An alternate look at Naturalism

Hang on, I'm not the one suggesting that the mind is supernatural. If it is part of the natural world, then certainly science can study it.

What?! I'm getting whiplash here. Where did I conclude that mind does not exist?

You appear to be making certain assumptions about mind and then trying to match my comments against them. When they don't match, you reach strange conclusions about my opinions.

Are you saying that we cannot observe the underlying framekwork of reality, be it "physical" or "mental"?

~~ Paul

The assumptions are those of materialism which, unless I have been reading you wrong for years, is what you agree with. 

All I have been saying throughout is that materialism - in the guise of methodological naturalism - prohibits all but materialist explanations. I'm not saying we cannot observe anything - materialists are.

What, in your worldview, is mind? Can it exist without a brain? If so, how would science investigate it or would it be deemed supernatural (spiritual, immaterial)?

Please read this ~ http://ebenalexander.com/about/my-experience-in-coma/ ~ and then tell me that it had anything to do with his brain, which could not have been remotely functioning.

We do not yet understand brain functioning during coma.

https://www.seeker.com/how-active-is-the...43114.html

https://www.livescience.com/39761-brain-...-coma.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ous-state/


~~ Paul

The assumptions are those of materialism which, unless I have been reading you wrong for years, is what you agree with. 

All I have been saying throughout is that materialism - in the guise of methodological naturalism - prohibits all but materialist explanations. I'm not saying we cannot observe anything - materialists are.

What, in your worldview, is mind? Can it exist without a brain? If so, how would science investigate it or would it be deemed supernatural (spiritual, immaterial)?

Whose assumptions? Yours? Mine? Others in this thread?

Is there something that is supernatural or is everything natural? And by natural I don't mean material; it could be material or mental.

I don't think mind can exist without brain, but that doesn't have much to do with whether there is something supernatural. As I said earlier, I'm not sure these terms "natural" and "supernatural" are particularly helpful. We talk past one another because we have different definitions in mind. But if a person believes that some mental aspect of reality cannot be studied by science, then I don't understand how they can feel confident that their mental experiences are of something "real" and not simply "illusory." As you said, it's very difficult for the mind to study products of itself.

~~ Paul

Whose assumptions? Yours? Mine? Others in this thread?

Is there something that is supernatural or is everything natural? And by natural I don't mean material; it could be material or mental.

I don't think mind can exist without brain, but that doesn't have much to do with whether there is something supernatural. As I said earlier, I'm not sure these terms "natural" and "supernatural" are particularly helpful. We talk past one another because we have different definitions in mind. But if a person believes that some mental aspect of reality cannot be studied by science, then I don't understand how they can feel confident that their mental experiences are of something "real" and not simply "illusory." As you said, it's very difficult for the mind to study products of itself.

~~ Paul

This is where we are talking past each other. You seem to be insisting that (highlighted) is my argument while all along I've been arguing that it is MN that excludes such study. Is parapsychology scientific? You seem content to sit back and declare that you don't find any of it convincing but should it be a legitimate field of scientific inquiry? If you agree that it should then we only differ in our conclusions. But you seem to be out of step with your fellow materialists on this, as illustrated by all the quotes and links posted in this thread.

This is where we are talking past each other. You seem to be insisting that (highlighted) is my argument while all along I've been arguing that it is MN that excludes such study. Is parapsychology scientific? You seem content to sit back and declare that you don't find any of it convincing but should it be a legitimate field of scientific inquiry? If you agree that it should then we only differ in our conclusions. But you seem to be out of step with your fellow materialists on this, as illustrated by all the quotes and links posted in this thread.

How does methodological naturalism exclude the study of whatever it is we are talking about? If that thing* has no effect on the world, then I agree it can't be studied, but I also say that it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. If that thing does have an effect on the world, then why can't science study it? If that thing just is the world, then why can't science study it? Methodological naturalism simply assumes that there are no supernatural ineffective agents.

I'm perfectly happy if people study psi using whatever methods they like. There might be something there. I'm just not convinced so far.

~~ Paul

* I say "thing" because I'm still not sure whether we are talking about a natural or supernatural thing, nor am I sure what the definitions of those terms are.

How does methodological naturalism exclude the study of whatever it is we are talking about? If that thing* has no effect on the world, then I agree it can't be studied, but I also say that it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. If that thing does have an effect on the world, then why can't science study it? If that thing just is the world, then why can't science study it? Methodological naturalism simply assumes that there are no supernatural ineffective agents.

