Mind Body Problem

[anonymous]

When we understand more about paranormal phenomena our definition of matter will change. "Paranormal" and "supernatural" really refer to things that we can't explain. They are not unnatural it is only that our knowledge is limited so we need words to describe things we can't explain.

In the absence of medical science there are witch-doctors - folk remedies that are fundamentally sound are considered magic. When the explanations are provided by medical science, they become mainstream.

There are forces, dimensions, particles, waves, snarks and jeebers that behave according to natural laws but our scientists haven't "discovered" them yet. As soon as they do, materialism will expand to include these phenomena that are not yet explained by it.

Spiritual laws will become physical laws when we can explain them in terms other known laws.

People like to complain about reductionism but I don't think we can really say reductionism is unsatisfactory until we actually understand the alternative explanation.

[Topher Cooper]

"Paranormal" explicitly refers to "things we don't yet understand". The term was coined to mean just that: phenomena outside the currently understood "laws of science/nature" but not outside the actual laws of nature.

"Supernatural" however refers to that which is outside of or above natural law. If something is supernatural, it is, by definition unable to ever be explained scientifically, though we may be able to describe how it interacts with the "natural" world.

What you are saying is that you believe that phenomena that are now identified as supernatural will turn out, eventually, to actually have been paranormal.

This is a belief that I agree with, but I recognize that it is a metaphysical belief that cannot be rationally justified. I believe, however, that it can be semi-rationally justified in terms of utility -- making the assumption that all objective phenomena can eventually be understood means that we will not prematurely "give up" on understanding phenomena, and our understanding will be consequently as unlimited as possible.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Topher Cooper

"Paranormal" explicitly refers to "things we don't yet understand". The term was coined to mean just that: phenomena outside the currently understood "laws of science/nature" but not outside the actual laws of nature.

"Supernatural" however refers to that which is outside of or above natural law. If something is supernatural, it is, by definition unable to ever be explained scientifically, though we may be able to describe how it interacts with the "natural" world.

What you are saying is that you believe that phenomena that are now identified as supernatural will turn out, eventually, to actually have been paranormal.

...

http://dictionary.reference.com/ gives various of definitions of paranormal and supernatural. My reading is that supernatural would be someting not explained by natural laws and probably by caused intervention of "supernatural" beings. Paranormal is not explained by science.


What I was saying is that many phenomena we cannot explain (paranormal phenomena) and phenomena caused by supernatural beings (supernatural phenomena) can be explained "scientifically" (ie in terms of forces, elementary particles/waves and laws) however our current level of knowledge is insufficient to do so at the current time.

How can a phenomena exist if there is no explanation for it? You can make a word for it but that is just philosophy.
Understanding Scepticism

[Topher Cooper]

Dictionaries report common usage -- for most words this is the only definition since there is no centralized authority to declare a words "proper" meaning (however much some people would like to have the power to make absolute and fixed mandates on how words are to be used).

"Paranormal", however, is a technical term, coined by a specific person (I'd have to look up who) for a specific purpose. It has a precise technical usage -- and at least within the correct technical context (which this is) common usage can be considered "wrong" when it conflicts with that usage.

Although there seems to generally be a teleological (i.e., associated with purpose or intention) aspect to what are considered supernatural phenomena, this isn't essential and there doesn't have to be a supernatural "being" involved for something to be supernatural.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Topher Cooper

"
This is a belief that I agree with, but I recognize that it is a metaphysical belief that cannot be rationally justified.

One of the reasons I hold that belief is because spirits have made attempts to explain things.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301111.txt (The Betty Book http://www.spiritwritings.com/library.html)

The Beta is the form attribute of the consciousness which is you.
...
"Not in the same sense as the physical. There is a difference in kind.
You have the same body as I have, and an outer covering which I have
discarded as a disintegrating shell. The difficulty is in words. For
instance, I have a hand. You could not separate my hand from me and have
me go on living. You have a physical hand that you could separate from
you and still go on living.
...
"The physical body is made up of atoms. Each of these atoms is an
individual consciousness, and each of them has a form. The Beta is not
made up of any such; not in the way the physical is made up. The Beta is
elemental; atomic, but not infinitesimal."

