Of course it's possible, but he'd have to be very dumb and unlucky. — Agustino

Tiger Woods? How many of the mighty have fallen? It's easy to provide more examples.

It's a combination of circumstances that accounted for the first win. I sum that up to luck, because it didn't depend solely on the individual's skill. — Agustino

So A couldn't have a run of bad luck along with the combination of possible bad decision or two?

I tend towards realism (or anti-idealism) as well; alternatives just don't stack up.
But of course the conundrums you brought up still apply. Who doesn't like a good mystery? (Y) — jorndoe

There have been scientists that say the opposite, that the brain despises mysteries, hence our natural tendency to solve them, or to figure things out. It seems to me that the only ones that like mysteries are the ones that don't want their beliefs, which they've made an emotional investment in, to be explained away.

The knowledge argument seems to be fallacious to me. Why would we need to know how something is experienced in order to know that something? The color of bananas informs us of the state of the banana (that it's ripe or rotten). If I knew the banana was ripe, then why do I need to also know how others see the banana? The knowledge argument doesn't take into account how our experiences inform us of some state-of-affairs in the world. Knowing a banana is ripe is the same as seeing a banana is yellow. How else would you know the banana is ripe? Your knowledge of the banana must take some form, which could be colors, or something else, as long as there's a relationship between the state-of-affairs and the way some entity is informed of that state-of-affairs.

Anyway, my comment was just an attempt to point out a potential problem with some propositions.
Say, there's not much doubt that the Sun exists, and we may then come up with sufficient definitions thereof (converging on quiddity). Such definitions can be found in dictionaries and whatnot.
If, on the other hand, we only have definitions to go by, then things become more questionable, which was what I meant by defining quiddity (like flying pink elephants perhaps).
Come to think on it, Hume may actually have agreed.
If the potential problem holds up, then it would go towards naturalism of some sort. — jorndoe

But we don't seem to ever only have definitions to go by. The words, "flying pink elephants" refer to some mental image. Even if I had an flying pink Asian elephant in my mind when I say it, which then triggers a flying pink African elephant in your mind, we'd still both be thinking of flying pink elephants, that is unless I stated specifically, that it was an Asian elephant. This is why it is important that we get our definitions right so that we can be on the same page when talking about something.

How did A win that first hand? Couldn't you say that he had no control over the hand he was dealt? The same could happen in the next round for someone else, and there are always the tactics of cheating and bluffing.

What's the source for this? — Sivad

Google, "what is the GDP of the world".

It doesn't really make sense to value the total resources of the planet in terms of dollars. — Sivad

Of course it does. Dollars is how we measure wealth.

There's definitely enough for everyone to live comfortably, we have the technology and the resources to provide a high standard of living for every person on the planet, it's our current system of dollars and cents that creates the massive disparity. We could have a post-scarcity world now if we really wanted it, but most people prefer the zero-sum game of winners and losers because they believe it offers them the chance to become rich. — Sivad

No, there isn't. You seem to think that the world population can keep growing at the same pace and we can just make more dollars, but that just makes dollars worth less, which makes everything else cost more. We could have a post-scarcity world if we killed off half the world's population say, in a nuclear war. At that point we could afford to pay raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Right now, we can only afford $8/hr. What offers people the chance to become rich is the freedom to do with your money as you please without the elites in govt. controlling your choices of what you can spend and can't spend and on what.

Which side is the "hot-shots"? The side that gets overthrown every once in awhile by the overwhelming numbers of those that aren't "hot-shots"? The "hot-shots" are only so hot as so much as the teeming masses are willing to allow them to be. There simply aren't enough resources for everyone to be "hot-shots". Either everyone would have to be wimps, or we have a few "hot-shots" that we allow to hold the reins of power and determine the use of resources for everyone.

If all resources were divided equally among all citizens of the world, everyone would only receive about $16,000 annually, and even then most of that is tied up in commodities and property. In other words, we can make life a pain in the ass for everyone, or we can make life better for some. Which would be the greater good?

Sure, Harry Hindu, well, you could just hand me a dictionary/encyclopedia, those have plenty good definitions.
But, there are no running elephants in dictionaries, for example. You might, however, show evidence of a stampede or whatever, and that's "real" in this sense at least:

x is real ⇔ x exists irrespective of anyone's definitions — jorndoe

(may or may not be a worthwhile thesis, don't know).

On the other hand, dictionaries excel at context-building, e.g. may state where elephants live or something. You won't find flying pink elephants in dictionaries either, by the way, but that didn't stop me from just mentioning them. :)

Anyway, I've just noticed there are some relations among ...