I'm perfectly happy if people study psi using whatever methods they like. There might be something there. I'm just not convinced so far.

~~ Paul

* I say "thing" because I'm still not sure whether we are talking about a natural or supernatural thing, nor am I sure what the definitions of those terms are.

Said things can indeed have an effect on the world, in the ways that they do, and so science can certainly study these effects. Parapsychology is one such field of science that studies some of these things.

The problem is that methodological naturalism, for a majority, if not all, adherents to the ideology, presumes that "supernatural" explanations and conclusions cannot exist and so denies these as possible and potential conclusions, no matter what. According to this ideology, for many, only physical explanations are allowed.

This would mean that methodological naturalism is incompatible with a truly scientific mindset, where wherever the evidence leads, no matter what, is a plausible conclusion, no matter if the evidence is properly understood at that point.

Methodological naturalism is a dogma that inhibits and cripples its adherents from conducting truly scientific experiments and coming to truly scientific conclusions.

Is this so hard to grasp and understand...? :/

The problem is that methodological naturalism, for a majority, if not all, adherents to the ideology, presumes that "supernatural" explanations and conclusions cannot exist and so denies these as possible and potential conclusions, no matter what. According to this ideology, for many, only physical explanations are allowed.

Again, I think we're playing fast and loose with the definition of "supernatural." If it refers to things with no effect on the world, then the assumption is fine. If it does not, but refers to things that do have an effect, then I'm not even sure why such things would be called supernatural.

We really do have a definitional issue here.

Is this so hard to grasp and understand...? :/

Yes, because I do not know what your definitions of natural versus supernatural are.

~~ Paul

Again, I think we're playing fast and loose with the definition of "supernatural." If it refers to things with no effect on the world, then the assumption is fine. If it does not, but refers to things that do have an effect, then I'm not even sure why such things would be called supernatural.

We really do have a definitional issue here.

Yes, because I do not know what your definitions of natural versus supernatural are.

~~ Paul

Agreed.

Well, for me, I see no distinction between what most scientists use the words to refer to, because what most of them consider to be "supernatural", I simply consider to be natural. I consider nature to be the totality of reality, not just matter and physics. Consciousness is distinct from matter and physics, but can influenced by it through the brain, somehow, assuming the filter/reducing-valve model. Consciousness can also influence matter indirectly, but it takes a strongly disciplined, focused and trained mind to do so, which seems rare enough.

Your thoughts?

Well, for me, I see no distinction between what most scientists use the words to refer to, because what most of them consider to be "supernatural", I simply consider to be natural. I consider nature to be the totality of reality, not just matter and physics. Consciousness is distinct from matter and physics, but can influenced by it through the brain, somehow, assuming the filter/reducing-valve model. Consciousness can also influence matter indirectly, but it takes a strongly disciplined, focused and trained mind to do so, which seems rare enough.

I'm happy to say that everything that exists is "natural." However, if that is the case, then I don't see why we can't study consciousness using science. If there is some sort of boundary past which science cannot see, then suddenly the word "supernatural" might have a place.

~~ Paul

I'm happy to say that everything that exists is "natural." However, if that is the case, then I don't see why we can't study consciousness using science. If there is some sort of boundary past which science cannot see, then suddenly the word "supernatural" might have a place.

~~ Paul

First you have to break the assumed equivalence between "natural" and "material" (or physical). Then you have to find a way, using the methodology of science, to investigate theories of consciousness other than the strictly brain based model you have at the moment. Koch and others have started down that path already. But even he insisting that consciousness is a feature of the physical universe, like gravity. He's not prepared to go further and consider that it might be the other way around: that the universe is a manifestation of consciousness; that consciousness is absolutely fundamental.

At a guess, the way to investigate mind using science is to do what parapsychologists are doing already: investigating how mind can work beyond the body. But science, in my view, cracked open the doors of science and let consciousness in with quantum physics. Schrödinger and Heisenberg saw this but later materialists have attempted to exclude or downplay the role of consciousness.

Schrödinger wrote:

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

 

And Heisenberg, very appropriately for this discussion, said:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

Some of the early quantum physicists held similar views of the world which has come to be known as quantum mysticism: a fact either glossed over or dismissed by materialists.

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-my...otten.html