• 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.

Regression of Ignorance

Thoreau72 said:
He just defined it. A broad and general definition, but at least a starting point.
Click to expand...

But he didn't define what it *IS*, he defined what it *ISN'T*. It's anything that isn't "natural". It's anything that's "above natural". That still doesn't tell us what it is. What is it made of? What is it comprised of? What are some examples of the supernatural that we can examine? That kind of thing simply doesn't exist.
 
Cephus said:
But he didn't define what it *IS*, he defined what it *ISN'T*. It's anything that isn't "natural". It's anything that's "above natural". That still doesn't tell us what it is. What is it made of? What is it comprised of? What are some examples of the supernatural that we can examine? That kind of thing simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

IF you looked at the definition of 'that natural', it said 'anything that has happened or can happen'. That can be also stated as 'anything that is possible'. Something that is beyond the possible is the impossible.
 
RAMOSS said:
IF you looked at the definition of 'that natural', it said 'anything that has happened or can happen'. That can be also stated as 'anything that is possible'. Something that is beyond the possible is the impossible.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change a thing I said.
 
Cephus said:
That doesn't change a thing I said.
Click to expand...

WHy, yes it does. Rather than saying the supernatural is undefined, it says 'the supernatural is impossible'.
 
Cephus said:
But he didn't define what it *IS*, he defined what it *ISN'T*. It's anything that isn't "natural". It's anything that's "above natural". That still doesn't tell us what it is. What is it made of? What is it comprised of? What are some examples of the supernatural that we can examine? That kind of thing simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You want examples, not definitions.

There are many recorded examples of supernatural powers amongst humans, going back hundreds of years at least, but they don't talk about them on NBC or Fox.

Supernatural is a word describing a broad array of events or incidents, and sometimes powers and abilities held by certain humans.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You want examples, not definitions.

There are many recorded examples of supernatural powers amongst humans, going back hundreds of years at least, but they don't talk about them on NBC or Fox.

Supernatural is a word describing a broad array of events or incidents, and sometimes powers and abilities held by certain humans.
Click to expand...

I want both, but I'll start with definitions. And a definition is about what a thing is, not what it is not. Saying that air is not water doesn't tell us what air is. Saying that the supernatural is not natural doesn't tell us what the supernatural is. It just tells us what it is not. And because we don't know what it is, we have no way of determining if there is actually anything supernatural, which makes it a pointless word to begin with. If it is actually any of the things you describe, demonstrate it. Show how those things are supernatural, as opposed to something natural we simply don't understand yet.

You can't.
 
Cephus said:
I want both, but I'll start with definitions. And a definition is about what a thing is, not what it is not. Saying that air is not water doesn't tell us what air is. Saying that the supernatural is not natural doesn't tell us what the supernatural is. It just tells us what it is not. And because we don't know what it is, we have no way of determining if there is actually anything supernatural, which makes it a pointless word to begin with. If it is actually any of the things you describe, demonstrate it. Show how those things are supernatural, as opposed to something natural we simply don't understand yet.

You can't.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, your last sentence makes the point. By all means we humans cannot perceive all that is happening around us. For example our pet dog can hear things we simply cannot hear.

That's not supernatural because we understand it. Therefore, anything we understand is not supernatural.

So it is possible that something or someone described as supernatural could one day become natural, once our IQ, or knowledge quotient, allows us to understand it.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes I agree, your last sentence makes the point. By all means we humans cannot perceive all that is happening around us. For example our pet dog can hear things we simply cannot hear.
Click to expand...

Cannot hear but can detect. That's the difference. Those sounds still exist, even if we cannot hear them with our ears, we can construct machines to detect that they are real. Now do that with the supernatural.

That's not supernatural because we understand it. Therefore, anything we understand is not supernatural.
Click to expand...

Then why pretend that there is any such thing as the supernatural?

So it is possible that something or someone described as supernatural could one day become natural, once our IQ, or knowledge quotient, allows us to understand it.
Click to expand...

Which again makes me ask why people take the supernatural seriously? Wishful thinking and blind emotion. There is no intellect involved.
 
William Rea said:
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

The true nature of reality has been with you all along.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You want examples, not definitions.

There are many recorded examples of supernatural powers amongst humans, going back hundreds of years at least, but they don't talk about them on NBC or Fox.

Supernatural is a word describing a broad array of events or incidents, and sometimes powers and abilities held by certain humans.
Click to expand...

Well, there are the claims about supernatural powers. There have been no cases where claims have been shown to be true. In fact, any time those claims were tested by an independent third party, they were either found to be mistaken and suffering from confirmation bias, or they were found to be frauds.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, there are the claims about supernatural powers. There have been no cases where claims have been shown to be true. In fact, any time those claims were tested by an independent third party, they were either found to be mistaken and suffering from confirmation bias, or they were found to be frauds.
Click to expand...

