How should we define the supernatural?

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

I would define “natural” as anything which has an objective and measurable effect on the universe around us.

I asked you to define “naturalism”.
Is it the belief that there are “natural” explanations for everything in the universe?

I.e everything can be reduced to objective, measurable effects?

[T.j_Runyon]

@jongarvey

As C.s. Lewis wrote, no doubt if ghosts exist no doubt they have natures, and that would make them “natural” on your definition. Which is fair enough, to me, if they do it regularly.

I was a little vague in my definition but I meant created things that are physical or material. I don’t think ghosts or angels would fall into that category

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

We know this because we have seen rain wet the tiles before.

You are assuming a natural cause and assuming there are no supernatural causes, aren’t you?

@Ashwin_s

Works of art create feelings in us that are not measurable…

They are measurable. Techniques such as fMRI can map brain function. We can also measure changes in neurotransmitters.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@T.j_Runyon

I was a little vague in my definition but I meant created things that are physical or material. I don’t think ghosts or angels would fall into that category

Are thoughts supernatural?

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

You are assuming a natural cause and assuming there are no supernatural causes, aren’t you?

I have already told this before. The entire distinction between natural and supernatural is faulty…
What if i say that Ultimately, rain is caused by God.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

What if i say that Ultimately, rain is caused by God.

I would be curious about the evidence that led you to that conclusion.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

I would be curious about the evidence that led you to that conclusion.

Now you are putting the cart before the horse.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

Now you are putting the cart before the horse.

I don’t think we are. One of the concepts that seems to separate the natural from the supernatural is evidence. Naturalism proceeds from evidence while the supernatural proceeds from faith.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

I don’t think we are. One of the concepts that seems to separate the natural from the supernatural is evidence. Naturalism proceeds from evidence while the supernatural proceeds from faith.

You are yet to define naturalism…

So the wonder experienced when seeing a work of art is a matter of faith?

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

You are yet to define naturalism…

Already did.

“I would define “natural” as anything which has an objective and measurable effect on the universe around us.”

@Ashwin_s

So the wonder experienced when seeing a work of art is a matter of faith?

The wonder experienced when seeing a work of art is not supernatural.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

Already did.

“I would define “natural” as anything which has an objective and measurable effect on the universe around us.”

Naturalism… not natural… different things I hope.

@T_aquaticus

The wonder experienced when seeing a work of art is not supernatural.

No objective measurement for it. It’s a totally subjective experience. So as per your definition, it’s not natural…
If it’s not super natural either… what is it?

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

Naturalism… not natural… different things I hope.

Same thing.

@Ashwin_s

No objective measurement for it.

There are. They include fMRI and other imaging techniques.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@T_aquaticus

There are. They include fMRI and other imaging techniques.

Yes, but do fMRI experiments prove that thought is reducible to brain activity?

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

Same thing.

What’s the “ism” for ?
There is a difference between “social” and “socialism”… an “ism” changes a lot in a word.

@T_aquaticus

There are. They include fMRI and other imaging techniques.

Is this a consensus scientific find … or just an opinion.
I am sceptical of this claim.

[T_aquaticus]

@dga471

Yes, but do fMRI experiments prove that thought is reducible to brain activity?

Prove in an absolute sense? No. Nothing can be proven to such a degree. Does it evidence the conclusion that thought is a product of brain activity, along with mountains of other evidence in the field of neurobiology? Yes.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

What’s the “ism” for ?
There is a difference between “social” and “socialism”… an “ism” changes a lot in a word.

Naturalism is the use of objective and empirical observations to learn about nature.

@Ashwin_s

Is this a consensus scientific find … or just an opinion.
I am sceptical of this claim.

Google is your friend:

Led by researchers in CMU’s Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the study had a group of actors look at words like anger, disgust, envy, fear, happiness, lust, pride, sadness and shame. As they did so, the actors tried to bring themselves to this emotional state. Their brains were monitored by fMRI and a computer modeled the results.

Based on these scans, the computer model could then correctly guess the emotion of the actors when they were shown a series of evocative photos. Each emotion essentially had a neural signature. The patterns of brain activity the computer learned were not limited to those individuals. Based on the scans of the actor’s brains, the computer model could correctly identify the emotions of a new test subject who had not participated in the earlier trials.
For the first time, scientists can identify your emotions based on brain activity - The Verge

[dga471 (Daniel)]

I think the experiments are equally compatible with the conclusion that thought gives rise (i.e. produces) to brain activity that we can measure. Now you can certainly say it gives evidence of the reverse - that brain activity gives rise to thought. But this seems more of a product of prior philosophical commitments rather than empirical evidence.

[T_aquaticus]

Let’s go back to my original definition of natural:

“I would define “natural” as anything which has an objective and measurable effect on the universe around us.”

Changes in brain activity would be an objective and measurable effect which makes thought a natural part of the universe according to the definition I am using.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

Based on these scans, the computer model could then correctly guess the emotion of the actors when they were shown a series of evocative photos. Each emotion essentially had a neural signature.

people can usually do this from facial expressions too… do I assume facial expressions cause the emotions?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

“I would define “natural” as anything which has an objective and measurable effect on the universe around us.”

@T_aquaticus, just to be clear…are your saying if we could demonstrate miracles taking place caused by the Christian God, then God would be part of Nature?