The Rattling Chains of Supernaturalism and The Occult

[BestGuessYet]

@WhoKnows

How is that relevant to the OP and this thread? Is there something in my arguments, my evidence or my witness that in any way suggests we should all believe anything we like?

I’m saying we can’t help believing anything we like, not unless we are willing to let the outside world test it.

We don’t even have to click our heels in order to know anything we like. We don’t even have to open our eyes. We can just know.

As I say, the guys in the back room control the ‘CERTAIN’ button. They can press it down hard, no matter what the narrator is thinking.

So if we want our knowledge to be closer to reality, we have to let others test it.

@WhoKnows

It is not belief. It is knowledge.

I see little difference between the two except how hard the guys are leaning on the CERTAIN button.

@WhoKnows

My mind presents the consciousness that I am, and the consciousness I am deduces.

I think we are using our words in different ways. I can’t really follow that sentence.

@WhoKnows

What is your workaround then? If you cannot trust your mind to shape your beliefs, what do you trust to shape your beliefs?

The sandstorm. I expose myself to the sandstorm. It helps me create my best guesses yet. Call them beliefs. Call them knowledge. It doesn’t matter what we call them. They are only words.

@WhoKnows

What is your “mind” in relation to consciousness?

I think of it as a narrator—the guy talking to you now—plus the guys in the back room, up to whatever mischief they are up to.

@WhoKnows

Also, do you think belief is necessary and if so, why?

I’m not sure what you mean. Belief is just a word. It refers to a thing which is being judged ‘almost certain’ by the back room guys.

@WhoKnows

1: There appears to be some confusion among posters in this thread when it comes to which science and scientists are best employed to examine and test ideomotor effect.

Have a scientist make a board with foreign characters. Then—either before or after the test—have a third person make up an equivalency dictionary, assigning your old symbols to the new ones.

Then see if your technique still gives a coherent message. I assume such a setup would be no problem if there is an overarching consciousness out there… but it will be a problem for your local backroom guys, I think.

@WhoKnows

The best thing for you to do in relation to your question is to examine the evidence I have already submitted and if you can - point out exactly where you think I have failed to apply “science” or be “scientific” therein…

I’m sorry, man. Just no time. Not unless you get it past the first tranche of scientists.

Stories to tell. Books to write. Heathen to tame.

@WhoKnows

That a start. Now how to work on the deceptive aspect. Perhaps by examining supernaturalist language and leaving that out of the discussion would be a great place to start the dismantling… If deception is a problem, a good place to start is by removing the language that enables it.

I don’t think of language that way. Call it a ghost and then tell me that by ‘ghost’ you mean ‘that hammer right there.’ When you say ghost, I’ll think of the thing which I call a hammer.

@WhoKnows

That is a good knowing to have, but how do you take control of that so that you mind functions in a more trustworthy way? How does consciousness tame a mind that consistently wants to drift said consciousness into belief?

The sandstorm. Resistance. It’s why I come to debate.

@WhoKnows

If you want to be true to truth, and if you recognize the tendency to drift, what implements do you have in place to correct that drift to enable you to navigate the fog of conformation bias?

As an elephantine quibble, I hardly believe in true. There is just this apparent reality and a guy trapped in a black and silent cave, building his best guesses as he goes.

And in an especially perverse twist, Whoever put me here filled me with a passion for Truth.

Damned Trickster Gods.

[Scorpion]

@Punshhh

Yes, I’m converting it into sanitised language, which we might be able to discuss philosophically. To remove the baggage around ideas like sorcery, magic and the occult.

It’s simply that there are ways and means to alter, or step outside of the world we find ourselves in. I don’t know if philosophy addresses this sort of thing as a possibility?

The occult has had a grip on the human mind for millennia. We won’t be able to shake it off that easily as this OP indicates.

Pulling on threads that one thinks are philosophical ignores the paradigm shift kicked off by the Greeks: mythos \to logos. This atavism may not be pointless though.

[Corvus]

@WhoKnows

What we need to question is if such things are real, then why we should think of these as anything but natural?

It is not question of being real or natural. They are supernatural in the sense that they cannot be perceived via human sense organs. Then how can human understanding ever grasp the supernatural objects? This is the real issue here.

[Punshhh]

@WhoKnows

One of the main aims of this thread is to expose the dominant use of supernaturalist definitions for what they are - the Rattling Chains of fraudulent and misleading words and phrases/terminologies.and ideas.

