• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Supernatural

RAMOSS said:
There seems to be other definitions than what you say for what metaphysics means. The one the references the supernatural I think gets to be circular, since you can't show the supernatural actually exists.

The defintion I saw was



And I think 2b fits closest ..
Click to expand...
So, please explain in clear terms how that definition helps get us any closer to anything.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So, please explain in clear terms how that definition helps get us any closer to anything.
Click to expand...

It means that it is subejective and personal..

And, your claims for it can only be true for you.
 
RAMOSS said:
You build a device that can make a sound depending on the frequency of the light, and green and red are defined as specific wavelengths of light. The variation of the sound as the colors get detected will provide evidence that light wavelengths are present. There is something physical there that , while it must be translated, can be detected manually. The colors 'green' and 'red' are defined by their wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose that would be possible. I wonder how much training and interpretation would be required? Lots, most likely.

Without that device, no joy. Without a similar device, it is impossible to present evidence of the supernatural to a person not equipped to perceive the supernatural.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, I suppose that would be possible. I wonder how much training and interpretation would be required? Lots, most likely.

Without that device, no joy. Without a similar device, it is impossible to present evidence of the supernatural to a person not equipped to perceive the supernatural.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the supernatural exists. There is a paucity of evidence for that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, I suppose that would be possible. I wonder how much training and interpretation would be required? Lots, most likely.

Without that device, no joy. Without a similar device, it is impossible to present evidence of the supernatural to a person not equipped to perceive the supernatural.
Click to expand...

PRobably not nearly as much as you would think. For that matter, it could be programmed not only to do the 'pitch' of the light frequency, but also verbally say the color.
 
RAMOSS said:
PRobably not nearly as much as you would think. For that matter, it could be programmed not only to do the 'pitch' of the light frequency, but also verbally say the color.
Click to expand...

Knowing and understanding the word 'green' or 'red' or any other color is impossible for those without sight from birth. Yes, one once sighted but subsequently made blind is another matter.

Converting a color into a harmonic frequency is not the same as seeing the color.

Those with open minds can have an intellectual grasp of what the supernatural might be, but unless they can experience the supernatural, whether by drugs or meditation, it's not the same.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Knowing and understanding the word 'green' or 'red' or any other color is impossible for those without sight from birth. Yes, one once sighted but subsequently made blind is another matter.

Converting a color into a harmonic frequency is not the same as seeing the color.

Those with open minds can have an intellectual grasp of what the supernatural might be, but unless they can experience the supernatural, whether by drugs or meditation, it's not the same.
Click to expand...


It might not be able to be subjectively understood, but the understanding that there are different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be detected, and having those specific frequencies labeled 'red', and 'green' can be understood objectively. There is somethng physical that can be measured.

Not only that, but a double blind test can be conducted.. where you expose the specific frequencies to various 'sighted' individuals, and see if they can properly label those frequencies without the use of external detection devices. This can be done by taking independant test subjects, bringing them into a room, and saying 'what color is that piece of paper'.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
It might not be able to be subjectively understood, but the understanding that there are different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be detected, and having those specific frequencies labeled 'red', and 'green' can be understood objectively. There is somethng physical that can be measured.

Not only that, but a double blind test can be conducted.. where you expose the specific frequencies to various 'sighted' individuals, and see if they can properly label those frequencies without the use of external detection devices. This can be done by taking independant test subjects, bringing them into a room, and saying 'what color is that piece of paper'.
Click to expand...

Most likely true. Nonetheless being able to recognize audibly certain frequencies does not translate into the visual experience.

Those of us unable to comprehend the supernatural experientially are different from those who can recognize it. For us it is beyond comprehension, for them it is part of their existence.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Most likely true. Nonetheless being able to recognize audibly certain frequencies does not translate into the visual experience.

Those of us unable to comprehend the supernatural experientially are different from those who can recognize it. For us it is beyond comprehension, for them it is part of their existence.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, some people take more mundane experiences, and give interpretations that are confirmation bias which has nothing to do with the reality behind the experience.
 
RAMOSS said:
Or, perhaps, some people take more mundane experiences, and give interpretations that are confirmation bias which has nothing to do with the reality behind the experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, just as some persons experience cognitive dissonance.....
 
