Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Pick somepm.

Ghosts.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Monsters.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Practical magic.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Mythological creatures (unicorns etc.).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Deities.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Demons (Devil's included).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Spirits of The Dead (not the same as #1).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Reincarnation, karma, that sort...
[ 0 ] (0%)
Type of scientological stuff like astrobodies.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Universal Superintelligence, Manas, Mano-dhatu.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Something Must Be there!... :faint: ..
[ 0 ] (0%)
A bit of "superstitions" - "salt, cats, whatnot :insane:".
[ 0 ] (0%)
Hobbits, snurves, dwarves, elves? ???
[ 1 ] (20%)
Vegetables are alive. :yikes:
[ 1 ] (20%)
I believe I'm alive. :beer: :coffee: :hat: :cheers:
[ 3 ] (60%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Topic: Do you believe in "supernatural"? (Read 28610 times)

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Josh on

Easy! Now "material" and not.  We need to define that in terms of reality.
My point easily shows that (arguably) non-material things are very much real. When you can't ignore it, it's real, even when there's no way to determine its materiality. I always bring this point up with topics like this.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #26 –
For starters, I'm gonna argue that there's no such dichotomy as "material/immaterial" — but rather there's a more strict one: let's call one "mass" and the other "movement".
Roughly, all that exists as itself, by itself or something like that - will be mass, movements mean all kinds of processes with the former as participants. Thus, attractions and distractions mean processes (movements) involving high complexity interactions of - say - elements of our bodies.
How's that?

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #27 –
Don't tell me about soul, ok? By "mass" I don't mean "physical mass".
There's ONE MAIN dichotomy: something can damn exist - or not.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #28 –
One more thing.
Let's distinct between objects — and their images.
As you call it, real objects can - not have, but - produce various number of images — depending on how many observers have an idea of them (they don't at all have to look at or in any other way perceive the objects "directly" - having A HINT at (or delusion) that something must be there is enough to form an image). Then we can presume, that there can exist images without [real] objects to produce them — take goblins?:) (Such ones can be considered images of ideas - the latter in turn being not the "mass" type objects but a product of perceiving certain sorts of movement(s):))

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #32 –
In context:
"Good luck" means: "Have a good luck debating such bullshit silliness philosophic stuff with somebody else." :right:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #34 –

Quote from: ersi on
Barulheira simply doesn't like to sort things out rationally. It's too much work for him.

Oh, you're doing that on purpose.  :doh:

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?
Quote from: ersi
There's lots of stuff happening before pregnancy that determines if pregnancy is to occur at all. Is the attraction or repulsion of the potential mating partners material or non-material?


Not so much an answer. But you're a feelings guy so that's perfect.


Quote from: ersi
When you can't ignore it, it's real, even when there's no way to determine its materiality. I always bring this point up with topics like this.

No one is a 100% accurate observer all the time and when you add in the probability of coincidence and the consequences of belief or perception you end up with a meaningful chance you've been duped by your own feelings.     

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

No one is a 100% accurate observer all the time and when you add in the probability of coincidence and the consequences of belief or perception you end up with a meaningful chance you've been duped by your own feelings.     
So, you think you are duped and you go through life aimlessly? Such as using the word "feelings" without definition in a place where it doesn't belong. Granted.

I operate differently. I always make sure to eliminate any errors. There are methods for that, did you know? For example, it's good to know the difference of feelings and thoughts. It will help you a lot.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #36 –
What's that difference? I don't feel you dig right here at all - "feelings" may be considered a simplified term for perception.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Josh on

What's that difference? I don't feel you dig right here at all - "feelings" may be considered a simplified term for perception.
If you have any feelings at all, you should have noticed what Ensbb did. He replaced the term I had used and reasoned out with his own term without reasoning it out. This means that he is not just blind to comprehension, but also unwilling to comprehend.

Anyway, the difference between feelings and thoughts is the same as the difference between reaction (as in Newtonian mechanics) and reflection (as in a mirror). Pretty crucial difference in some contexts, certainly when discussing the modes of perception.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #38 –
"Thought" implies complex and not directly relative to those primary concepts "goings-on". IF someone meant those "psychic objects" which can or can not be images of those real ones, then I prefer you use the term "idea". (I don't feel it implies much thinking, huh?;))

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #39 –
For rational beings, the barely detectable and potentially unreal things require much more thinking. Namely, they must think how those things can make sense.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #40 –
I believe you're just piling up "entities": "sense", "detectability", "potentiality"... Those are highly complex movements as opposed to the core things from which we seem to have started. If you're gonna morph complexities, it's proper 1) to strictly determine the elements we're having now, and 2) not to skip steps (each next complexity must be an immediate derivate from the determined).

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Josh on

...it's proper 1) to strictly determine the elements we're having now, and 2) not to skip steps (each next complexity must be an immediate derivate from the determined).
If you complain I skipped any step, identify the step I skipped. Otherwise the complaint does not apply.

I made a basic distinction: feelings versus thoughts. I also said that this distinction has the same nature as the distinction of reaction versus reflection. This distinction contributes a lot to the understanding of what it means to perceive and what determines the reality of percepts. The distinction also provides some insight into our relationship with "entities".

It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: ersi on
I made a basic distinction: feelings versus thoughts.
In their common sense, they're highly superficial to what we took as the basics now. Let alone their relationships;)

Quote from: ersi on
This distinction contributes a lot to the understanding of what it means to perceive and what determines the reality of percepts.
"What it means" in terms of what?
"Percepts"? Explain - do you mean ideas or images?

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: ersi on
It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.
You wasn't determining anything directly related to the basics.
And that's not okay! Applying to concepts/constructs which at the moment are outside our current frame/model is not o'k.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: ersi on
It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.
You wasn't determining anything directly related to the basics.
And that's not okay! Applying to concepts/constructs which at the moment are outside our current frame/model is not o'k.
Metaphysics is the basics. You have to be open to yourself about your premises. Otherwise there's no analysis and no meaning.

I see you are very eager to build a model, but the model has to have a purpose, not only a structure. What is the purpose of your images versus ideas distinction? Is it not the same as my feelings versus thoughts? Can you say anything about the ontological status or nature of images and ideas? Their relationship with objects? If not, you are not doing it properly.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #45 –
I'll expand: at a moment you rushed into arguing with Brian about something which neither originated from nor had any disambiguous connections to what was actually discussed. Thus creating an "ontological" Frankenstein.
Quote
Metaphysics is the basics.
That animal is a developed construct - which was developed not here and not by us.
Quote
You have to be open to yourself about your premises.
MY premises are mine - and I suggested them to y'all here as the starting point. If you then disagreed - I couldn't see/read that here.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: ersi on
but the model has to have a purpose
Utter and ultimate bullshit.
"Purpose" is a highly likely delusional anthropomorphism, deriving from such movements as religion and fear of unknown.
The "animal" is MIRACULOUSLY redundant in any model which is not yet HIGHLY developed.