Yes, I see. That’s pretty much what I was thinking of.

A few things to say about the supernatural though. Here on a philosophy forum where people think more deeply and analytically, the rattling chains of the supernatural don’t make much noise. Most people will just look at the issues analytically and objectively.

Also I would agree with Corvus that supernatural is what we call things beyond what we can see and detect. So by definition they are in a special category of things which we can only really know through myth and epiphany. Inevitably this requires a different, more theological language. Even though the thing we talk about might not be divine and might be something in a world in which God and spirits don’t exist.

So are you looking to translate theological, spiritual, or mystical language into a philosophical language (something I would like to do)?

@WhoKnows

1. Its connotations are well enough documented, as religious institution and popular movies express - themselves locking in on a common theme of supernaturalism.

This is because “the supernatural” is their stock in trade.

@WhoKnows

In other words, "the whole thing can still be true, while there is still no such thing as paranormal.

Agreed, we are still in the dark though. We don’t know if there is a spirit world, a God, some kind of astral plane, or world of souls. Or if all the stories and testimonies about these things are just figments of the human mind.

[Punshhh]

@Scorpion

Pulling on threads that one thinks are philosophical ignores the paradigm shift kicked off by the Greeks: mythos $\to$→ logos. This atavism may not be pointless though

It’s not avatism that I’m doing, although that may be where I got the idea from. I’m moving away from the mythology of the past and asking, what if the world is encoded and through the use of codes a being could act independently of that coded reality? We know now that all life is encoded, through DNA. Or in other words all being is encoded.

[Scorpion]

Yes, we can look at it that way, but what poor quality code, right?

[PatternChaser]

@Dobbler

Second, in the example you are bringing up, the mental health conditions a clinician might diagnose you with exists in the DSM, which is grounded on good science.

The DSM lists questions/topics (so-called ‘symptoms’) that have proved most effective at discovering these conditions. Trial and error. Is this “good science”? Perhaps it is.

@Dobbler

People in random aspects of life don’t need to adopt the strict methodologies of scientific research.

And yet, here we are on a philosophy forum, not a science site… So perhaps a more philosophical approach is warranted?

[PatternChaser]

@WhoKnows

@PatternChaser

Only it occurs to me that science might not be the best tool to examine such things. Science is at its (impressive) best when supplied with evidence, and testable+repeatable claims.

Science is a process of investigation and is precisely the thing to use.

Even when evidence is in short supply, and might not be testable or repeatable? How will the methods of science be practised, given these lacks?

[PatternChaser]

@WhoKnows

Science is the use of device to uncover what was previously hidden.

If data can be produced through device then the data can be evaluated.

That is science.

Wikipedia offers a more, er, conventional description:

@Wikipedia

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society. It is driven by the scientific method,an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions.

This is what I was always taught to believe that science was and is. A very powerful tool whose successes are well known. But as we can see, it needs certain things, if it is to function as we wish. But without evidence of a suitable quality, testable and repeatable, its basic methodology cannot function, can it?

[PatternChaser]

@Corvus

Do topics such as God, immortality, consciousness and souls come under the subject of supernaturalism and the occult?

Presumably so, yes. IMO

[PatternChaser]

@BestGuessYet

Science in based on the observation that our minds cannot be trusted when it comes to embracing beliefs.

It is? It is my thought that science is about our search for knowledge, just as philosophy is about our search for wisdom, yes? The searches use different methods and techniques, but the idea is the same: we seek to find out that which we did not previously know/believe.

IMO, of course.

**********

@Punshhh

It’s simply that there are ways and means to alter, or step outside of the world we find ourselves in. I don’t know if philosophy addresses this sort of thing as a possibility?

I truly hope that it does!

[BestGuessYet]

@PatternChaser

@BestGuessYet

Science in based on the observation that our minds cannot be trusted when it comes to embracing beliefs.

It is?

Well, it seems so to me. If I insist that the earth is flat while you say it is round, then we need to find methods of distinguishing which of our beliefs better conforms to reality.

So we make a test: If the earth is flat, then a laser beam should strike a distant object at the same level it was sent. We run the test, and now we have data contrary to my certain belief, but supporting your certain belief.

@PatternChaser

It is my thought that science is about our search for knowledge, just as philosophy is about our search for wisdom, yes?