Invention Discovery
Definition Evidence
Quiddity Existence

... when it comes to epistemic claims.
Definitions are fine; my depreciation is just when some such x is defined only (possibly invented). — jorndoe

I could hand you a dictionary/encyclopedia, but wouldn't you prefer to experience x for yourself? Why is a dictionary full of pictures better than one without? It's because words are simply scribbles that refer to x. Words are an indirect way, but better than nothing (like when you don't know the language of the person you are trying to share x with so you resort to showing pictures of x), of showing x. Even pictures only get you part of the way - something that words can then be used to supplement (but even then still don't get you all the way there to everything that entails x). To truly know x, requires an experience of x over time.

How would you define flying pink elephants to someone who has never seen the color pink? You might define, "pink" as "faded red", but then what if they've never seen "red"? How would you define flying pink elephants to someone who is congenitally blind? If you were to ask someone to draw a picture of x as you define it, you would find that you'd have to be extremely detailed in your definition and it also requires that the one drawing understand your terms as you are intending.

If it wasn't obvious, I'm a realist, so of course I can agree that our definitions of x exist independently of x. Definitions of x are made of words, while x is made of colors, shapes, sounds, etc. One can also say that words themselves are made of shapes and colors or sounds, which is why we can see and hear them. But in order to understand that there are more to the shapes, colors, and sounds of words than just them being words, requires that you understand associations where words refer to x in order to communicate (the primary use of words) the features and qualities of x for someone who has never experienced x. This is why it would be redundant to define x for you when you're standing right next to me looking at x yourself.

Another relation you might notice is how most of our terms are visual terms, which is related to how we think the world is. We often refer to our visual experiences as how the world really is. This is because our sense of vision provides us with the most detail, or information, of x. So it is no surprise that most of our words are visual in nature and refer to visual experiences, or trigger visuals in our mind when we hear or see them. We don't just see words and words are the only thing in our minds that we see. Words seem to be the catalyst for triggering in our minds what it is that the words refer to.

However as an essential characteristic of such states is their first-person nature, it is likely that their real nature will remain out of reach for the natural sciences. — Wayfarer

That's another aspect of consciousness that many refer to - that first person nature, or the subjectivity. But doesn't that also seem to be an integral part of being aware? What is aware, and of what? Doesn't being aware entail some kind of exchange of information, which is what gives us the feeling of "aboutness"? Some people call this "intentionality" but I think that term should be reserved solely for attentional aspect of consciousness where certain parts are amplified or suppressed based on the present goal.

Subjectivity is simply a unique information architecture, or model, of some part of the world relative to some location in the world. That location that everything is located relative to in space-time is the "self". If there were no content then I can see how one would lose the sense of "self". You'd lose that relativeness, or subjectivity. But something we've learned is that if deprived of content for too long, the mind fills it with it's own content. People undergoing sensory deprivation tend to hallucinate.

Is x something you can show us first (without having to define it), or is x something you have to define for us first (without having shown existence)? — jorndoe

It depends on whether or not you's seen x before. If you have never seen x, then it requires that I define x for you, so that you may picture x in your mind. Of course, in defining something, one has the capacity to indulge or leave things out. One also has the capacity to project their own likes and dislikes in the definition. To acquire a more direct definition requires that you observe x for yourself. But you can project your own feelings onto what you observe as well. This requires that we have as many observe x as possible (scientists who test another scientist's theory) and be more aware of how we project ourselves onto our observations and limit that (being more objective).

Many people confuse the issue you see
About the difference in what it is to be
Life worth continuing not worth parting
Different than life not worth starting
Thus dear lad its not 'bout the end
Its about new life, and whether to send — schopenhauer1

Then ask the new life - the children,
"Would you prefer that you had never been?"
Their response might be something like,
"Life is but a game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
One thing we look forward to,
when we reach a certain age, is the fun with booze."

Life is a pain in the ass...
But to deny it, people are wont to pass
On they go, children in toe
'Til the pain gets enlarged en masse — schopenhauer1

Life is a pleasure in the groin...
It's what keeps our species going,
If we all thought life was only a pain in the ass,
we'd all kill ourselves en masse

I think you can be conscious but not aware in some states near sleep.Actually I have had the experience of being conscious of being asleep, very rarely - maybe once or twice. — Wayfarer

In other words, you were aware that you were asleep. How could you say that you're asleep if you didn't possess the knowledge that you were asleep, and how is it exactly that you acquire knowledge? How is it that you can say that you know anything? Awareness is simply information flow.

Also in meditation you can get into states where you're conscious but not conscious *of* anything, which almost fits that description. — Wayfarer

You're conscious/aware of meditating, no? How is it that you know that you're meditating?

In any case, I think 'being conscious' and 'being aware' are slightly different even if they overlap. I would think 'being conscious' means that your cognitive faculties are in order, that you know what is going on around you. A person who has just had a stroke may be aware in the sense that if you startle them they will show a startle reflex, but if you asked them who they are or what day of the week it is (standard diagnostics for stroke) then they may not be able to respond. — Wayfarer

You're simply talking about the different things we are aware of. We aren't aware of everything. Stroke patients would be aware of less, just like blind and deaf people.

