Where is your disagreement?

“The map-territory analog only works sometimes. In your account, the map was purchased, which ignores the art of cartography.” ~ Banno

Introducing someone skilled in the art of cartography would not change the outcome of the demonstration. Either character could have been a cartographer.

“I suppose something is ‘supernatural’ if it is found in the territory but not in the map. Your map-viewers are passive, and hence puzzled, but our cartographers will get out their pencil and adapt the map to fit what they see.” ~ Banno

One is passive and the other is not. That was a key point in illustrating the distinction. For the purpose of the metaphor, the one who lifts up her head to spot landmarks is adapting her orientation (cognitive map) in the same way that a cartographer would. I could have made her a cartographer, but that wouldn’t change the human mechanics involved.

“There is nothing in the territory that cannot be added to the map.” ~ Banno

That is exactly what happens with the confused map reader who looks up for a landmark and adds it to her cognitive map.

“There is nothing that counts as ‘supernatural.’” ~ Banno

1. My post focused on the intelligibility of a concept such as the “supernatural.”
2. And nothing can count as “supernatural.” Where do we disagree?

“I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc.” ~ universeness

The use of the word “compare” is equivocal, but in either usage it fails to deal with my prior post in a meaningful way. With a “comparison” we must find parallel elements. What are we comparing?

1. Are we to compare the severity of the social damage with the mediocrity of my chosen metaphor? This would then suggest that we must supply a superior metaphor. But this is probably not what was meant because no substitute was then offered. If such a comparison was intended, please offer a substitute.
2. Are we to compare the evaluation process with the target of the process and conclude with the removal of the evaluation process itself? This would be irrational. But this, so far, is the best explanation for your later arguments, which gut my original argument of an evaluation process.

What did you mean with the word, “compare”? Although its use is awkward, perhaps you meant some reasoning akin to “a six-foot tape measure does not compare when measuring a seven-foot tall NBA player.” If so, then I must get a more suitable tape measure. If there is no substitute intended, then using the inadequacy of the shorter tape measure to “compare” with the taller target as a reason to eliminate the use of measuring devices, as such, will then end with the declaration of “immeasurability.” But if I throw away tape measures as such, my claim of immeasurability is a result of my own manipulation of the original question. “How tall is the NBA player?” requires a real-world process of evaluation external to the NBA player. The “measuring process” is indispensable to resolving the issue.

Likewise, “How intelligible is my argument?” requires a real-world processor, in this case, a human processor in the act of processing. When rendering some argument intelligible something happens in the real world. It is a mechanical event with a before and an after. Intelligibility is in no way embedded in either the medium or the code etched into it. It requires a human processor processing. In reading, it’s not extracted from the text so much as it is extracted by the human processor as stimulated by the text. Your post continues:

“A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map.” ~ universeness

So far so good, but as you admit, that was my argument, but next we are going to throw away the appeal to reality, like the map reader who did not check for landmarks. But this is not just repeating my argument; it is repeating my argument as if a rebuttal. Below, the phrase “such is not the same” refers to what difference from the sentence above? To one which is gutted of the appeal to reality …

“Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!
So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible!” ~ universeness

What you consider new and improved about your version removes from consideration the appeal to the real world and to real human processors. The passage guts the concept of its relevance to reality in the same way that the duped map-reader in my post has not conferred with reality. If you remove the elements that make that appeal to reality, you can, in this manipulation, declare your own new version to be “unintelligible.” Somehow you consider the inadequate appeal to reality as an objection to my presentation and not itself, as you’ve written it, a demonstration of one of my points.

"Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible." — Banno

"…., 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators ..." ~ universeness

These are two different stops on the same tour. Intelligibility depends upon the perspective anchoring the point in question.

Of two people who have just purchased a falsified map it is the one who lifts up his head and looks for a real-world landmark who is confused first.

The confused one declares the map unintelligible, while the other mistakes his failure to test the map as the map’s “intelligibility.” So ironically, the confused one, in the very understanding of the map’s unintelligibility, is relatively closer to an intelligible explanation of the problem with the map.

The confused one looks up from the map again and tries to find a landmark that should be to the East. It is not there, but to the West. This attempted real-world application provides an intelligible demonstration of how it can be understood that the map is unintelligible: it clearly fails to orient the map-reader to the destination. Importantly, the reason why the map is unintelligible is itself intelligible.

Art48’s statement:““Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.”