Sure. I’m talking about the methods. It’s the problem with an incorporeal God. Anyone can believe anything, and there’s no way to run any tests in the physical world.

I mean, we could try to run prayer tests, seeing if a particular Christian denomination has better results than the Hindus, but I think we’ve done that and found nothing useful.

@PatternChaser

The searches use different methods and techniques, but the idea is the same: we seek to find out that which we did not previously know/believe.

Yes. And because we find it so easy to believe/know anything we like, and because reality gives us enough questions to keep us busy, I prefer the scientific method myself.

I’m a great imaginer, but so is everyone else.

[PatternChaser]

@BestGuessYet

I’m talking about the methods. It’s the problem with an incorporeal God. Anyone can believe anything, and there’s no way to run any tests in the physical world.

There are so very many such things, though! Better, IMO, to develop a philosophy that embraces uncertainty, and learns how to deal with it, instead of scrabbling around trying to circumvent the world’s many imponderables. Also IMO.

[BestGuessYet]

@PatternChaser

There are so very many such things, though! Better, IMO, to develop a philosophy that embraces uncertainty, and learns how to deal with it, instead of scrabbling around trying to circumvent the world’s many imponderables. Also IMO.

Yeah, I wrote a book about that.

Glad to send you a copy if you’re interested.

[Dobbler]

@PatternChaser

The DSM lists questions/topics (so-called ‘symptoms’) that have proved most effective at discovering these conditions.

Why are symptoms “so called”. Are we saying that people don’t have symptoms?

@PatternChaser

Trial and error. Is this “good science”?

Trial and error is absolutely part of science. It’s just that there’s more to it than that.

@PatternChaser

And yet, here we are on a philosophy forum, not a science site… So perhaps a more philosophical approach is warranted?

That’s the most ridiculously specious point. I post something on a philosophy forum, therefore a philosophical approach is warranted? Utter nonsense.

[PatternChaser]

@Dobbler

I post something on a philosophy forum, therefore a philosophical approach is warranted? Utter nonsense.

Then I must defer to your knowledge.

[PatternChaser]

@Dobbler

Why are symptoms “so called”. Are we saying that people don’t have symptoms?

No. We’re saying that, for a simple disease or condition, if you have the condition, you have the symptoms; if you have the symptoms, you have the condition.

But if we take autism as one example, what I just wrote is not the case. In this case, the ‘symptoms’ listed in DSM-5 are just the best guidelines we have so far, that allow a qualified, experienced, and trained assessor to discover whether the patient has the condition or not. So, not quite the same, hence “so-called”. Does that make sense now? I hope it does.

[Dobbler]

@PatternChaser

But if we take autism as one example, what I just wrote is not the case. In this case, the ‘symptoms’ listed in DSM-5 are just the best guidelines we have so far, that allow a qualified, experienced, and trained assessor to discover whether the patient has the condition or not. So, not quite the same, hence “so-called”. Does that make sense now? I hope it does.

Not sure how this is relevant to my reference to the DSM. My point is that the DSM isn’t just arbitrary. It was arrived at through very specific methodologies. I already noted that a clinician is doing something different than a scientific researcher is doing. They don’t claim or pretend to be doing research.

To restate, there is a difference between fucking around and telling stories about it, and doing science, just as there is a difference between being a clinician and a researcher. The “exploration” the OP is doing isn’t science.

@PatternChaser

Then I must defer to your knowledge.

What knowledge? You made a specious point and I called it out. What appears to be passive aggressiveness isn’t an intellectually honest response. You disagree? Make your case why. Otherwise, let it go.

[Corvus]

@PatternChaser

Presumably so, yes. IMO

Under what grounds / evidences, did your presumed opinion on the point arrive to you?

[Punshhh]

@Scorpion

Yes, we can look at it that way, but what poor quality code, right?

It’s an example of being, or sentience, emergent from coded information. Or another way of viewing it, being, or sentience, can’t come into existence (as far as we know) without existence producing encoded states, which can produce being, or sentience.

So all this hot air, of philosophical discussion about God’s, physicalism, idealism etc, depends and results from encoded states existing in physical form.

Perhaps there are encoded states galore, beyond the physical world we find ourselves in. Maybe there are encoded physical worlds, or the times-space continuum is the result of an encoded state.