Three types of human mind/body condition can be inferred from observation: consciousness, semi-consciousness, and non-consciousness. These conditions entail variations in awareness and responsiveness (fully aware and fully responsive, partially aware and partially responsive, unaware and unresponsive). — Galuchat

How do we know that those other parts aren't "conscious" in the sense that there is some form to the information being processed, and that there is some central executive "looking at" those forms and manipulating them for some meaning or purpose.

Consciousness seems to me to be some kind of information architecture. It is composed of all the various sensory impressions from our various sensory organs, and they all can appear at once. This seems to imply that the brain in a central nervous system is the central location where the information from the senses come together into a seemless model of the world, and it is this model that we reference in order to make any decision and perform any action.

Is a computer that uses face recognition by using an image of a face and then comparing the shape, angle and features of the face with what it has in it's memory so that it recognizes a face or doesn't, conscious/aware?

You seem to be under the impression that I denied words can be used to refer. As I said before, I don't know how you got that impression, but I hold no such view, and do not believe I have expressed such a view here.

(If you could point out to me what I said that gave you that impression, I would be grateful; perhaps I expressed myself poorly. It happens.) — Srap Tasmaner

I thought it was your argument that meaning is related to word use. If it isn't then we have no disagreement.

I simply do not understand how these are connected. If I talk about something I am visually imagining, that's what I'm talking about. If I talk about something I'm looking at, I'm not talking about something I'm imagining. I can talk about having an obligation, even though I don't know how to visualize an obligation. I talk about music all the time without ever visualizing it.

I just really have no idea why you would think I have to visualize something in order to talk about it. Maybe I've misunderstood you. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't see how you can say that when you talk about something that you're referring to visual imagery, or a sound, or a feeling, etc. but when it comes to obligations, you aren't? An obligation is one of those things that are composed of many different concepts and sensory impressions - like the feeling you get when you don't uphold your obligations, or the feeling you have when you do, or what that obligation is composed of, like going to work, your co-workers who depend on you, your clients who you've built a nice relationship with, etc. - all of which are composed of visual imagery, etc.

Thinking and imagining are composed of sensory impressions. I'm arguing that you cannot think without your thoughts taking some form. Words are simply other visuals and sounds that we associate with other things. We even associate other things that aren't words with other things, like the taste of a cookie with the visual of a cookie, or maybe even your mother who makes the best cookies - associations that one can establish without even knowing a language.
Here's evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

This man went through most of his life without language because he's deaf and no one took the time to teach him, yet he was still able to feed, dress and take care of himself. He just couldn't communicate or understand what it was that others were doing when moving their mouths at each other. When he finally understood, he wasn't surprised that he could suddenly think, he was surprised to find that there were shared words that he could use to communicate his thoughts.

As we go through life and have experiences we are basically establishing connections between our sensory impressions. So, to say anything is to communicate some state-of-affairs. This is why phrases like, "We can never know anything." itself is a claim of knowledge of referring to some state-of-affairs (which is just what is going on in your mind, but your mind is a representation of what is going on in the world. This is why when someone says, "look at that beautiful sunset." we don't go looking in their head for the sunset. We instinctively know that they are talking about something in the world that we all can experience.). It just so happens that this is why the phrase is contradictory because it refers to some state-of-affairs (that we can't know anything) while at the same time saying a different state-of-affairs - that we know something.

If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges. — Mariner

The only time I used "supernatural" is to ask what it means and to show that it's meaning, as provided by you and others, is inconsistent. If you can't define it clearly, then why use it?

How typical. When you can't find yourself out of your own hole you dug, you simply throw your hands in the air and give up and go on believing the same nonsense you always have. What a shame.

Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.) — Srap Tasmaner

Of course it's a biggie because it shows that your words refer to other things, and that is what you mean when you say them. I should just drop the microphone here, but I'll indulge you a bit more.

Here I disagree. I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually. — Srap Tasmaner

Then what are you talking about when you say or write anything about some state-of-affairs that exists?

I honestly thought some of them were rhetorical, and I'm still not sure which is which. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't ask rhetorical questions. They may seem obvious but some people tend to ignore the obvious, which is why I ask the questions. Some people don't take into account how their ideas have implications on the simplest things.

What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."?
We don't know. There are quite a few possible scenarios. For the record, I would take "what made me say it" as something different from "what I meant by it," which is in turn different from "what the sentence means."

Why are you saying it?

Also don't know, and now we can add "why I said it" to that list. These things are all different to me.

Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future?

Maybe? That's an odd way to put it. It's also possible that I was lying when I spoke, which would change "why I said it" but not "what it means."

Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to?

