The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. I have mentioned this in relation to Lyall Watson' s critique that the concept of the 'supernatural', and whether it comes down to the paranormal or aspects of the dichotomy of sensory perception.

I do wonder to what extent spiritual and religious concepts come into play in this area of thinking. I am definitely aware of a Catholic guilt complex which spurred me into rethinking..So, I try to look.beyond the ideas of religious thinking. I certainly question the dogmatiism of religious thinking and 'souls', especially in relation to ideas of heaven and hell in the afterlife. These are so fear based.

Kant may have been confounded by the dogmatic assumptions of Christian thinking. It could be argued by the whole basis of Christianity and atheism come down to the issue of sexuality, as this may be the most pertinent area of mind and body. It is the issue underlying Kant's perspective on pleasure and duty, and t
he treatment of human beings as ends.

Ideas of the 'supenrmatual', its absence or not, and naturalism may be be dependent on philosophical assumptions, especially the debate between the metaphysical and the moral..I am far from the most traditional of thinkers, because I am open to diversity in the expression of human sexuality

You may question why I think introducing the nature of sexuality into the debate about 'mind'. The reason why I do so is because the dichotomy between body and mind in philosophy may involve 'sexuality', as a key link.
.

The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. — Jack Cummins

So then decide whether 'mind is either natural or supernatural' and consistently follow the implications of that decision as far as it goes.

I notice that you highlight the word 'decide' between the idea of 'natural' and 'supernatural' and this dichotomy may be ab important area for debate. I have already spoken of the way in which Lyall Watson speaks of how some aspects of life, perception of extrasensory perception may be viewed as 'supernatural' erroneously, with the nature of perception and its extrasensory being wider.

The main basis of my own views are based on personal experience and I realise that these are limited as anecdotal evidence..
In understanding the nature of mind and consciousness, it may come down tje pros and cons of the experimental methodologies, both quantitative research and narrative description of qualitative research..

It may not be unclear as to how the dialogue between evidence based understanding and ideas of the nature of ''mind'and consciousness come into play. Ideas of consciousness and mind rest on both psychological and philosophy assumptions
.thinking of 'mind' involves psychology and philosophy, especially in relation to multidisciplinary perspectives.

. This area of rbecause the concepts and assumptions of the nature of 'mind' are of significance here. The ideas of the nature of mind and consciousness may not of significance here. How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy?

The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear.
— Jack Cummins
So then decide whether 'mind is either natural or supernatural' and consistently follow the implications of that decision as far as it goes. — 180 Proof

Is 'natural' defined as that which we have discovered with our senses and sciences?

How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy? — Jack Cummins

For me, in psychology "intentionality" corresponds to attention¹ and in philosophy corresponds to aboutness².

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention ¹

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness ²

Is 'natural' defined as that which we have discovered [uncovered] with our senses and sciences? — Patterner

More than that: nature is that aspect (i.e. causal nexus) of encompassing reality, or being, from which human beings are fundamentally inseparable.

More than that: nature is that aspect (i.e. causal nexus) of encompassing reality, or being, from which human beings are fundamentally inseparable. — 180 Proof

I don't understand. From which aspect of encompassing reality are we separable?

Nature.

We can be separated from nature?

Natural beings cannot be separated from nature.

I want to make sure I'm following. I asked "From which aspect of encompassing reality are we separable?", and you said "Nature." If natural beings cannot be separated from nature, then that means we are not natural beings?

And in what way are we able to be separated from nature?