Are we supernatural? (A logical reason)

[EGarrett]

I don't believe in a god, but I've been pondering this question.

We aren't our arms, legs, eyes, etc, because we can lose those and still be considered "ourselves" and "alive."

I hesitate to say that we're our brain, because a brain can exist and not be alive. Likewise, measurable brain activity can exist and not generate consciousness.

So, when you boil it down, we are our consciousness. The product of the chemical processes that go on in our brain.

Now, the first definition of supernatural (from dictionary.com) is "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. "

Now, our consciousness is evident only to ourselves. It's not something you can hold, look at, sense or measure with any type of instrument that I know of.

From what I can tell, there's no physical evidence that suggests consciousness that can also be found in a body that isn't conscious (if you ask the person later, when they clearly are conscious.)

I can't think of any link that an individuals consciousness has to the outside world.

Furthermore, a conscious-but-paralyzed person cannot affect the physical world. Consciousness in and of itself does not affect the physical world.

So, does that fit the first definition of supernatural? Something that has no evidence in the physical world, cannot be proven to exist, and which does not affect the physical world, to me, seems to be.

What do you think?

(And a note: This has NOTHING to do with God, religion, woo-wooism, ghosts, saying we're magic or anything. I'm a firm non-believer in any of those things. I'm just wondering if the word "supernatural" could actually apply to something we actually experience.)

 

[Mercutio]

That which you are calling "consciousness" is merely your observation of the behavior, public (of others) and private (your own thinking, etc.), of this physical body. It is inferred from our actions; it does not cause them, nor does it exist independently of them. It is merely a category label for a class of behaviors, those which we have labeled "conscious". Look at your examples again--every time something is seen as "conscious", it is simply because it is behaving. An unconscious person is not engaging in any of the behaviors we consider conscious...nothing more. There is no "thing" which has left that person; that person has simply stopped doing those behaviors.

Behavior, defined as "what you do", includes thinking, feeling, seeing, etc., and these are among the private behaviors we collectively call "conscious". When you speak of these things as "consciousness", it is again not a thing we possess, but merely a metaphorical noun encompassing a category of behaviors. When we quit doing these things, we are no longer conscious. Nothing supernatural about it. It is roughly equivalent to a physical machine doing work. When you shut it off, where does the work go? Nowhere, of course, "work" is our noun referring to the action of the machine. When the machine stops, it simply quits doing work.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

We aren't our arms, legs, eyes, etc, because we can lose those and still be considered "ourselves" and "alive."

Um, are you sure a good method for figuring out what something is is to start mutilating it and see how much you can remove before it stops being the thing it is?

In parallel, if you were curious what a car was, would you start removing things until it no longer was a car? ("Ah! I see now! I car is a chassis and an engine, all these other things were just contingent facts about this car.") If so, could any reasonable metaphysical conclusions be drawn from this?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I don't believe in a god, but I've been pondering this question.

We aren't our arms, legs, eyes, etc, because we can lose those and still be considered "ourselves" and "alive."

I hesitate to say that we're our brain, because a brain can exist and not be alive. Likewise, measurable brain activity can exist and not generate consciousness.

So, when you boil it down, we are our consciousness. The product of the chemical processes that go on in our brain.

Now, the first definition of supernatural (from dictionary.com) is "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. "

Now, our consciousness is evident only to ourselves. It's not something you can hold, look at, sense or measure with any type of instrument that I know of.

From what I can tell, there's no physical evidence that suggests consciousness that can also be found in a body that isn't conscious (if you ask the person later, when they clearly are conscious.)

I can't think of any link that an individuals consciousness has to the outside world.

Furthermore, a conscious-but-paralyzed person cannot affect the physical world. Consciousness in and of itself does not affect the physical world.

So, does that fit the first definition of supernatural? Something that has no evidence in the physical world, cannot be proven to exist, and which does not affect the physical world, to me, seems to be.

What do you think?

(And a note: This has NOTHING to do with God, religion, woo-wooism, ghosts, saying we're magic or anything. I'm a firm non-believer in any of those things. I'm just wondering if the word "supernatural" could actually apply to something we actually experience.)

I wasn't going to go on again until the 29th March. But I'm so pleased that I will make this one exception.