What the map was supposed to do is intelligible. But for the purpose of actually orienting ourselves to our destination, it is unintelligible. The demonstration of the problem with the map is intelligible. What “Supernatural” as a concept was supposed to do is intelligible. But “If someone were to demonstrate something they considered supernatural it would have to be extant in the natural world,”( ~ GTTRPNK) The attempted proof or stated definition is easily shown to be unintelligible by GTTRPNK’s intelligible refutation. “The notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible."[ Banno] "….,and [this] 'unintelligib[ility],' EXISTS as a[n intelligible] 'notion.'“ [universeness]

Agree -- and tweak your last sentence for a different take: The concept is rationally unsustainable, but practically useful: faulty “reasoning” as behavior holds a herd together.

In the same way that Kant says the "prohibition of publicity impedes the progress of a people toward improvement" I think the evident corruption of the proper functioning of the public sphere (due to contamination by dominant-exclusive interests) is not only a detriment to socio-cultural progress but a contributor to socio-cultural decay. ~ Pantagruel

Today, “prohibition of publicity” takes two forms. The first, obviously, refers to some government or corporate force suppressing information. But the second is the fact that publicity is monopolized by broadcasting companies whose interests are financial and thus seek the largest crowd, not the most valuable story. Today, if a journalist pushes Story A due to its greater value to society, the business administrators will choose inferior Story B, and even tweak it, if it reaches a larger audience. That’s just good business. We can’t say that this reduction of quality information is due to a “prohibition” but we can say that information valuable to society is restricted either way.

“Like you, I'm motivated to try to find application of philosophical concepts where they can be of most benefit. ~ Pantagruel

What’s your solution, best guess, or daydream?

“I don't disagree but I think what the OP says is easier to support, because it, in effect, puts an impossible burden of proof on the person who says something is supernatural; to know something is supernatural we need to know it's beyond all known and yet to be discovered facts about nature. Whereas calling something a cognitive illusion places the burden of proof on the person who calls it an illusion.”

It went without saying in your OP that the burden of proof is on the one who advocates the “supernatural.” For good reason, it didn’t need to be said. I liked the emphasis provided by your approach: what was explicit was the magic trick played on Thor – the mechanical engineering of his belief.

You separate concept from behavior with, “Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.”

Along this line of reasoning, I appreciate your use of “magic” in your OP. It is noteworthy that, for Thor, the mechanical execution was pre-belief. In contrast, arguing against a believer in the “Supernatural” begins post-belief – or else there would be no debate.

As for presenting the argument before a third-party judge, correctly assigning the burden of proof is a winning strategy. But the rational argument deconstructs already-established beliefs, concept definitions, and misconstrued readings. From life and career experience, I can say that the success rate of actually reaching someone is very low if they believe in the magic and not the trick and do not share your discipline. (It is humiliating to accept the mechanics behind one’s own duping. Consequently, “devotion” rises to the degree necessary to resist awareness of the absurdity of “one’s own” belief. The superiority of the “Big Lie” over the small one is frighteningly real.)

Society cannot solve problems that are not seen. If “cleaning the lens” is the priority, we need to deal with the formation of illusions at the very beginning. We need to interrupt the magic shows. But of course in exposing the mechanics behind the deceit, we will win fewer arguments because we will have precluded the need for them.

Reading the comments, it is easy to lose sight of your OP. Your nuanced approach has been interestingly provocative.

Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change “magic” to “supernatural” and you have the point of this post. ~ Art48

The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". For example, a thousand years ago, lightening was something that could not be caused, even in principle, by any KNOWN natural event, force, or agent. The OP says we cannot with confidence declare anything supernatural until we know the full extent of what is possible in the natural world. We don't have that knowledge now, and may never. ~ Art48

Definition of Supernatural: ignorance of the mechanics behind a cognitive illusion which is not yet embarrassed by knowledge – and it may never be embarrassed. That is my take on what you are saying. The OP is less about the supernatural and more about human progress from one ignorance-ceiling to another, and we can too easily think of the undeniability of our latest ignorance-ceiling as a “solid basis” upon which we build a case for the “supernatural.” This would be arguing from ignorance.

If I’ve read you right, I think you would agree with a follow-up sermon: why do we use the word “supernatural” at all when the word “ignorance” is closer to the point? “Ignorance” is a superior term in the context of philosophy or science because it is a red flag: we have problems to solve. Making it our goal to restrict our efforts to those problems which have the higher probability of yielding to mechanical description, we prioritize intelligibility over unintelligibility. However, the word, “supernatural,” when it does not risk declaring a specific exception to cause-effect interpretations but only confesses that we cannot really know of any such exception, prioritizes unintelligibility over intelligibility. The word “supernatural” is too often a green light on the other side of an impassable brick wall. A red light would serve us better.