I really hadn't thought of that one. It doesn't sound like a prediction to me. I would have assumed most English speakers would hear "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" as expressing an obligation. (For comparison: "I will be at work today by 2:30" I would hear as a prediction, or more likely an expectation.)

[As an aside, and I sincerely hope you don't take offense here, but may I ask if English is your native language? I only ask because I might mistakenly rely on our hearing things the same way, and if we don't there could be needless misunderstanding.] — Srap Tasmaner

No offense. English is my native language.

Okay. I understand what you're saying about predictions. I'll restructure my point. "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" refers to a state-of-affairs that exists right now. If it was tomorrow, you wouldn't have said that sentence, or if you had to be at work at 3:30, you wouldn't have said that, if you were already at work and it was 2:35 you wouldn't have said that, and if you didn't have a job, then you wouldn't have said that. If you were not in a state of having to be at work at 2:30 today, would you have said that?

If you didn't intend to lie, then you wouldn't have said that you have to be at work at 2:30 when you have to be there at 2:00. Sure, to the listener, the sentence means you have to be there at 2:30, but when they find out you lied, then they will know what you meant with your words - to deceive them.

What about what I said about translating words from different languages. What are we translating if not the meaning of the words?

It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly. — Mariner

So in all the eternity before the creation of the natural world, the gods, angels, devils and spirits never communicated the idea of the reality in which they live among themselves before the creation of a natural world? How do you know that?

Some people even say that God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and everything. So, there was a term used before the creation that referred to all of reality, and that would be "God". But then how does God, a supernatural thing, include the natural world, and that doesn't make the natural world supernatural?

No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Hobbits fall into none of these possibilities. — Mariner

Of course they do. Hobbits existence beyond the visible observable universe, don't they? Where have you seen a hobbit, or a devil, for that matter?

Hobbits also transcend the laws of nature, too. Did they evolve like every other organism? How did they come to exist? The same can be asked about devils.

What does "observable universe" entail, anyway? If god created the natural world, then that is an observable effect of a supernatural cause.

Note that you are operating with a concept of "supernatural" which involves "the origins of", something which is clearly not present in the dictionary definition. — Mariner

I'm operating with the concept of "supernatural" which involves how others in this thread have associated "supernatural" with things that haven't been explained, or are unexplainable.

To recap (since my first post in the thread): natural pertains to birth. Supernatural pertains to what is beyond and above the realm of birth. This is the originary meaning of the word. — Mariner

Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? The definition of "supernatural" you provided doesn't include the term, "birth". Whose definitions are we sticking with here, Merriam-Webster, or making up our own?

What matters for our discussion (which has been going round and round): is the supposition that "nothing supernatural exists physically" (i.e., that everything that exists in an observable, physical sense is natural) enough to suggest that we should stop using the word "supernatural"? — Mariner

No, no, no, no. It is you that needs to read more carefully. I have said numerous times and you have simply danced around it, that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is meaningless when you define them both has having a causal relationship with each other. God, a supernatural thing, after all, is the ultimate cause. Everything that follows would be supernatural as well. So, reality itself is supernatural. The only problem is that we have this term, "natural" which seems to imply that the natural existed prior to the supernatural and the supernatural is dependent upon the existence of the natural. Please stick to this particular point. Either way, one of these words loses it's meaning. Which one do we stop using?

Curiously enough, since the word has just been used by you in reference to the unknown origin of hobbits, you have just confirmed the point being made all along -- "supernatural" as a word performs a useful role and hence should be kept, regardless of whether supernatural beings exist physically. — Mariner

So, then hobbits are supernatural? The discussion going around in circles is the result of your inability to remain consistent. The word, "supernatural" was used in an effort to get an clear-cut definition nailed down - something you have yet to do.

Wait a second, are you even reading my posts? Are you agreeing at all with what I said about your mother, about typing words on screen, and all those other questions I asked? Do you think that you are the only one that can ask questions and receive answers? If you expect me to answer questions, you need to do the same.

What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."? Why are you saying it? Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future? Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to? After all, there could be an accident on the way to work and you could be late. How is it that you could be wrong about being at work by 2:30 that doesn't have to do with how you used your words?

I'll stick with "you have to read more carefully", given your interpretation of what I agree with. — Mariner

If that is your answer, then I obviously didn't understand your point you were trying to make when I asked you why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. You asked me to look at their definitions but neither definition explains why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. It's not that I have to read more carefully, it's that you have to do a better job of making your point. So maybe you might care to be less vague.

The origin of Hobbits has not been explained so that makes them supernatural, no?

Ok, great. We are now in agreement that four-leggedness isn't an inherent feature of dogs because it's not in the definition (something you told be to look at when I needed to know the about something (and a definition is something which defines the inherent features or qualities of some thing)).

We are also in agreement that to define something properly, you need to include ALL of it's inherent features or qualities. You can't just say, "This particular thing has four legs. What is it?" and expect someone to know what you are talking about. We are in agreement that an inherent feature of all things is that they possess more than one inherent feature or quality that distinguishes it from some things, and shares with some other things, and it is this unique combination of features and qualities that some thing has that we refer to in our definitions of them.

(Whew!) Now that's over with, what were you saying about "supernatural" again?

The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. — Harry Hindu

I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we humans first experience the natural world and then may call some things supernatural when these don't behave as per the laws of our natural world. — Samuel Lacrampe

But, as I said before, "supernatural" carries with it the connotation of "divinity". If supernatural was only related to things that haven't yet been explained, then why the connotation of "divinity"? I also asked that if "supernatural" is related to things not being explained and by explaining them they change from "supernatural" to "natural" then is there such a thing as a "supernatural" explanation?

Metaphysically however, the supernatural is the cause of the natural, and thus existed prior to it. Sure, you can switch the labels around if desired, as long as the definitions are clear to everyone. For practical purposes though, I would stick to the conventional definitions. — Samuel Lacrampe

Every religious person would disagree with you. They would insist that God and his domain existed prior to the natural world and that the natural world was an effect of the supernatural world. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, the meanings are backwards.

If "the idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means," how can this be shared? — Srap Tasmaner

Because we share ideas. I can have the same idea in my head as you without you communicating it. Why do you think people congregate into like-minded groups that use the same language as others in different groups? Isn't it because they have different ideas than those in another group, but the same ideas as the group they associate with? Conservatives and Liberals both speak English yet congregate into different groups. How could that be, if we only think in words and not ideas?

Maybe you mean something different by "the idea in someone's head" than I think you do. (I think of that as, more or less, "what comes to mind," when you hear a word.)

By "the idea in someone's head," do you mean an intention of theirs? (The intention to speak, to communicate a thought, to be understood to be attempting to communicate--there are lots of intentions.) — Srap Tasmaner

So, prior to typing something on the screen, you don't have an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are, and then use that idea to come up with words to communicate that idea? Are you seriously saying that the only thing that comes to your mind is words that get typed out on a screen? Are you a computer or a human being? You have an idea AND you have the intention to share that idea. The only way to share it is through language. If you had no intention to share it, you'd still have the idea, and the idea is composed of visual imagery of some state-of-affairs that you intend to communicate, not words.

Are you also saying that you experienced the word, "mother" before you experienced your mother? Didn't you experience your mother, in all her visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile glory, first, and then learned the word, "mama", which was just a sound you repeated that didn't have any meaning for you at the time until you learned to associate the sound with everything else that you know about your mother? Isn't that the process in which that happened and for all the other words like, "ball", "toy", "monster", "cookie", etc. In order to learn a language didn't you first have to be able to see and hear things and then to understand how to associate certain things you see and hear with other things you experience?

The only thing I'm arguing for now, because you seem to have given up on the primary discussion of "supernatural" vs. "natural", is that things have more than one inherent feature. Period. I don't see how that requires a change in any of my positions. You, however, don't seem to be making any more arguments at all. Did my showing of the definitions of angels, hobbits and dogs lacking the terms, "supernatural" and "four-legged" that you said they'd have, stump you?

It is the shared meaning of the word that I learned.

If intent isnt related to meaning then why do we say things like, "What did you mean?" or, "what I meant was..." as if meaning is related to the idea in someones head and the correct string of scribbles or sounds were not used properly to transmit that idea to another mind.

When we translate words from other languages, what are we translating? The fact that you can translate at all, when you think about it, shows that meaning is more than word use because what would it mean for two sentences in different languages to be translations of each other if not for the fact that both of them have the same meaning?

Exactly. Just because something has four legs doesnt make it a dog. There must something more to being a dog than just having four legs. In fact, it is an inherent feature of, not just dogs, but most things, to possess more than one inherent feature.

To say that the inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs is to say that it is the only thing that has four legs. Because dogs are not the only thing with four legs (chairs have four legs to), means that four legs aren't the single, defining feature of dogs. There is more to being a dog than just having four legs.

I just couldn't help myself:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAJV5kOUIAArzDz.jpg

...too funny.

How do you know that?

I'd bet 99.99% of people (including the dictionary, encyclopedias, etc.) would say that dogs have the inherent trait of having four legs. There is even a scientific term for that -- they are quadrupeds, so say the wise scientists.

A dog is still a dog even if it only has 3 legs, but he still barks, licks your face, smells other dogs' rear ends, and generally interacts with others of it's kind in a different way than it does with others that aren't of it's kind. — Harry Hindu


And what if it stops barking? And then licking your face? And then smelling other dog's rear ends? This is a sorites problem that could only appear in a philosophy forum.

Frankly, if your argument hinges upon "having four legs is not a basic, inherent, natural trait of being a dog", then there isn't much more to discuss. — Mariner

If having four legs were an inherent trait of being a dog, then what prevents you from labeling all four-legged animals, "dogs"?

What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word? — Harry Hindu


Look at the dictionary. Your answer is there. — Mariner

Ok.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hobbit
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/angel

Neither definition includes the term, "supernatural". So where do we go from here?

Oh, and by the way, the definition of "dog" doesn't include the mention of four legs.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dog

I don't think that's right. Consider something like shaking your head. Does shaking your head mean what you intend it to mean ("no") or does its meaning depend on how it's used in the given community (e.g. in Bulgaria it means "yes").

Even if you intend to express disagreement by shaking your head, shaking your head doesn't mean "no" in Bulgaria; it means "yes". — Michael

Well, I did include in that same post the idea that for communication to happen, that your listener would have to understand your use of terms. If you knew that shaking your head in Bulgaria means the opposite, you wouldn't do it. If you did, and did it anyway, then you still have the idea, "no", in your head and your behavior is a representation of that idea. It's just that the observer has a different idea associated with that behavior.

No problem with that, but there is also -- as per the definitions you required us to use -- no problem in using the word "natural" to refer to a four-legged dog, and "not-natural" to refer to a three-legged dog. Having three legs is not a basic, inherent trait of dogness. — Mariner

Then having, three, four, or no legs isn't an inherent trait of being a dog. It seems to me that things have several traits, not just one, and it is these several traits that exist at once that defines the nature of some thing. A dog is still a dog even if it only has 3 legs, but he still barks, licks your face, smells other dogs' rear ends, and generally interacts with others of it's kind in a different way than it does with others that aren't of it's kind.

I have no problem with any of this. The point of contention is rather why would you want to discard that word, since you ascribe referents to it, and you emphasize that these referents exist, only in a different way (imaginary) compared to other referents.

"God is an imaginary being", according to you. Ok. But so is Frodo, or Sherlock Holmes. One of them is supernatural, the other is not. (Heck, not even Spiderman, or Superman, would be "supernatural" according to the traditional usage). Why should we stop using the word supernatural to distinguish, say, angels from hobbits? — Mariner

What makes angels supernatural, and hobbits not? "Divinity"? - another imaginary word?

I've come to depreciate definitions over time, in this context, not because they're useless or anything, but because their employment can be misleading. — jorndoe

I'm the opposite. Definitions are important because in my experience, if the definition of what we are talking about isn't clarified or agreed on, then we end up talking past each other, as we end up talking about different things. If you define something one way, while I define it another way, we are essentially talking about different things.

Whatever is real, does not require our definitions to exist. Rather the opposite, we try to converge on quiddity of whatever is real by means of discovery, something like that. Oftentimes this involves predication. Merely defining quiddity of reality-constituents seems fraught. — jorndoe

Discovery comes first in the scientific process. Then comes that part about communicating your discoveries so that others may test them. How do you communicate your discoveries if not by using visual or auditory symbols to refer to these ideas in your head in a way that others will understand?

Of course, in terms of our language, it's always a good idea to express things concisely, which may involve definitions. Going by dictionaries and encyclopedias, definitions are inherently circular, but that can work wonders in context-building. — jorndoe

It would only be circular if you are using the word you are defining in the definition of the word.

For a large class of cases — though not for all — in which we employ the word ‘meaning’, it can be explained thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. — Wittgenstein — Wittgenstein

The idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means, as the intent to communicate that idea existed prior to the use of the word. The meaning of words has nothing to do with their use. It has everything to do with the intent of the communicator. If "meaning" were use, then the word, "God", wouldn't refer to anything - not even the idea in someone's head. It would only refer to the use. So, god isn't a divine entity, not even an imaginary one? God is simply some use of some scribbles? Does that make sense?

So, anyway, what are we on about with "natural" and "supernatural" here...? — jorndoe

Did you read the thread? Are you asking Mariner and I to repeat ourselves?

Ok, let's focus on the second definitions.

"Nature" is strong on "basic", "inherent", "characteristic". The idea here is to distinguish essential from non-essential attributes. "Dogs have four legs", even though we've seen three-legged dogs. The three-legged dogs are "not natural" in the sense of this second definition: having three legs is not a

"basic or inherent features of [dogness], especially when seen as characteristic of it." — Mariner

Here, I would simply use the qualifiers, "normal" and "abnormal". There are normal dogs in nature, and there are abnormal dogs in nature. As a matter of fact, mutations are natural events. Accidents are natural events, too.

The second definition of "Reality" is more abstract. The three-legged dog has "the state or quality of having existence or substance". It is a real three-legged dog.