Yes you've got it! You are on the right lines The first time ever any materialist has understood this! (or maybe you're not a materialist! LOL)

Now that's definitely it. Nothing more for 3 months until my probation is over.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, that "thing" (consciousness) can operate the intsrumentation known as "our body," much as it can operate any other tool or, piece of instrumentation, such as hitting a nail over the head with a hammer. In other words the body -- as with the hammer and the nail -- is just an inanimate object without "a will" in order to tell it what to do.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Are we supernatural? (A logical reason)

I wasn't going to go on again until the 29th March. But I'm so pleased that I will make this one exception.

Yes you've got it! You are on the right lines The first time ever any materialist has understood this! (or maybe you're not a materialist! LOL)

Now that's definitely it. Nothing more for 3 months until my probation is over.

I am very pleased to see your reaction to this--it means I really actually did understand what you were talking about. (oh, and happy holidays to you!)

Of course, you will not be surprised to know that I still think you are wrong (my reasons should be evident from my first post here), and that the misunderstanding comes about through the inadequacy of our language to properly express our experience without metaphor.

*****

Iacchus, I am not surprised that you did not understand my post...you still speak of this "thing", which is simply an artifact of our language, as if it really had an existence of its own. Do you have any evidence for consciousness that is not circular? This "will" you speak of is defined purely after the fact, by inference from behavior--there is no evidence for it that is not circular.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I am not surprised that you did not understand my post...you still speak of this "thing", which is simply an artifact of our language, as if it really had an existence of its own. Do you have any evidence for consciousness that is not circular? This "will" you speak of is defined purely after the fact, by inference from behavior--there is no evidence for it that is not circular.

Therein lies the problem. Because it is either circular as you say or, there's a bit more to it than that. The fact that the hammer cannot hit the nail over the head of its own accord is evidence as far as I'm concerned. For obviously there's something "outside" of the hammer and nail that's telling them what to do. Whereas if I hadn't actually picked up a hammer and nail myself (by "willing" my body to do so), I would be speaking even less from the standpoint of what a will entails, let alone what it means to operate one. So I do have direct experience (a direct account, a direct observation) with what a will is in other words. Might I also suggest that there's nothing about this man-made world of ours which was not brought about through an "act of will."

 

[Tricky]

I don't see how something that exists in almost every human on Earth can be called "supernatural". Not only that, but most would argue that other animals also posess something that would qualify as "consciousness". They react to their environment, they exhibit self-preservation responses. They are capable of solving simple problems.

So humans and some animals are conscious. What about plants? The also react to their environment, albiet in different ways than we do. Where exactly can we draw the line at what is conscious and what is not?

But wherever you draw the line, it appears that consciousness is incredibly common on Earth. That seems about as "natural" as one could ask for, especially with what we are learning about the material basis of consciousness.

 

[Mercutio]

Therein lies the problem. Because it is either circular as you say or, there's a bit more to it than that. The fact that the hammer cannot hit the nail over the head of its own accord is evidence as far as I'm concerned. For obviously there's something "outside" of the hammer and nail that's telling them what to do. Whereas if I hadn't actually picked up a hammer and nail myself (by "willing" my body to do so), I would be speaking even less from the standpoint of what a will entails, let alone what it means to operate one. So I do have direct experience (a direct account, a direct observation) with what a will is in other words. Might I also suggest that there's nothing about this man-made world of ours which was not brought about through an "act of will."

And your "will" adds nothing to your explanation. You may act in particular ways, but adding the label "will" to a subset of those does not somehow make those actions any different from any other physical activities your body engages in. (and of course, the hammer never hits the nail of its own accord. Because of this, you say it has no will. Of course, it could have all the will in the world, but simply lack the ability to hit the nail of its own accord. It would be impossible to tell! Fortunately, your definition of will shows that it is purely defined by actions--and thus circular--so we do not have to worry about the poor hammer sitting there unable to exercise its will)

But thank you for the example of exactly the circular reasoning we have come to expect.

 

[Suggestologist]

Um, are you sure a good method for figuring out what something is is to start mutilating it and see how much you can remove before it stops being the thing it is?

In parallel, if you were curious what a car was, would you start removing things until it no longer was a car? ("Ah! I see now! I car is a chassis and an engine, all these other things were just contingent facts about this car.") If so, could any reasonable metaphysical conclusions be drawn from this?

EGarrett is looking for an essentialist definition; Occam's Razor and so forth.

Consciousness in and of itself does not affect the physical world.