“I think ‘beyond’ is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by ‘supernatural’.” ~ 180 Proof


This very responsible approach comes with irony.

A “law” of nature is given value because it allows us to navigate and/or account for whatever-reality-really-is by way of proposed causal interpretations. But “causality” is a cognitive construct, a very useful exercise of rendering our lot “intelligible”; it does not actually exist in the physical world.

Definition of “Supernatural”: The non-existence of causality (X) that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the successful proposition of its existence.

I was attracted to this discussion by your statement:

“Like you, I'm motivated to try to find application of philosophical concepts where they can be of most benefit. If "publicity" has contributed to the rapid advancement to and of modernity then we should certainly be leery of the manipulation of the public sphere by special interests, if that impairs its "proper" function.” ~ Pantagruel

A daydream,

My proposed university curriculum of “… philosophical concepts where they can be of most benefit” …

The internet comes with problems. But one of the problems being the hasty and sloppy transmission of information, we have the opportunity to observe, contemplate, and expose the deliberate engineering of human beliefs. I do not mean brain washing. What’s happening is much “cleaner” than that.

I’ve come to think of the new disinformation institutions as “human sorting machines.” Definition: an institution which had previously benefited society has recently been “hijacked” and now serves the financial interests of an established corporation. For example, a pharmaceutical company which promotes a correct disease definition and diagnostic procedure would provide a benefit to humans. It would be appropriate to refer to it as a “medical” company. However, a pharmaceutical company that broadcasts equivocated disease definitions and manipulates patient identification procedures, by manipulating peer-reviewed publications to bring patients with other diseases within its own marketing domain, would no longer be curing diseases, but would be sorting humans for profit. (It should be, in my opinion, prosecutable as human trafficking, but the law as it stands today is too selective.)

A student’s task would be to define and locate heretofore unexposed “human sorting machines.” These are easier to find than one at first thinks. (The difficulty will come later: public and professional apathy and denial.) One hunts for variations of “magic tricks” known as “equivocation” … or “forcing.” Gaps of information are created by the magician/author and result in asymmetric knowledge between magician/author and audience/reader. The subject believes he or she has made a choice, but the “belief” is just the default of unexamined, inadequate information hidden under an aura of another’s credentials and confident presentation.

A definition of equivocation would include a range of usages and applications. The first lesson wouldn’t teach the concept of “equivocation” but its construction. There is an observable mechanical sequence leading up to the cognitive event, the “belief.” The second lesson would be the deductive deconstruction of the fraudulent narrative. This will involve the concept of equivocation and its refutation by way of a rational demonstration. Note also that with engineered equivocation, using the above as an example, there would be no “medical” study: no one asks a performing magician who is about to cut his assistant in half where he went to medical school. It’s a trick. A mind trick.

A live takedown of a heretofore unexposed fraud or regulatory manipulation would be a real-world laboratory. The public benefits should be obvious. But there would also be benefits for the students. Once a critically placed equivocation is discovered, all argumentation thereafter is relatively simple. However, that’s not where most of the lesson is. What is difficult is overcoming one’s own inability to “step up” and even if managing that, overcoming public apathy, resource-starved prosecutors, and general ignorance.

Here is just one lesson that one doesn’t learn about rational behavior in college. The coercive force of “failing” others’ uninformed expectations is powerful. It is often correctly interpreted as “reputational damage” … as one waves a white flag and moves on. This is a live, real-world moral struggle. With a fraud, from start to finish, there is a sudden reversal where all the good guys and bad guys change places without any change in the facts. In the university, on the other hand, everything is presented from hindsight. There is no reputational risk. There is no “moment” where assignments of good and evil change places.

What would be of “most benefit”? Leveraging the greatest outcome with the least expenditure of energy. Let’s call this “Occam’s first lever”: A single restoration of a critical step within a set of instructions allows the whole machine to resume its benefit to society. The simplicity of the argument contrasts with the outsized benefit of returning the “sorting machine” to its original beneficial output.

However, taking down a fraud or critically placed obfuscation is not as simple as understanding it. This brings us to “Occam’s second lever”: The gap between the simplicity of the argument and the human difficulty in actually taking down the fraud will be filled with a wide range of recognized human biases, rational fallacies, ignorance, humiliation, arrogance …. one’s own …. others’. More frauds will be found than will be taken down. That frustration with such an otherwise simple exposure will drill deep and serve as a well for contemplation.