There have been anomalies which remain unexplained. But, that's about it. Certainly on one has ever proven that one of those anomalies is due to hocus pocus.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, there are the claims about supernatural powers. There have been no cases where claims have been shown to be true. In fact, any time those claims were tested by an independent third party, they were either found to be mistaken and suffering from confirmation bias, or they were found to be frauds.
Click to expand...

Carlos Castaneda's several books about states of perception altered by certain psychoactive drugs describe what many would describe as supernatural powers or abilities. Yes, they were induced by drugs, but they were very real to the person experiencing them.

Similar reports come from experiences with LSD, Peyote and other substances. I think even Aldous Huxley wrote about those.

We can argue about what exactly they mean, but the fact that they have happened and been recorded makes them "real".

If "real" is defined as being presented on NBC or CBS, then I guess you're right.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Carlos Castaneda's several books about states of perception altered by certain psychoactive drugs describe what many would describe as supernatural powers or abilities. Yes, they were induced by drugs, but they were very real to the person experiencing them.

Similar reports come from experiences with LSD, Peyote and other substances. I think even Aldous Huxley wrote about those.

We can argue about what exactly they mean, but the fact that they have happened and been recorded makes them "real".

If "real" is defined as being presented on NBC or CBS, then I guess you're right.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are real hallucinations. They take place solely within an individual's brain as it is affected by drugs that are ingested. I have had hallucinations from having a high fever. It is the same thing. I "saw" things that were not actually there. I rationally understood this when the fever subsided. These are not visions and have no particular significance. They merely demonstrate what certain physical things can do to pour perception.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, they are real hallucinations. They take place solely within an individual's brain as it is affected by drugs that are ingested. I have had hallucinations from having a high fever. It is the same thing. I "saw" things that were not actually there. I rationally understood this when the fever subsided. These are not visions and have no particular significance. They merely demonstrate what certain physical things can do to pour perception.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if those drugs actually have an ability to refine our perception so that we become aware of levels of existence that we cannot perceive when not under the influence of such drugs, who is to say?

Prior to man becoming aware of the range of audible tones a dog can hear, the dog was still able, and obviously, man was still unaware. That is things exist of which we are not aware. Supernatural?

Definitions and semantics, that's all.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Carlos Castaneda's several books about states of perception altered by certain psychoactive drugs describe what many would describe as supernatural powers or abilities. Yes, they were induced by drugs, but they were very real to the person experiencing them.

Similar reports come from experiences with LSD, Peyote and other substances. I think even Aldous Huxley wrote about those.

We can argue about what exactly they mean, but the fact that they have happened and been recorded makes them "real".

If "real" is defined as being presented on NBC or CBS, then I guess you're right.
Click to expand...

Or, it could be doing hallucintations,and it was happening entirely within his own brain, whose functions have been altered by chemicals.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Exactly. And if those drugs actually have an ability to refine our perception so that we become aware of levels of existence that we cannot perceive when not under the influence of such drugs, who is to say?

Prior to man becoming aware of the range of audible tones a dog can hear, the dog was still able, and obviously, man was still unaware. That is things exist of which we are not aware. Supernatural?

Definitions and semantics, that's all.
Click to expand...

Sounds are physical phenomenon. They are natural. Our physical limitations of perception does not mean there is anything supernatural. Our ability to create tools to enhance our perception has allowed us to observe things that we can't with our limited senses. But everything that has been observed is physical. Supernatural, by definition, means it is impossible to observe by any means. And the reason is that it is not part of the natural world, but of some other world that only exists in our imagination. It is a term made up to describe what we can only believe exists, but for which there can never be any evidence of its existence.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Exactly. And if those drugs actually have an ability to refine our perception so that we become aware of levels of existence that we cannot perceive when not under the influence of such drugs, who is to say?

Prior to man becoming aware of the range of audible tones a dog can hear, the dog was still able, and obviously, man was still unaware. That is things exist of which we are not aware. Supernatural?

Definitions and semantics, that's all.
Click to expand...

Yet, when it comes to the range of audible tones of a cat and dog, we can build instruments to detect it. No so much with hallucations of an author who is misusing and abusing drugs.
 
RAMOSS said:
Or, it could be doing hallucintations,and it was happening entirely within his own brain, whose functions have been altered by chemicals.
Click to expand...

Castaneda's books were fiction. The Eagle's Gift was a highly amusing piece of nonsense.


"Imagine my surprise when I learned that the most successful author of “Indian” books of all time was a fake. His name was Carlos Castaneda. He made a national and international name for himself, and made himself very rich, by making up whole stories about a medicine man who never existed.

Hundreds of colleges used his books by the ton. And they are still using them, misguided though they are. He sold more than eight million copies of his books, starting with “The Teachings of Don Juan.” The Don was supposed to be a Yaqui medicine man who divulged his secrets to Castaneda in Mexico and in a bus station in Tucson. Unfortunately, there was no Don Juan, and Castaneda never met him. He made the whole thing up. It earned him a doctorate from the Department of Anthropology at UCLA. But once they learned about the fraud, they took the doctorate back—the only case I know of where this has happened."