Consciousness seems to correspond to electrochemical activity in the brain -- which is a-part of the physical world.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't see how something that exists in almost every human on Earth can be called "supernatural". Not only that, but most would argue that other animals also posess something that would qualify as "consciousness". They react to their environment, they exhibit self-preservation responses. They are capable of solving simple problems.

So humans and some animals are conscious. What about plants? The also react to their environment, albiet in different ways than we do. Where exactly can we draw the line at what is conscious and what is not?

But wherever you draw the line, it appears that consciousness is incredibly common on Earth. That seems about as "natural" as one could ask for, especially with what we are learning about the material basis of consciousness.

Well, consciousness would seem to be something unique to life then wouldn't it? So, what is life? Is it possible that consciousness is pervasive of all things (from within its own dimension), except that some things utilize it and other things don't?

 

[Iacchus]

And your "will" adds nothing to your explanation. You may act in particular ways, but adding the label "will" to a subset of those does not somehow make those actions any different from any other physical activities your body engages in. (and of course, the hammer never hits the nail of its own accord. Because of this, you say it has no will. Of course, it could have all the will in the world, but simply lack the ability to hit the nail of its own accord. It would be impossible to tell! Fortunately, your definition of will shows that it is purely defined by actions--and thus circular--so we do not have to worry about the poor hammer sitting there unable to exercise its will)

But thank you for the example of exactly the circular reasoning we have come to expect.

And yet it's entirely possible to have an inanimate body without a will, at which point there's no distinguishing it from any other inanimate object ... a "dead corpse." So what would you have called it and, the ability to affect the nature of its surroundings prior to its mysterious disappearance? ... not that there was anything less enigmatic about its being here in the first place.

 

[Mercutio]

Your last two posts indicate that you equate "alive" with "being possessed of 'will' or 'consciousness'". As you describe it, these terms (will and consciousness) add absolutely nothing, and are as good as other terms for "being alive". This is consistent with what I have been saying, but not, I suspect, in the way you would like to hear.

Now, if you are willing to simply admit that they are identical in your view, then all we have is redundant vocabulary. Sadly, your reply to Tricky indicates that you have no qualms about jumping from "ah, this thing is alive" to "and thus we have evidence for a dimension which is undetectable, but which exerts influence over every aspect of our lives". Sorry, but no. You have utterly no evidence for any such thing. All your speculation is groundless.

 

[hammegk]

Yes you've got it! You are on the right lines The first time ever any materialist has understood this! (or maybe you're not a materialist! LOL)

II sounds more & more like an interactive dualist -- which is what subjective idealism has meant imo all along.


EGarrett: How does the "supernatural" effect or affect the "natural"?

 

[Iacchus]

Your last two posts indicate that you equate "alive" with "being possessed of 'will' or 'consciousness'". As you describe it, these terms (will and consciousness) add absolutely nothing, and are as good as other terms for "being alive". This is consistent with what I have been saying, but not, I suspect, in the way you would like to hear.

Now, if you are willing to simply admit that they are identical in your view, then all we have is redundant vocabulary. Sadly, your reply to Tricky indicates that you have no qualms about jumping from "ah, this thing is alive" to "and thus we have evidence for a dimension which is undetectable, but which exerts influence over every aspect of our lives". Sorry, but no. You have utterly no evidence for any such thing. All your speculation is groundless.

If I was to say I was going to the store in a half-hour, wouldn't that be a matter of intent? And, if I actually did go to the store, wouldn't that be a matter of will, following through on the intent? This is demonstrable. While the thing is, I can always change my mind and say, "No, I'm not going to go." Or, for that matter, I don't have to say anything at all, and do whatever I please. So clearly there's nothing that says I have to behave in a certain fashion, aside from the fact that I just "implied" I would do so.

 

[Suggestologist]

If I was to say I was going to the store in a half-hour, wouldn't that be a matter of intent? And, if I actually did go to the store, wouldn't that be a matter of will, following through on the intent? This is demonstrable. While the thing is, I can always change my mind and say, "No, I'm not going to go." Or, for that matter, I don't have to say anything at all, and do whatever I please. So clearly there's nothing that says I have to behave in a certain fashion, aside from the fact that I just "implied" I would do so.

Will as desire to follow-through on intention -- as prior desire.
So: Will as second-order desire. Desire to desire.