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301131.txt (The Unobstructed Universe http://www.spiritwritings.com/library.html)

There is but one reality. It is all-inclusive, but in degrees. Its
highest expression on earth is consciousness, the self-aware I-Am of man.
Consciousness, in degrees, is the one and only reality.

This is not a statement of subjective idealism. It is as far from that as
from materialism. For as Stephen phrased it:

"Your men of books and laboratories...all seek to find a fundamental in
their favorite attribute of reality. The idealist has made mind
supreme...the materialist has made matter supreme. The truth is that both
mind and matter are...attributes of one that is greater than either."

To that "greater than either" he gave the name of its highest
expression--Consciousness.
...
What you call natural law is just a reflection, so to speak, of the
orthic law governing my unobstructed universe. There is only one
universe, one reality. The only-one-universe is pluralistic, as
consciousness, the fundamental reality, is pluralistic. My aspect of the
universe is unobstructed. Your aspect of the universe is obstructed. But
there is no condition or fact that we have here that is not at least
foreshadowed in your world.

"Now your laboratories are constantly discovering new manifestations, new
laws. Every one of those laws has a parallel here, and every one is
useful to you and to us. All the laws and manifestations discovered on
your side are operating on our side. And on our side are many laws and
manifestations you have not discovered and do not sense. Years hence all
this will be told again in the terminology of our laws yet to be
discovered by you.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of these accounts. I post them because I find them interesting and I think other readers may find them interesting too. Do I think they are genuine? If you read the books you will find many evidental anecdotes about the genuineness of the medium that should allow you to make up your own mind.

[Occam's chainsaw]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

That would be the most common view held by scientists in my experience. But that doesn't mean it's correct.

The problem for you is the evidence makes it likely to be more correct than other positions from philosophy......that's the bit you have to ignore to make your point work.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

The problem for you is the evidence makes it likely to be more correct than other positions from philosophy......that's the bit you have to ignore to make your point work.

If you would try to explain why this is the case you would soon realise that the philosophical assumptions of materialism have to be made first in order for the brain = mind hypothesis to work. Evidence cannot say anything about this particular philosophical choice of materialism vs idealism as far as I can see. That's why its a philosophical issue.

[Occam's chainsaw]

David

You have had this discussion a thousand times on the JREf and been blasted every time for it. If you cannot spot the difference in your question - then there is no debate to be had....sorry, but you are quite wrong and go back to the JREF to find out, time and again, why.

I do not have the time to repeat stuff to you - which you wont read and consider anyway......

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Occam's chainsaw

David

You have had this discussion a thousand times on the JREf and been blasted every time for it. If you cannot spot the difference in your question - then there is no debate to be had....sorry, but you are quite wrong and go back to the JREF to find out, time and again, why.

I do not have the time to repeat stuff to you - which you wont read and consider anyway......

I don't think so. I certainly had discussions at the JREF forum about this issue of the circularity of providing evidence for or against materialism. Although I couldn't provide a reasonable and consistant framework on how idealism might operate, I did not come across a valid reason as to why evidence can support materialism vs idealism. Since you consider the case to be the contrary, it would serve the debate much better if you could either explain your reasoning or make a specific reference to another thread instead of refering me back to explanations that for all we know have never taken place. If you can't be bothered to discuss this topic then you know what to do

[davidsmith73]

Ok so here's why I think evidence is irrelevant to the materialism vs idealism issue. I'm not a philosopher but this is my take on things.

If you are going to say that mind = brain then you have to define the "brain" as well as the "mind" (something that proponents of this view very seldom address I think). According to materialism the brain is a physical thing. What does that mean? Materialism holds that physical things are experience-independent. That is, physical things (or processes if you like) exist in the absense of an experience of them. So before we have even begun to claim evidence for mind = brain we have assumed the existence of an experience-independent aspect to reality. If you don't make that assumption, then things like "physical", "objective" and "third person observation" need to be defined in terms of a patterns of relational experiences. As to how these relational experiences come about or how they can be modelled, I don't know but at least there is no "explanatory gap" to fill. As for materialism, we all know what kind of problems it gets itself into in that respect...