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/the-fake-carlos-castaneda/
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, when it comes to the range of audible tones of a cat and dog, we can build instruments to detect it. No so much with hallucations of an author who is misusing and abusing drugs.
Click to expand...

Yes, but absent those instruments, man is unable to detect them. So much is a matter of perspective, and before man understood what he understands now, the ability of the dog or other animals to perceive sounds and smells humans could not, the behavior might have been seen as somehow supernatural.

There is fair evidence that elephants and other animals can sense impending events such as earthquake and tsunami. Does that make it supernatural?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, but absent those instruments, man is unable to detect them. So much is a matter of perspective, and before man understood what he understands now, the ability of the dog or other animals to perceive sounds and smells humans could not, the behavior might have been seen as somehow supernatural.

There is fair evidence that elephants and other animals can sense impending events such as earthquake and tsunami. Does that make it supernatural?
Click to expand...

When there is no way to detect it, nor any model available in which it can work, or any physical evidence for besides confirmation bias, wild speculation and wishful thinking, the concept can be determined to be inconsequencial.

Come up with a model of 'how' it can work, and show that the stories are more than just stories, and I'll reconsider it. Until then, that which is claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
RAMOSS said:
When there is no way to detect it, nor any model available in which it can work, or any physical evidence for besides confirmation bias, wild speculation and wishful thinking, the concept can be determined to be inconsequencial.

Come up with a model of 'how' it can work, and show that the stories are more than just stories, and I'll reconsider it. Until then, that which is claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...

That's rather the point, isn't it? At some point in time past, there was no way to detect it or understand it. "It" might have been observed, but with the knowledge base at the time, "it" was considered, wrongly perhaps, to be somehow supernatural. Words cannot always express things well, and so some with awesome math skills might use that to express or understand any given phenomenon, so "supernatural" was a term used to describe events, powers or phenomena man did not yet understand.

Tesla might be a good example. His understanding of electricity and power was unconventional and in the end "politically incorrect" for his times. But now we are beginning to partially understand that many of his far out claims about harnessing a natural and invisible power might have been spot on.

Pyramids are another example. The US has been a bit too busy exporting democracy to the rest of the world by violence, but the Russians spent many years studying the power of pyramids, and have built of number of them. What happens inside pyramids under certain conditions is very amazing. We cannot duplicate those things without the pyramid, and what happens inside cannot be filmed or understood, but it can be observed.

Is what happens inside the pyramid supernatural, or is it simply a natural power that modern man knows nothing about? If the Russians can duplicate experiments, I say it is a natural process that many humans know nothing about.

Semantics gentlemen, and definitions.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's rather the point, isn't it? At some point in time past, there was no way to detect it or understand it. "It" might have been observed, but with the knowledge base at the time, "it" was considered, wrongly perhaps, to be somehow supernatural. Words cannot always express things well, and so some with awesome math skills might use that to express or understand any given phenomenon, so "supernatural" was a term used to describe events, powers or phenomena man did not yet understand.

Tesla might be a good example. His understanding of electricity and power was unconventional and in the end "politically incorrect" for his times. But now we are beginning to partially understand that many of his far out claims about harnessing a natural and invisible power might have been spot on.

Pyramids are another example. The US has been a bit too busy exporting democracy to the rest of the world by violence, but the Russians spent many years studying the power of pyramids, and have built of number of them. What happens inside pyramids under certain conditions is very amazing. We cannot duplicate those things without the pyramid, and what happens inside cannot be filmed or understood, but it can be observed.

Is what happens inside the pyramid supernatural, or is it simply a natural power that modern man knows nothing about? If the Russians can duplicate experiments, I say it is a natural process that many humans know nothing about.

Semantics gentlemen, and definitions.
Click to expand...

When you come up with something more than fraud and wishful thinking, do publish it.
 
William Rea said:
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

It is my experience that most of these Supernatural things can be explained by very ordinary occurrences. All it really takes is a skeptical rational mind.

But in all fairness it is kind of fun to think about it. I like to think about some of the experiences I've had and how I discovered their explanation and how such experiences come to be had by other people even throughout history.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, but absent those instruments, man is unable to detect them. So much is a matter of perspective, and before man understood what he understands now, the ability of the dog or other animals to perceive sounds and smells humans could not, the behavior might have been seen as somehow supernatural.

There is fair evidence that elephants and other animals can sense impending events such as earthquake and tsunami. Does that make it supernatural?
Click to expand...

But it's not, which is the point. Man has not yet found anything that is ACTUALLY supernatural. I don't care about things that we might misidentify as supernatural and find out we're wrong down the line, I care about things which are actually supernatural and will always remain so. Because so far, there isn't a single example of anything that is demonstrably supernatural, which means there is no reason whatsoever to think such a thing exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom