Evidnece for the super natural

[Nungali]

1 minute ago, natural said:

 

What about Ghost Busters aren't they pertinent?

 

Only if the ghosts are doing drugs .

[Draco]

The supra-natural is not to be feared. The alchemy of taoists of old, following the wu wei, acts as a suitable warding off mechanism.

[Earl Grey]

1 hour ago, Draco said:

The supra-natural is not to be feared. The alchemy of taoists of old, following the wu wei, acts as a suitable warding off mechanism.

 

Wrong. Also, it doesn't mean "do nothing" either or go with the flow even if those are popular oversimplifications. It's the same as people incorrectly believing patience means passivity.

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Draco said:

The supra-natural is not to be feared. The alchemy of taoists of old, following the wu wei, acts as a suitable warding off mechanism.

 

Hmmm  .... okay lets look at the supra-natural  then .   I guess then this thread will be ;  ' Evidnece for the supra-natural'. 

 

But first , Draco-San , it appears the mods have finished their deliberations  and you have been 'restored'.  Welcome to that rare club .

 

Anyways, yes,  I have evidnece* for the supra-natural . .  or is that 'ultra-natural '  . . .        eeee urrrmmm , I'll have to get back to you on that . 

 

 

* 'evidnece' is nw a term in the Oxford Dictionary , its meaning is ;   a collection of processes that one feels validates their personal belief systems

[cosmic4z]

Surely the distinctions of natural and super-natural only exist conceptually within our minds?

 

We experience stuff. Sometimes that stuff neatly aligns with our scientific models of reality, sometimes not. It’s all just experience though, not sure what the big deal is.

 

Also, ‘reality’ itself is a construct that exists within our minds, as are notions such as exists and not exists.

Edited January 22, 2022 by cosmic4z

[Iliketurtles]

3 hours ago, cosmic4z said:

Surely the distinctions of natural and super-natural only exist conceptually within our minds?

 

We experience stuff. Sometimes that stuff neatly aligns with our scientific models of reality, sometimes not. It’s all just experience though, not sure what the big deal is.

 

Also, ‘reality’ itself is a construct that exists within our minds, as are notions such as exists and not exists.

 

Well spoken!

 

When I hear people talk about the "spirit world"  it makes my skin crawl. 

 

To me it sounds like them saying, the "radio wave world"  or "x-ray world".

 

Just because our sense organs did not evolve to directly perceive certain aspects of reality doesn't make them any less real.

 

[Earl Grey]

6 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Well spoken!

 

When I hear people talk about the "spirit world"  it makes my skin crawl. 

 

To me it sounds like them saying, the "radio wave world"  or "x-ray world".

 

Just because our sense organs did not evolve to directly perceive certain aspects of reality doesn't make them any less real.

 

Are you saying there’s no such thing as a spirit world?

[helpfuldemon]

On 12/7/2020 at 3:29 PM, Nungali said:

 

Thats the baseline ?

 

Not for a cultural anthropologist it isnt .  Thats just the current   western materialist  view of 'reality' .  It is trying to become a dominant world paradigm though . But that CANT change the immensity of all human experience that has gone on before this view developed .

 

Even if it is the 'brains ability to abstract '  , what is it abstracting ?

 

I agree, there has been a lot of things that have come from mystics/philosophers/religious people that benefit our society.  My good friend is an atheist, he laughs at religion, says he doesn't need the promise of a Heaven of Hell to be a good person.  I try to tell him that being a good person has been refined by religions and philosophers, and that taking advantage of what they have contributed is false.  You can't separate morality from belief, IMO.  I have my own evidence of a supernatural reality but it isn't very comforting.  

[Iliketurtles]

9 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

Are you saying there’s no such thing as a spirit world?

 

Radio-waves are all around us, same for x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and all sorts of things that we lack the sense organs to directly perceive. 

 

Did you know when you peel scotch tape it generates x-rays?

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/23/217918/x-rays-made-with-scotch-tape/

 

 

 

 

 

So all of that is happening now, right here in our present and current world, universe, reality whatever you want to call it. 

 

We have built instruments which allow us to translate these things into something we can see. 

 

What I am getting at is that just because something is invisible and imperceptible doesn't mean it isn't real, and it isn't present in our immediate environment. 

 

As Cosmic4z (force?)  put it we create a conceptual distinction in our mind,  real physical material world over here, and imperceptible spiritual world over there.  

 

The two worlds which we divide reality into are merely one world. 

 

There is no X-ray world, and Gamma-ray world, and there is no spiritual world. 

 

There is only the reality we find ourselves in currently, and we know almost next to nothing about it. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Earl Grey]

50 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Radio-waves are all around us, same for x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and all sorts of things that we lack the sense organs to directly perceive. 

 

Did you know when you peel scotch tape it generates x-rays?

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/23/217918/x-rays-made-with-scotch-tape/

 

 

 

 

 

So all of that is happening now, right here in our present and current world, universe, reality whatever you want to call it. 

