravitational effects in the universe that visible matter can't account for. Those detectable gravitational effects require additional explanation. Dark matter is the proposed explanation.

You can call it a "hole" in knowledge if you want. I'm okay with that. Science's job is to plug holes with explanations. It's hard work. Dark matter is the current hypothesis on the table for that. It might be correct, it might be wrong - time will tell. That's okay.



No..... something has to account for the effects being observed.
Dark matter is just proposed as being that something.



Huh?
The whole reasons that darm matter hypothesis exists, is precisely because observable matter alone isn't sufficient to account for the gravitational effects we observe.
The very existance of the hypothesis, is an acknowledgement that the model of only observable matter isn't sufficient.

Yet, you claim that science doesn't want to accept the possibility that the "ordinary matter model" isn't sufficient?

You're not making any sense.



Humanity is so fortunate to have a guy like you with deeper insights in physics then legendary physicists like Hawking....