Changing your mind implies nondesire to desire; weakness of will.

 

[EGarrett]

Mercutio:

Behavior, defined as "what you do", includes thinking, feeling, seeing, etc., and these are among the private behaviors we collectively call "conscious". When you speak of these things as "consciousness", it is again not a thing we possess, but merely a metaphorical noun encompassing a category of behaviors. When we quit doing these things, we are no longer conscious. Nothing supernatural about it. It is roughly equivalent to a physical machine doing work. When you shut it off, where does the work go? Nowhere, of course, "work" is our noun referring to the action of the machine. When the machine stops, it simply quits doing work.

You don't agree with the idea of consciousness.

But what about thought? You've listed thought as an action. If you think about a blue beer can, you're performing an action that leaves no conclusive evidence. I might have brainwave patterns, but there's really no way I could show that you thought of a blue beer can. However, it's clear to you that it happened.

Does that fit the definition of supernatural? A process that exists, but leaves no clear evidence and has no affect on the outside world?

Interesting Ian:

Yes you've got it! You are on the right lines The first time ever any materialist has understood this! (or maybe you're not a materialist! LOL)

I'm not linking this to any type of religious definition, and I'll tell you why.

While we've yet to understand the phenomenon of the conscious, all our evidence shows that it is purely a product of the brain. Most religions state otherwise.

EGarrett: How does the "supernatural" effect or affect the "natural"?

As a skeptic, I'm using our idea of "supernatural," which is to say that it has no affect.

It also follows that the supernatural, as a whole, is pointless. But in this thread, I'm wondering if the conscious might provide the first meaningful use for the term.

 

[apoger]

Does that fit the definition of supernatural?

No.

A process that exists,...

If it exists it's part of nature.

... but leaves no clear evidence ...

Just because we have yet to discover evidence of something does not men that it's supernatural. It's merely undiscovered.

... and has no affect on the outside world?

It affects your brain chemistry. Your brain is most certainly part of the world.

As a skeptic, I'm using our idea of "supernatural," which is to say that it has no affect.

Our consciousness affects our brain, which in turn is part of nature.

It also follows that the supernatural, as a whole, is pointless.

An intellectual excercise only.

But in this thread, I'm wondering if the conscious might provide the first meaningful use for the term.

Hardly.

 

[Mercutio]

You don't agree with the idea of consciousness.

I have never seen it defined in any but a circular fashion. The things that from which we collectively label "consciousness" cannot be said to have been caused by consciousness, any more than an american 5-cent piece is made (partly) of nickel because it is called a nickel.

But what about thought? You've listed thought as an action. If you think about a blue beer can, you're performing an action that leaves no conclusive evidence. I might have brainwave patterns, but there's really no way I could show that you thought of a blue beer can. However, it's clear to you that it happened.

Thinking is a behavior, yes. Is your objection simply the number of observers of a behavior? You observe your own thinking, of course. Other behaviors may be potentially observed by more than just you. If they are not, does that mean they did not happen? There is "no conclusive evidence" that I walked to a particular place and back, if no one saw me.

There is an entire class of behaviors (behaviorists call them private or covert behaviors) which are, even in principle, observable only by one person--the person engaging in them. The question is, why should one think that, simply because only one person can observe a particular behavior, it suddenly behaves by different rules than public behaviors? Why think that private events are "mental" and not physical? Why even consider the possibility of "supernatural" for something, just because only one person can observe it? (I understand that this is precisely the objection that some have--the radical behaviorist viewpoint, however, treats private and public behavior both as natural events; I am genuinely curious as to why one would not.)

Does that fit the definition of supernatural? A process that exists, but leaves no clear evidence and has no affect on the outside world?

I suppose, depending on your definition of supernatural...but again, your distinction comes down to how many observers it has, and nothing more. So there is evidence--no, not shared publicly. And it may very well have an effect on the outside world.

 

[phildonnia]

Re: Re: Are we supernatural? (A logical reason)

I'm curious what the same analysis would lead you to believe about the following. Do they exist? Are they supernatural?

"The Great Depression"
"The number Five"
"El Nino"
"Gravity"
"The state of Denmark"

In every case, these are "not something you can hold, look at, sense or measure with any type of instrument that I know of." In every case, we find something that can be reduced to more fundamental and natural things.

(Well, at least to the same extent that the same can be said of "consciousness")

Edited for clarity, I hope.