 

We have built instruments which allow us to translate these things into something we can see. 

 

What I am getting at is that just because something is invisible and imperceptible doesn't mean it isn't real, and it isn't present in our immediate environment. 

 

As Cosmic4z (force?)  put it we create a conceptual distinction in our mind,  real physical material world over here, and ephemeral spiritual world over there.  

 

The two worlds which we divide reality into are merely one world. 

 

There is no X-ray world, and Gamma-ray world, and there is no spiritual world. 

 

There is only the reality we find ourselves in currently, and we know almost next to nothing about it. 

 

I think we understand things a bit differently or may be describing something similar but differently.

 

Let me use a video game example: God of War (2018). In that game, the different areas you visited in the game's hub were all in the same physical space, but on a different dimension. Every time you wanted to travel to places like Alfenheim or Niflheim, you go to the hub, pull a switch, and you're in the same physical space, but on another dimension.

 

When I understand the spirit worlds, I understand them as existing here simultaneously as our physical world--which is also like the model of the Tree of Life in Kabbalah.

 

Yes, the x-rays, gamma rays, and so on are all here, but we can't perceive them. It seems as though we're using different vocabulary to describe layers of reality rather than a separate reality altogether.

[Iliketurtles]

I guess what I am trying to communicate is that spirits are a part of the natural world we live in, just as much as x-rays, gamma rays, and magnetic fields are. 

 

 

[Earl Grey]

20 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

I guess what I am trying to communicate is that spirits are a part of the natural world we live in, just as much as x-rays, gamma rays, and magnetic fields are. 

 

 

 

This is precisely what I'm saying too. I think we just have different vocabulary for it.

[zerostao]

supernatural implies that science has not been able to quantify a phenomenon, or objectify it. (although, imo, anyone trying to seek only objectification; dismissing everything else, loses credibility)

we recognize we exist in 3d---other dimensions, whether, 9,10, 11,,,fit mathematically in a universe. there are multiverse theories as well that fit mathematically. acknowledging only what can be totally objectified in 3d, seems, unnaturally limiting.

by the very definition of supernatural, it can never be backed up by objective evidence.

Edited January 23, 2022 by zerostao

[Iliketurtles]

7 minutes ago, zerostao said:

supernatural implies that science has not been able to quantify a phenomenon, or objectify it. (although, imo, anyone trying to seek only objectification; dismissing everything else, loses credibility)

we recognize we exist in 3d---other dimensions, whether, 9,10, 11,,,fit mathematically in a universe. there are multiverse theories as well that fit mathematically. acknowledging only what can be totally objectified in 3d, seems, unnaturally limiting.

by the very definition of supernatural, it can never be backed up by objective evidence.

 

Anything that is regarded as supernatural, once backed up by objective evidence becomes regarded as natural. 

 

Ball lightning would be an example of this,  we once thought it was supernatural, now that proof of it exists it is regarded as a natural phenomenon and has even been recreated in a lab.

 

 

 

[zerostao]

4 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Anything that is regarded as supernatural, once backed up by objective evidence becomes regarded as natural. 

 

Ball lightning would be an example of this,  we once thought it was supernatural, now that proof of it exists it is regarded as a natural phenomenon and has even been recreated in a lab.

 

 

 

true. so, by waiting for science to confirm something costs time. often more than a lifetime. again, seems limiting. all the while ball lightning was a real thing; regardless of scientific approval or not.

Edited January 23, 2022 by zerostao

[Iliketurtles]

14 minutes ago, zerostao said:

true. so, by waiting for science to confirm something costs time. often more than a lifetime. again, seems limiting. all the while ball lightning was a real thing; regardless of scientific approval or not.

 

I guess it is a personal choice. 

 

It doesn't seem reasonable to believe things with no good evidence for them. 

 

I admit certainly there are unknown unknowns, but for me at least the need to base my beliefs on the best evidence available to me. 

[Earl Grey]

The problem with empiricism is that it is still a fairly recent characteristic of science. Reason and the scientific method were a way of exploration and discovery rather than what is closer to not even skepticism, but a kind of material contrarianism.

 

For example: we can perceive three spectrum. A mantis shrimp perceives 16. Those colors are already there, but we can't always trust our senses, though I suspect you might have a similar view with the earlier statement that personal testimony can have bias.

 

I think I like to have a mind that is based more on wonder than on contrarianism.

[Iliketurtles]

Well since I am third eye blind (band is alright too...)  I feel that I need to use logic, reason, and the best evidence I can find to use as a walking stick and feel my way around this reality.  

 

Different strokes for different folks.

[Earl Grey]

12 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

Well since I am third eye blind (band is alright too...)  I feel that I need to use logic, reason, and the best evidence I can find to use as a walking stick and feel my way around this reality.  

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

The first two albums were all right--I share Smash Mouth's singer Steve Harwell's opinion of them at a live show my friend went to: YAWN.

