h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that what I was trying to say is that unless a "coincidence" or whatever is perceived as having some relevance to the concerns of the observer (the relevance may be that it backs up/is interpreted as backing up existing beliefs), it's more likely to be thought of *as* a mere coincidence than if it does.

<>

So, you're saying I'm brainwashed, even though I had to shake off a fundamentalist religious upbringing, and am still pretty much in a minority of one in my chosen metaphysical position?

I think it comes back to language again (at least in part). I reject "supernatural" as a term in a *specific* discourse about the fundamental nature of things as being consistently interrelated (part of the same domain *defined* by the fact that its elements interact as a complete system - the nub of my discussion with toxx). With this usage there can be no continuum that says these elements are *more* or *less* part of the whole. Which is not to say that in other discourses there cannot be any valid use of the term, but it's necessary to make some sort of stab at saying what that usage is.

On the subject of the continuum between CR and NCR, how about the continuum between everyday empirical CR and the quantum physicists NCR (not strictly NCRs in either case, rather the CR of a minority)? a world where it is at least possible (albeit *very* unlikely - unlikelier than the unlikeliest thing ever, in fact, and then some, to coin a phrase), that all your constituent atoms might suddenly move three inches to the left. The two slit experiment is pretty mind boggling, but it's not "supernatural".

Enough for now.

Noggin

<>

That does seem like a bit of an unfair claim.

hi Lemon,

It seems a bit unfair to me as well, since I had a similar upbringing. And for awhile I actually talked to trees, just like some of the pagans here. I did it quite naturally as a child. I felt like I was magic. It wasn't anything supernatural - it felt completely natural. Later I lost this gift due to other circumstances. But it was a strange time between not wanting to be a Catholic and meanwhile talking to trees. Well, won't ramble on about that, just to say that I don't understand how something we can experience can be supernatural.

az

Although I did put a in there to show that I know HS doesn't think I'm brainwashed. I hope.

Noggin

ps
if I was brainwashed at all it was to believe in a bearded Holy Father up in the heavens somewhere. I was never told that the sky and the ground couldn't 'speak' to me, so I just accepted that as normal. Natural.

az

I would suggest again that, despite all the connotations loaded onto it ("you're a gullible fool" vs. "open your mind, dude!"), the word 'supernatural' doesn't tell us anything particularly useful regarding gods, and argueing about it is really just argueing about what we think the word actually means.

Nah, Bouncy! I don't think many of us here suppose that a word actually means anything. Some of us are trying to do conceptual analysis.

Is there a coherent way of using the word 'supernatual' in statements about a world about which we have a certain belief set? I guess there's a real debate going on here or we wouldn't have such different postions on it. Noggin is pretty much a 'no', I'm a 'well, another word has to be substituted, at least' and HS is pretty much 'yes'. Sorry folks if I've misrepresented you!

toxx

Bouncy

The meaning of a word is its use, and its relation to other words in a particular discourse. And its that usage and context which we're trying to investigate. My contention, pretty much agreeing with you, is that the particular sense most people ascribe to it has no use, but that the way many people *actually* use it is not necessarily the same thing.

Oh, and if the universe is reduced to a single noninteracting object it is not an object *for* any other object. It inhabits no space or time.

Noggin

Noggin. Almost a simulpost, and it's good not to have to push the philosophical orthodoxy alone.

I really must get round to contemplating how the contents of the head might constitute two superimposed domains that might just have the odd common element on which rules from both can act. Kinda like that board with a game of chess (mental) and draughts (physical) going on; but since both feature kings, maybe they can have some kind of influence on the other. Otherwise they can presumably interpenetrate at will. One could programme the game, although it would be hard to instantiate it physically without going 3-dimensional.

toxx

Let me illustrate by taking Samuel Pepys comment on the paucity of human physical reactions. He noticed that the range of potential physical reactions the body creates is so limited that he perceived similar physical reactions in his stomach to being in love and being ill. I might add to that apprehension prior to an exam or an important presentation. In the same way, there are some physical events in the real world the ultimate cause of which might be either natural or supernatural. The context and our interpretation determines which. For example, if someone is of the opinion 'falling in love' does not exist except as a psychological phenomenon they are not prey to, if they fall in love they may interpret the physical manifestations, ranging from melancholia to increased energy, or obsessive thoughts etc, to illness.