What about Santa Claus? He lacks the state or quality of having existence or substance... but it has some basic, inherent features. He has a white beard. He wears a red suit. He lives in the North Pole. He can have basic, inherent features even though he lacks the quality of having existence or substance. And the same applies to Frodo, Dracula or Sherlock Holmes.

The bottom line -- according to these two definitions, all beings have "a nature" (basic, inherent attributes), even non-existent beings, i.e., even non-real beings. — Mariner

Here, I just go back to my qualifiers of "imaginary" and "non-imaginary" (notice how I didn't use the word, "real", as that seems to have this connotation that it would not include the imaginary.). To say that Santa Claus doesn't have existence or substance is to fall into the false dichotomy of dualism. As I said before, imaginary things exist, just as non-imaginary things do. They just exist differently, or have different characteristics. You can tell the difference between an imagining and a non-imagining, right, and you would agree that imaginings and non-imaginings exist, right?

I didn't invent the English language. I simply came into the world one day and started learning it. It's not my fault that no one has come along and updated the meanings to reflect our modern knowledge and so that we can be consistent about what talk about.

The core of our disagreement is whether the word "supernatural" can be put to rest in the graveyard of old words. And we've seen that, just because something does not exist (i.e. "lacks the quality of having existence or substance"), we can't assume that it does not have a nature (basic, inherent features).

Let's explore what that means as it pertains to the matter of supernatural beings. Supernatural beings have "a nature" in that sense -- they have basic, inherent features. Why should we call them "supernatural", then? Because "nature" in the composition of the word "supernatural" is not related to "basic, inherent features"; it is related to the first definition ("physical world and its components"). In other words, supernatural beings have basic and inherent features -- one of them is that they are beyond and above (hence, "super") the natural world.

Note that this is true even if they lack the quality of existence or substance (i.e., even if we are talking of beings more akin to Frodo, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes than of beings more akin to you and me). — Mariner

I thought I already placed "supernatural" within the category of "imaginary" AND that I have shown that imaginary things exist - but only as imaginings. I made the distinction between "imaginary" and the "non-imaginary" quiet clear. It's just that not all imaginings are referred to as being "supernatural". "Supernatural" itself is an imaginary concept. This all seems fairly simple for me to grasp.
.

You are contradicting yourself, because you agreed earlier that "everything in the natural universe has a cause". The first cause, by definition, has a causal relationship, but no cause.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding and you meant instead that "everything in the natural universe has a causal relationship"? But that statement is false: Miracles have a causal relationship with the thing acted upon, and yet they are not classified as natural events. God has a causal relationship with his creation, and yet is not classified as a natural being. — Samuel Lacrampe

That is my point - that miracles and God are mislabelled as "supernatural" when they should be labeled as "natural" especially if they existed prior to the creation of the natural. The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. As I have said before, the structure and meaning of the terms is contradictory to their use. It would make more sense to call miracles and God "natural" and then the creation, "supernatural", but I'm sure most theists will be offended at that.

I didn't take the word, "physical" in the definition that way. It could be that all there is is the physical. I don't necessarily agree with the definitions, as I even edited one of them because it defined nature as things of the earth that are not human or made by humans, yet I have made the case earlier in this thread that humans and their creations are products of the Earth too, and that "artificial" and "natural" is a false dichotomy, just as these other terms we are talking about are.

I think we're getting side-tracked now by the terms "physical" and "non-physical" (another false dichotomy), which could be a whole other discussion. Let's stick with the terms we've been discussing as we already have enough terms to use as examples to get at what we are talking about.

I can happily leave out the term, "physical" in the definition of "nature". I'd rather point at the second definitions of both "reality" and "nature", as they both seem to be synonymous and the meaning I was thinking about when I think of them being synonymous. "Nature" can refer to the properties of some thing as something inherent - of the properties that make the thing what it is, which could include just one thing (the nature of an organism) or the whole thing (all of nature). "Reality" is simply that same state of affairs or properties that makes the thing what it is, which could include just one thing (a piece of reality), or the whole thing (all of reality).

So, reality would be composed of real and imaginary beings?

Isn't "reality/real" falling prey to the same problem that you identified with "nature"?

I don't see the difference between your formulation and "nature is composed of natural and supernatural beings" -- which, as you properly say, is a strange phrase.

Much better is the traditional "reality is composed of natural and supernatural beings" (leaving to the side, for the moment, whether imaginary/real is a proper dichotomy). — Mariner

Good point. Yes, definitions matter. So let's define "imaginings" and "reality" in a way that makes sense and see if we can maintain the gist of their meaning as most people understand them.

Yes, imaginings are real things and therefore part of reality. In this sense we could say that imaginings are real things themselves, but they don't refer to anything out in the world in the way that our experiences of the world do. This is the key difference of what we mean by something being real, or imaginary.