RAMOSS said:
Or, perhaps, some people take more mundane experiences, and give interpretations that are confirmation bias which has nothing to do with the reality behind the experience.
Click to expand...
that could be dangerous but certainly might not be

Thoreau72 said:
Yes, just as some persons experience cognitive dissonance.....
Click to expand...
really what he just described IS cognitive dissonance to a degree no?

the problem with labelling everything to do with the supernatural as cognitive dissonance would be if their life is successful it doesn't matter

it only matters when our thought patterns keep leading us to bad consequences and there is no need for a spiritual belief for that to happen, it happens daily because people with bad programming mentally, emotionally and spiritually
 
_Sal said:
that could be dangerous but certainly might not be


really what he just described IS cognitive dissonance to a degree no?

the problem with labelling everything to do with the supernatural as cognitive dissonance would be if their life is successful it doesn't matter

it only matters when our thought patterns keep leading us to bad consequences and there is no need for a spiritual belief for that to happen, it happens daily because people with bad programming mentally, emotionally and spiritually
Click to expand...

My larger point is only that certain individuals are able to experience or at least perceive the supernatural, while others simply are not, rather as some are color blind and others are not.

And I am of the opinion that cognitive dissonance is mostly an involuntary reaction. The voluntary form would be the "willful ignorance" that the legal system recognizes.
 
Thoreau72 said:
My larger point is only that certain individuals are able to experience or at least perceive the supernatural, while others simply are not, rather as some are color blind and others are not.
Click to expand...
hm okay yes although non believers in the supernatural would merely claim what does not exist can not be perceived

and that tweaked a thought: certain Christians would say that is because "god had not called the individual"

there are certain passages that say you can't come to god unless he calls you



And I am of the opinion that cognitive dissonance is mostly an involuntary reaction. The voluntary form would be the "willful ignorance" that the legal system recognizes.
Click to expand...
agreed

many people hold to old ways of coping which worked for certain periods of time in their life...things change, if coping strategies don't life becomes very uncomfortable
 
Thoreau72 said:
My larger point is only that certain individuals are able to experience or at least perceive the supernatural, while others simply are not, rather as some are color blind and others are not.

And I am of the opinion that cognitive dissonance is mostly an involuntary reaction. The voluntary form would be the "willful ignorance" that the legal system recognizes.
Click to expand...

And, do you have objective and tangible evidence that this is so? What experiments do you have that have been published and replicated to show this is the case? How are you ruling out confirmation bias? What is the model for the supernatural to show how it operates?
 
RAMOSS said:
And, do you have objective and tangible evidence that this is so? What experiments do you have that have been published and replicated to show this is the case? How are you ruling out confirmation bias? What is the model for the supernatural to show how it operates?
Click to expand...

There are many recorded stories of humans experiencing the supernatural, some having supernatural powers. Many, in many or all cultures around the world.

I would offer the several books written decades ago by Carlos Castaneda, "Journey to Ixtlan" and others. You may not accept them because they were drug induced, but who is to say that certain drugs do not have such powers?

In different religions and cultures around the world there are many accounts of humans having "supernatural" experiences.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There are many recorded stories of humans experiencing the supernatural, some having supernatural powers. Many, in many or all cultures around the world.

I would offer the several books written decades ago by Carlos Castaneda, "Journey to Ixtlan" and others. You may not accept them because they were drug induced, but who is to say that certain drugs do not have such powers?

In different religions and cultures around the world there are many accounts of humans having "supernatural" experiences.
Click to expand...

Yes,.. but none of that claims answers the questions I put forth. How can you show that interpretation is correct?? What model do you have to explain it?? How does it function? HOw can you show that these experiences are not just solely generated by the mind, and entirely internal to the specific person's brain? Those are very specific questions.. and so far, those questions are ignored and deflected from. That is not bode well for the veracity of the supernatural claims.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes,.. but none of that claims answers the questions I put forth. How can you show that interpretation is correct?? What model do you have to explain it?? How does it function? HOw can you show that these experiences are not just solely generated by the mind, and entirely internal to the specific person's brain? Those are very specific questions.. and so far, those questions are ignored and deflected from. That is not bode well for the veracity of the supernatural claims.
Click to expand...