"... the instrumental role Philosophy should have in everyday life(reality)...but nobody seems to care about weighing in!(answerable metaphysical ideas sound more appealing for some reason)." ~ Nickolasgaspar

That is a central and timeless point. Can I contribute to society if I myself don't see the world clearly? If I merely read books about social struggles but never exercise my own mind in a real, live social struggle, I rob my own development, misfiring in my attempts to contribute to society.

There is a difference between performing well as a professional ball player and trading bubblegum cards or trivia in the stands. Which game am I in?

• Am I in a self-interested, actual struggle to understand and live a more valuable life as a unique individual? ... to make a positive social contribution?
• … Or for a lack of courage, am I hiding a self-interest from myself by successfully role-playing some other person’s expressed intellect?

"I'm saying it may not be sane to seek happiness and possessions, etc. if it will all get taken in an instant as you trip going up the stairs. (Knocking on wood for you!) But if you had actively cultivated suffering you might think, as your face hits the concrete, that this wasn't such a bad thing after all."

The proposed behavioral strategy: in comparison with the misery we inflict upon ourselves, we will welcome death with a sensation of relief, being happier than otherwise, “when we are finally free to die.” But if one dies falling down the stairs, one will not experience the relief. One will be in a state of panic for about 2 seconds with no time for reflection.

“ … but at the end of it all it's gone …”

If this is accepted, it undermines the strategy. The broadest categories related to the fear of death do not involve the experience of death.

On the one hand, within a mechanist’s view, to identify something as an experience one has to ruminate on past events by way of a physiological memory. Where there is no memory there is no experience, no suffering. Consequently, one will never actually experience death. Consequently, one will never experience this relief: “it wasn’t so bad after all.”

On the other hand, within the viewpoint of an eternal soul, one disagrees and says, “But I will experience death as I pass to the next life!” But then that could only mean that one believes one will (somehow) pass on one’s memories, and the identity that depends upon them, to another self-aware state “beyond” “death.” But that’s not the death of this self, this identity, this ongoing experience. The word “death” here refers to something very different. What we fear in this case is the continuation of predicaments not very different from what we experience in this life. We fear an uncertainty akin to that of a journey from one “place” to another “place.” This journey is not the death of my sense of self and memory-dependent identity.

Reincarnation? Or, one is resurrected but not with one’s memories and identity? If one resurrects or transmigrates without one’s memory intact, one is not who one was. It would be the death of this identity. This loss would bring us back to the mechanist’s view, that death is not experienced by “us.” Our present identities do not survive the journey.

In sum, death of identity will not be experienced. If we fear that experience, we misunderstand the predicament. It is losing the sense of self and identity that is feared, and that entails a value placed upon this life. In fact, what is there that we fear we might lose that we do not value with that very fear? Just so, if we fear the loss of happiness, we value happiness.

“… if you had actively cultivated suffering you might think, as your face hits the concrete, that this wasn't such a bad thing after all.”

This is just a backdoor to valuing happiness. If we are seeking this reward for our pains, and if rewards are by definition happier than punishments, then we are ultimately seeking to be happier, not more miserable. If our strategy is “it wasn’t such a bad thing after all,” then we are still talking about progressing from a more painful experience to a less painful one. We are still moving toward happiness, even if in the form of “not as miserable after all.”

1. We can’t experience the relief of death at death.
2. And a current proposal of relief is not the later, targeted relief.
3. And if the proposal involves no real “trade” between pain and relief, it serves no purpose.
• So why not just go through the front door and admit that the goal is to live happier or at least less miserably?

“What I'm suggesting is replace the fear with want, flip it on its head, fear life by making our lives full of suffering and pain, and love it when we are finally free to die.”

This sounds like deliberately buying a very bad novel and forcing oneself to read it all the way through just so that one can be relieved to be finally done with it. And why would one do this? Because one knows that when one reads a good novel one’s joy will turn to disappointment when one comes to the end … ? Does this disappointment devalue the good novel? No, it proves its value to us. It is the ending of the pleasure of reading that we devalue in the good novel, which means that we value the pleasure of reading it.

Just so, we value the happiness of living when we fear the loss of life and resist unrewarding pain and suffering. We devalue life, meaninglessly, when we deliberately seek out pains whose rewards we can never experience.

One only experiences life, not death. If one believes it is a test, one should strive to pass that test. If one fears the loss of one’s life, then one values that life to the degree of one’s fear. If making one’s life more valuable increases one’s fear of losing this life, then one will add courage to one’s ever appreciating life. The thrill of life is implied, contained, and emphasized by our courage in the face of our fear of its end.