"Real" things we can all objectively experience at once. Imaginary things we cannot. Imaginary things can only be experienced subjectively. Imaginings are real in the sense that they exist, but because they are inaccessible by other minds, they appear to others as if they don't exist, or we know that they exist but they don't provide any useful information about the world other than someone is imagining something. This is probably the key difference - that imaginings don't provide any useful knowledge about the world, other than the knowledge that someone is imagining something.

In this sense, what is "real" is what is objective and what is imaginary is what is subjective, but both the objective (the world as it is without a perspective) and the subjective (a perspective of the world, within the world) are both part of reality. Actually, I would re-word this to say that imaginings are part of the category of what is real, but isn't the only thing that is real. Reality is composed of everything - imaginings and non-imaginings.

Remember that perspectives aren't everywhere. Not only are there a finite number of perspectives in a seemingly infinite world, but perspectives by their very nature are limited in the amount of information they can possess of the world, so they can only represent a small fraction of the world and not the world as a whole, which would be an objective perspective, or the "real" world, or the world as it is that includes all perspectives and all non-perspectives.

"Reality can be properly addressed through the use of the word X". You claim that "Nature" is an adequate X. I prefer "Reality", not surprisingly, and I maintain that any X will be less adequate than "Reality", due to the construction of the phrase (i.e., regardless of what you or I think about it).

"Reality and Nature are synonyms" is simply false (nowadays, in 2017), it has been false throughout history, and if it becomes true at any point in the future, a new word (and world) will have to be coined to address what we, nowadays, in 2017, refer to as "Nature". — Mariner

I fail to see how "reality" and "nature" aren't synonymous.

na·ture
1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth

2. the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

re·al·i·ty
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

What is the distinction you are seeing that I'm not?

If idealism were the case, then that means that fundamental particles would be colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings, etc., I'd love to hear an idealist explain how those things interact to produce the combination of these things that we experience at once - like trees, cars, sunsets and dinner.

How did words get onto this screen if not for you thinking about moving your fingers in particular way to produce them? They didn't appear simply by thinking about them. Why would you have to think about moving your fingers to get text on a screen if not for causation?

Because if the universe has a beginning, then there must be a first thing. The only logical alternative is no beginning. But finiteness is a simpler hypothesis than infinity, and so, as per Occam's Razor, it becomes the prima facie until proven otherwise.
- Then this first natural thing is caused by another thing which has no cause (the first cause), for nothing can be the cause of itself.
- And everything in the natural universe has a cause, as we have established earlier.
- Therefore this first cause must be supernatural.

I also agree with ↪Mariner
here. Maybe we should find clear definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural', if it is not already done. — Samuel Lacrampe

If the universe has a beginning, then that would be the first "natural" cause. If the universe was the effect of some cause, then that cause would be "natural" too, as there would be a causal relationship between the cause and the effect. There would be no reason to use the term, "supernatural". This has been my point all along, yet people seem to dense to get it.

I was you until you called the one reality "natural". Why would one use that word? Is it not better to employ a different word and keep the natural/supernatural distinction? It is useful to distinguish between gods and things, even if they are part of the same reality. — Mariner

It would be useful to keep the natural/supernatural distinction were it not for the contradictory nature (pun intended) of this distinction, as I pointed out in my last two or three posts in this thread.
If you want to distinguish between gods and other things, then use the terms, "gods" and "things". We could also make the distinction between the two by using the terms, "imaginary" and "real".

Hello. I like your position of prima facie. Thus us supernaturalists have the onus of proof that not all phenomena can be explained by natural causes. Have you looked at Aquinas's five ways? He uses them to prove God but it can be modified slightly to prove supernaturalism. Here is a summary of one them:
- Everything in the natural universe has a cause. We have yet to find an exception to this rule, therefore that becomes the prima facie. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm with you and Aquinas here.

- But then the first natural thing must have a cause, which itself either does not have a cause or is not a natural thing, because otherwise that antecedent thing would be the 'first natural thing', and not the other one.
- Therefore supernatural things exist. — Samuel Lacrampe

Whoah... hold your horses. This part seems to be wholly dependent upon an arbitrary, anthropomorphic boundary Aquinas calls, "first". Why must there be a "first" natural thing? Why isn't it natural all the way down?

I really don't know of any other way to make this point, which I have done before in this thread and several times in other threads, If there is a causal relationship with the "supernatural" and "natural" then they must be part of the same reality - the natural one - and any distinction that we make would be arbitrary and anthropomorphic.

As usual with these philosophical questions, it comes down to the definition of "free will".

If free will is simply the ability to make decisions, then that gives computers free will.

If free will is related to the amount of choices one has at the moment of decision then free will comes in degrees as it is related to the amount of choices, which could be just one, or several. This still allows computers to have free will as they can have long bits of IF-THEN-ELSE (after all, IF-THEN-ELSE is what making a decision entails) statements with several options depending upon the current situation.