I cannot, and you cannot show the interpretation was incorrect.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There are many recorded stories of humans experiencing the supernatural, some having supernatural powers. Many, in many or all cultures around the world.

I would offer the several books written decades ago by Carlos Castaneda, "Journey to Ixtlan" and others. You may not accept them because they were drug induced, but who is to say that certain drugs do not have such powers?

In different religions and cultures around the world there are many accounts of humans having "supernatural" experiences.
Click to expand...

Castaneda was a fake.

One of Castaneda’s colleagues read about a meeting he supposedly had with Don Juan in Tucson, checked his calendar, and found that he had seen Castaneda in the UCLA library on that date. When he reported this to the Department of Anthropology people, they started investigating and found all kinds of discrepancies. It led to Castaneda’s downfall. Richard de Mille, another anthropologist at UCLA, checked the library records for Castaneda, and found that when Castaneda claimed to have been in a peyote ceremony in the Sonora Desert of Mexico, he was actually sitting in the UCLA library reading a published account of such a ceremony. De Mille also documented that there were no Yaqui words in the books, despite Castaneda’s claim that he spent months with Don Juan.

Jay Courtney Fikes, an anthropologist who also studied with the Huichol people of Mexico, published an extensive expose of Castaneda in 1993. The title was “Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties.” He says Castaneda’s first four books made him as famous as Margaret Mead, which is a shame
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/the-fake-carlos-castaneda/

Then, after mentioning the name Castaneda, state the name Richard de Mille, and chances are neither one questioned will know who that is. Richard de Mille (1924-2009 died April 9. I found this out after starting this post. Richard (most people were on first name basis with him, as was I) was author of two key books on Castaneda, both written in the 1970s: Castaneda’s Journey, the Power and the Allegory, and The don Juan Papers.

Through Richard de Milles’s diligence and intellectual power, Carlos Castaneda was exposed as a fraud, and his eight books describing psychedelic rituals and perceptions of Yaqui Indians of Sonora were proved to be mislabeled creative fiction. Castaneda did not deny the charge and never brought legal charges against de Mille. (After the first $1 million, who cares, might even have been good for business?)

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-original-richard-de-mille-carlos-castaneda-literary-quackery/
 
Thoreau72 said:
I cannot, and you cannot show the interpretation was incorrect.
Click to expand...

I can point to many attempts to show that it is true, and that those many attempts failed. I can point to the vast number of times when the so called 'supernatural' event was something much more mundane. Those attempts and those misinterpretations are significant enough evidence that it raises the conclusion 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes,.. but none of that claims answers the questions I put forth. How can you show that interpretation is correct?? What model do you have to explain it?? How does it function? HOw can you show that these experiences are not just solely generated by the mind, and entirely internal to the specific person's brain? Those are very specific questions.. and so far, those questions are ignored and deflected from. That is not bode well for the veracity of the supernatural claims.
Click to expand...

not ignored or deflected...it can not be proven or disproven

personal experience is subjective and the variables involved in each experience are limitless
 
RAMOSS said:
I can point to many attempts to show that it is true, and that those many attempts failed. I can point to the vast number of times when the so called 'supernatural' event was something much more mundane. Those attempts and those misinterpretations are significant enough evidence that it raises the conclusion 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Click to expand...

what if we are just not evolved enough yet to develop the system to prove it

much like the existence of bacteria and virus used to be
 
_Sal said:
not ignored or deflected...it can not be proven or disproven

personal experience is subjective and the variables involved in each experience are limitless
Click to expand...

The fact it can not be tested except for 'personal experience is evidence that it is nothing but confirmation bias, rather than a phenomena that is objective.
 
RAMOSS said:
The fact it can not be tested except for 'personal experience is evidence that it is nothing but confirmation bias, rather than a phenomena that is objective.
Click to expand...

no, the fact that it can not be tested at this point is merely indicative of the fact that we don't yet know how to test it...nothing more, and nothing less

virus and bacteria ... nothing magic about them and they have certainly always existed and yet there was no way to prove their existence for millions of years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom