Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

[maatorc]

...... If somebody has experienced a noumenal event, they can tell about it, and so the event can be confirmed when every other possibility has been excluded. ......

You are, of course, joking?

 

[maatorc]

Kant defined a noumenon as an object cogitated through pure understanding, as opposed to a phenomenon, which is an object known by empirical means.
He does not always use the terminology consistently and draws different conclusions about them in "Critique of Pure Reason" than the ones he draws in "Critique of Practical Reasons".
I think the term is somewhat dated and out of favour in mainstream philosophy. Mach wrote in "Analysis of Sensation" "Some two or three years later the superfluity of the role played by "the thing in itself" abruptly dawned upon me."
Generally I think modern philosophers regard the concept as somewhat incoherent.

No problem with what you say.
Terminology does fluctuate over time and the noumenon/phenomenon connection is employed by me to express the strictly-mental/physical-sense dichotomy, where noumenon is an object of strictly mental realization entirely devoid of phenomenal attributes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Larsen List time? Questions for maatorc:

1. Do you believe that there are any strictly noumenal thingies (with absolutely no phenomenal component) at all? Why do you believe this?

2. Do you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information? If so, why do you believe this?

3. If you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, then why can nobody ever act on this information in a way distinguishable from chance?

4. If you do not believe strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, is there any reason at all to care whether they exist or not?

5. Do you dispute that the word "paranormal" as used by laypeople refers to a reasonably well-defined set of claimed phenomena?

6. Do you dispute that the JREF Challenge is aimed at people who make paranormal claims in that layperson's sense?

7. Do you dispute that if a person really had paranormal powers (in the layperson's sense) that they could win the JREF Challenge?

9. Do you dispute that it would constitute evidence of a paranormal power (in the layperson's sense) if a person could display claimed paranormal power under conditions that prevented fraud, guesswork and so on from operating?

 

[Robin]

No problem with what you say.
Terminology does fluctuate over time and the noumenon/phenomenon connection is employed by me to express the strictly-mental/physical-sense dichotomy, where noumenon is an object of strictly mental realization entirely devoid of phenomenal attributes.

So by definition you couldn't experience a noumenon, right?

 

[steenkh]

You are, of course, joking?

What experiences can you not tell about? How would you know that others have such experiences if they cannot tell about it? If you are right that the concept by definition cannot be communicated, then you are pushing a worthless term.

 

[dafydd]

From the Blavatsky Archive site.

'It has been stated (in paragraph 4 above), that there is no such thing as empty space in the universe. Esoteric Science teaches that the entire cosmos is pervaded by Akasha, primordial substance, or rather the noumenon—the non-sensuous reality—beyond substance. In the Theosophical Glossary, Akasha (from a Sanskrit word meaning "brilliant" or "luminous") is described as "the subtle, supersensuous spiritual essence which pervades all space." This primordial substance differentiates into all the forms of matter, those of the invisible as of the visible regions of the universe. Hence the definition of Akasha as "the Universal Soul from which all that exists is born by separation or differentiation. It is the cause of existence; it fills all the infinite Space."

Well that clears it up.

 

[Dancing David]

False assertion: All science is and cannot but be phenomenally based.

Thats cute, I don't think your teachers failed you this time, you failed you. All phenomenal events are based upon the noumenal. Your experiences are not things in and off themselves, they are phenomenal.

get over it.

 

[Dancing David]

So by definition you couldn't experience a noumenon, right?

Duh.

 

[Dancing David]

No problem with what you say.
Terminology does fluctuate over time and the noumenon/phenomenon connection is employed by me to express the strictly-mental/physical-sense dichotomy, where noumenon is an object of strictly mental realization entirely devoid of phenomenal attributes.

Contradict yourself much? You seem to have a lot of practice given your skill level.

 

[maatorc]

For those confused by DD and others, a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

For those confused by DD and others

Oh, it's not DD we're confused by...

a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

So... do things like levitation and dowsing count? If not, does that mean those can be proven or disproven?

I also, like most sceptics, do not happen to buy the "can't be proven scientifically" cop-out. If someone has an ability, or if some unknown force exists, it can be measured and observed - otherwise we wouldn't know about it, right?

Don't know if I can add anything that hasn't already been said over the course of these 11 pages (not to mention the other threads), but let me try to be helpful by giving you an example. Let's take the claim of a fortune-teller. He or she is essentially claiming to have the ability to make predictions about the future and be correct more often than he or she would be through wild guesswork... but that this cannot be proven scientifically. This is as nonsensical as me saying that the Houston Astros is statistically more likely to win games than other teams, but that this cannot be proven scientifically.

Seriously, if you can't prove that, say, ESP is real, then by the same reasoning you can't prove that radars, sonar, thermometers, hydrophones or other natural sensory perception gadgets, not to mention eyes and ears, work either.

If you disagree, think about how you'd prove an x-ray machine worked. Place a metal ball in one of five bins in a room with an machine, leave the room, and let the person trying to prove if the machine works enter the room and find the ball without opening the lids. He or she won't have to do so many times for me to be convinced.

Why, pray tell, can't psychic abilities be proven in the same manner? Surely if I experience a "noumenal" event in my head that gives me data, I can present those data to others, just the same way I can tell others what I see, hear and feel? Regular, natural ideas happen solely inside my head, too, but I'm perfectly able to communicate those.

 

[Robin]

For those confused by DD and others, a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

So, by definition, you couldn't experience a noumenal event, right?

 

[maatorc]

Posted by maatorc -
For those confused by DD and others, a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

So, by definition, you couldn't experience a noumenal event, right?

So by definition you have not read the post or cannot understand very simple English, right?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Reposted questions for maatorc:

1. Do you believe that there are any strictly noumenal thingies (with absolutely no phenomenal component) at all? Why do you believe this?

2. Do you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information? If so, why do you believe this?

3. If you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, then why can nobody ever act on this information in a way distinguishable from chance?

4. If you do not believe strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, is there any reason at all to care whether they exist or not?

5. Do you dispute that the word "paranormal" as used by laypeople refers to a reasonably well-defined set of claimed phenomena?

6. Do you dispute that the JREF Challenge is aimed at people who make paranormal claims in that layperson's sense?

7. Do you dispute that if a person really had paranormal powers (in the layperson's sense) that they could win the JREF Challenge?

9. Do you dispute that it would constitute evidence of a paranormal power (in the layperson's sense) if a person could display claimed paranormal power under conditions that prevented fraud, guesswork and so on from operating?

 

[Dancing David]

For those confused by DD and others, a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

And where is this noumenal events isolated from a phenomenal event?

Eh?

 

[Dancing David]

So by definition you have not read the post or cannot understand very simple English, right?

So by defintion the issue is that you do not have evidence and can't present it, so you put it in a box and play "What have I got in my pocket?"

 

[maatorc]

So by defintion the issue is that you do not have evidence and can't present it, so you put it in a box and play "What have I got in my pocket?"

I apologize for imposing the idea of noumena on you, as I agree that in your case there cannot be any noumenal events.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And no amount of semantic twisting will ever allow a phenomenally based procedure to demonstrate a noumenal event.

Doesn't that render the concept of the noumenal rather pointless then?

For those confused by DD and others, a noumenal event is a strictly mental experience/realization, and a phenomenal event is a material physical sense experience/realization.

Huh? What is your definition of noumenal?

~~ Paul

 

[Sledge]

Just out of curiosity, maatorc, do you think that anything paranormal or supernatural exists? Or to be more precise, do you think any of the things often erroneously referred to by those terms exist? Telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, perpetual motion, that sort of thing.

 

[maatorc]

Just out of curiosity, maatorc, do you think that anything paranormal or supernatural exists? Or to be more precise, do you think any of the things often erroneously referred to by those terms exist? Telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, perpetual motion, that sort of thing.

Yes to telepathy.