 

I don't think you're using an entirely different metric, though I find you tend to use what the stick can touch as your main use of the tool rather than the other use like measuring from a distance and estimating.

 

Logic: good. Reason: good. Evidence: good. On paper, this should suffice; in practice, it wouldn't hurt to study the classics like Platonism to understand reason and how that predates empiricism. The two work together, but empiricism shouldn't entirely supersede wonder, exploration, discovery, and reason....if anything, empiricism should support reason as it has before, which Newton is a fine example of because the guy did have more he wrote about, including on metaphysics.

[Shadow_self]

18 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Well spoken!

 

When I hear people talk about the "spirit world"  it makes my skin crawl. 

 

To me it sounds like them saying, the "radio wave world"  or "x-ray world".

 

Just because our sense organs did not evolve to directly perceive certain aspects of reality doesn't make them any less real.

 

 

Well...we can perceive those aspects of reality... It is not that the sense faculties cannot perceive these things...its that the potential to do so lays dormant until one can awaken it... the pervading thought amongst esoteric traditions is that we simply lost this ability over time due to immersion in the sense faculties..... 

 

So...there is a reason meditation draws one away from the senses

 

Also, I would not quiver at the notion of a spirit world however.....suggest you look into the hun and po & shen/gui relationship

[Iliketurtles]

Just now, Shadow_self said:

 

Well...we can perceive those aspects of reality... It is not that the sense faculties cannot perceive these things...its that the potential to do so lays dormant until one can awaken it... the pervading thought amongst esoteric traditions is that we simply lost this ability over time due to immersion in the sense faculties..... 

So...there is a reason meditation draws one away from the senses

 

We agree on something for once

 

+1

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Anything that is regarded as supernatural, once backed up by objective evidence becomes regarded as natural. 

 

Ball lightning would be an example of this,  we once thought it was supernatural, now that proof of it exists it is regarded as a natural phenomenon and has even been recreated in a lab.

 

 

 

 

Evidence is a funny thing

 

Many people think Dark matter and Dark energy are a thing....and they would tell you there is plenty of evidence for those

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/dark-matter#:~:text=It doesn't interact with,on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

 

However...is there?? Seems to me they are assuming this is the case based on observation of effect and gap filling rather than having concrete evidence of both..

 

But .....evidence seems to mean different things to different people

[Iliketurtles]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Evidence is a funny thing

 

Many people think Dark matter and Dark energy are a thing....and they would tell you there is plenty of evidence for those

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/dark-matter#:~:text=It doesn't interact with,on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

 

However...is there?? Seems to me they are assuming this is the case based on observation of effect and gap filling rather than having concrete evidence of both..

 

But .....evidence seems to mean different things to different people

 

True dat.

 

 

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Earl Grey said:

The problem with empiricism is that it is still a fairly recent characteristic of science. Reason and the scientific method were a way of exploration and discovery rather than what is closer to not even skepticism, but a kind of material contrarianism.

 

For example: we can perceive three spectrum. A mantis shrimp perceives 16. Those colors are already there, but we can't always trust our senses, though I suspect you might have a similar view with the earlier statement that personal testimony can have bias.

 

I think I like to have a mind that is based more on wonder than on contrarianism.

 

I lectured on the topic of Empiricism in Psychology before Christmas...I was quite scathing in my account of it...primarily due to the limitations it places on itself

 

One of the biggest issues is the assumption that one is limited to observation by the sense faculties...don't get me wrong this is important...but the idea that....this is it...that's a stretch far above and beyond the reality of the situation

 

Two of the most important fields of psychology, Paranormal psychology and Anomalistic Psychology are readily ignored...and what separates the two is the idiotic starting position of this is true and im going to prove it vs this is false and im going to prove it

 

Had we got a real field...it would be, we don't know whats going on here...but we're going to look into it....the field simply needs investigative and observational work rather than premature hypotheses forming and narrative building on what is essentially conjecture.

 

Seriously missed opportunity imo....

[Earl Grey]

3 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

I lectured on the topic of Empiricism in Psychology before Christmas...I was quite scathing in my account of it...primarily due to the limitations it places on itself

 

One of the biggest issues is the assumption that one is limited to observation by the sense faculties...don't get me wrong this is important...but the idea that....this is it...that's a stretch far above and beyond the reality of the situation

 

Two of the most important fields of psychology, Paranormal psychology and Anomalistic Psychology are readily ignored...and what separates the two is the idiotic starting position of this is true and im going to prove it vs this is false and im going to prove it

 

Had we got a real field...it would be, we don't know whats going on here...but we're going to look into it....the field simply needs investigative and observational work rather than premature hypotheses forming and narrative building on what is essentially conjecture.

 

Seriously missed opportunity imo....

Empiricism in one example is the tastebud test: some people have an aversion to cilantro, and I can’t recall too well, but it was this blotter paper people were given in my university class that determined who hated it and who didn’t because the paper was disgusting to those who felt cilantro tasted like soap whereas  those who tasted nothing tended to enjoy cilantro.