What samuel pepys and HS seem to be missing is that though the reactions of the human body are limited when you take intensity and combinations of diferent reactions into account you can end up with an amount of discernably different reactions that cant al be experienced in a mortal life span.

Morover the attribution of these different feelings and emotions are subject to shody communication by language. Taking love as an example a child can pick a flower for a parent out of "love" and a person can stand crying over the body of a spouse they have murdered because of that same four letter word though we would be fools to say that the same combinations of feelings spurred the two actions.

Language is a most subtle form of brainwashing.

Nogging is perhaps brainwashed, then again it could be Heathen sceptic who is the one who has had her mind altered beyond her willing control.

They could both experience the same event and callit a different name. neither may be attempting to deceivev us butonly one may be telling the truth.

Heathen do you ever think about finding a parking space when you're not in a rush and tally up how often that happens? Is the fact that the thought and reality are very close sometimes something that sticks with you while the opposite situation is so common it melts into everday mundane unremarkable and unmemorable information?

In a world as complex as ours it would be more surprising if there were'nt coincidences. I often think about my friends if none of them phoned me while I was thinking about them I might think that *was* spooky. Our intuintion or hunches often lead us astray that's why bookies are so rich, but we actually entertain the idea of luck being on our side whether we believe in the supernatural or not we would be fools to deny that we wouldnt like the idea of a supernatural guide and protector looking after us and that is why churches are so rich.

one love

I hope this will broaden the discussion a touch. It just occurred to me that analogous to the heaven/earth, mind/body dichotomies is the old organic/inorganic or living/inanimate. They were believed to be completely separate domains until the analysis of urea (I seem to recall). It turned out that they were pretty much separate areas except that organic chemistry is essentially the chemistry of carbon - and inorganic chemistry includes some of the chemistry of carbon also. Suddenly we have a bridge between domains!

Is it logically possible that some similar discovery might be made to explain (reduce to trivial?) the difference between mind and body? Noggin, you're the historian. How seriously was the organic/inorganic thing taken?

OK, this might be garbage, but I had to get it written before I doze off completely. See you folks in the morning.

toxx

<>

I shall contemplate this as well, it's an interesting idea.
BTW - 'instantiate' what a lovely word! I'll make it my word of the day...

Badge. There is much in what you say; but much more to be said! I think it is at least worth remarking that in one psychological experiment the same chemical agent was administered to both groups of subjects. To one of the groups it was suggested that they would feel aggressive, to the other - elated. And so it was! Yet another bridge between the physical and mental. If anyone insists, I shall dig out the reference to that study.

toxx

Badge/Charon. What's with the name change then?

toxx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=419788

Maybe we should all do it

The Poster Formally Known As Jez

Ooops

The Poster Formerly Known as Jez

Is that better?

Jez the invincible, the ineffable, the outrageous and the overwhelmingly modest

And informally known as...?

Lots to reply to in #19429, 30 and 31. Going to do some gardening and have a think. Back later.

Noggin

Blicky



Or, more generally, even when it comes to our own bodies what we perceive is underdetermined by what's out there.



Either way the terminology is too strong. Socialisation into *some* view of the world is unavoidable. And at least some part of that worldview will not be susceptible to empirical proof or disproof.



But we experience the event differently, and are both of us telling the truth about our experience (which in both cases may be underdetermined by the event itself.)



The parking space example is probably not a good one. I've already noted that we notice such things in a biased way according to some form of relevance, and parking spaces are obviously not supernatural in themselves. Even it's the last one, it may not be you that gets it, but like the National Lottery it's going to be *someone*.



Quite so. But do more coincidences happen to some people than others? Or do some people notice them more and read more meaning into them?

Noggin