Please explain "non-naturalistic" events in everyday life

[Cognos]

I've noticed that there's a physical world that I can sense: see, hear, touch, smell, taste.

There are physical entities that some people have postulated that I have never seen or sensed, but that offer a naturalistic explanation of how the world works.

I've also noticed that I use symbols to denote various ideas and concepts (words like "idea" or "concept" or "word") and that these symbols can be perceived via sensory organs that can be explained naturalistically by referring to other symbols that represent other ideas or concepts.

So, there are physical things and there are symbolic representations of those physical things, and the symbols themselves are represented physically, eg. visual or auditory stimuli. Things like "photons travelling through time and space" or "sound waves travelling through a medium composed of atoms" are more conceptual than they are physical, but the concepts are used in what is commonly considered a naturalistic explanation.

Also, there are symbols (or words) that do not refer directly to physical things but that necessarily require physical things for the symbol to have meaning (words like "meaning", which requires a physical entity that creates the symbols and that gives those symbols meaning.) For example, "justice". I can't point to the physical entity "justice" but I cannot conceive of justice without invoking the idea of physical entities, namely, morally responsible sentient beings with the capacity to act and to form opinion about the consequences of actions. Of course, the entities could be spiritual rather than physical, and just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but I've got to start somewhere and the only way that I know of is to start with what I know. And what I know is that I've never experienced anything that was not physical, or to be more presice, that could not be explained by referring solely to the existence of physical entities.

So, here's the question: How specifically is a non-naturalistic explanation different from what what I've decribed above and what is the difference in explaining events that happen every day? Is it merely the postulate that there exists something that is spiritual and not physical? And (as a way of clarifying) please explain how this non-physical entity is different from universal consciousness, cosmic life force, or the astrological effect of the planets?

[technomage]

So, here's the question: How specifically is a non-naturalistic explanation different from what what I've decribed above and what is the difference in explaining events that happen every day? Is it merely the postulate that there exists something that is spiritual and not physical?

I'm not sure there is any observable difference, save for the postulate of spiritual entities that you note.

And (as a way of clarifying) please explain how this non-physical entity is different from universal consciousness, cosmic life force, or the astrological effect of the planets?

Um, I will note that it has been hypothesized that the "astrological effects of the planets" is a naturalistic phenomenon. However, that particular hypothesis seems to be DOA. No identifiable physical force has ever been observed, and the identifiable physical forces that we do know of don't seem to be sufficient to the proposed effects.

However, beyond that--yeah, there's no identifiable difference between theists who suggest a personal Deity (a Deity who posesses traits we would call a "personality"); Deists who suggest a completely Transcendant deity; universal consciousness; or cosmic life-force. Most especially, there is no objective way that I know of to differentiate between a completely naturalistic universe and one where "spiritual entities" exist.

[Cognos]

Um, I will note that it has been hypothesized that the "astrological effects of the planets" is a naturalistic phenomenon. However, that particular hypothesis seems to be DOA. No identifiable physical force has ever been observed, and the identifiable physical forces that we do know of don't seem to be sufficient to the proposed effects.

Yes, I know that some astrologers still propose (with a straight face) that the gravitational forces of the planets have an effect on the newborn infant, while ignoring the gravitational effect between the mother and the infant.

Similarly, a Christian minister once told me that God must exist, otherwise the protons in an atom's nucleus would fly apart because "like charges repel".

A few simple points escaped him:
1) How did he know that atoms existed? Did he learn about them in a dream, or did God tell him directly? Did God tell him that "like charges repel"? Why didn't God tell him about the strong interaction (strong nuclear force)?
2) Did he think that, during a thunderstorm, God creates lightning because, after all, electromagnetism doesn't exist.
3) Does God cause like-charged particles to fly apart? After all, shouldn't gravity keep them together?

Even though Christians don't like the simplistic connotation, sometimes their "non-naturalistic" explanations amount to little more than "We don't know, so therefore God did it."

[technomage]

Even though Christians don't like the simplistic connotation, sometimes their "non-naturalistic" explanations amount to little more than "We don't know, so therefore God did it."

Well, while your Christian minister was ... a bit naive (stop laughing, Cognos, I'm trying to be nice! ), I can see why he'd think that way. Especially if he knew no more of physics than he seems to.

But for my part, I'll tell you I don't think there's ever going to be any "scale" to "Weigh" God. By the same token, that means that any naturalist would be justified to reject my God as a figment of my imagination.

You're not going to find God in the strong attractive force, or any other "natural" force. Maybe naturalism isn't the be-all and end-all of methods of inquiry, eh?

[Cognos]

Maybe naturalism isn't the be-all and end-all of methods of inquiry, eh?

Well, that's the point of this thread!

Please explain the other methods of inquiry.

[technomage]

Well, that's the point of this thread!

Well, why didn't you say so? Goofy!

Please explain the other methods of inquiry.

Logic and reason are methods of inquiry that don't directly require naturalistic observation ... but they're subjective, limited, and fallable. For my part, I am also persuaded that intuition and faith can be methods of inquiry--as long as one recognizes that, like logic and reason, it is subjective, limited, and fallable.

Now, I also realize that because of those limitations, logic, reason, intuition, and faith can also be tools of self-deception. But they're what we've got to work with.

[mentored1]

Hey Cognos - very thought-provoking stuff! Thanks for the food!

I've also noticed that I use symbols to denote various ideas and concepts (words like "idea" or "concept" or "word") and that these symbols can be perceived via sensory organs that can be explained naturalistically by referring to other symbols that represent other ideas or concepts.

While I won't outright deny your assumption here I think it I can add a few thoughts to it: we don't actually receive the symbol itself via the sense organs - words, for instance, are simple vibratory frequencies bouncing off of our ear drum and electrochemical signals stimulating the requisite centers in our brain... We 'perceive' the meaning of symbol only if we learned the association with that particular pattern of vibration... So the raw data we receive via the senses is not the symbolic perceptions assembled in our brain afterwards... Granted I know it's a fine distinction and you were getting at that but I wanted to make sure.

Also, there are symbols (or words) that do not refer directly to physical things but that necessarily require physical things for the symbol to have meaning (words like "meaning", which requires a physical entity that creates the symbols and that gives those symbols meaning.) For example, "justice". I can't point to the physical entity "justice" but I cannot conceive of justice without invoking the idea of physical entities, namely, morally responsible sentient beings with the capacity to act and to form opinion about the consequences of actions. Of course, the entities could be spiritual rather than physical, and just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but I've got to start somewhere and the only way that I know of is to start with what I know. And what I know is that I've never experienced anything that was not physical, or to be more presice, that could not be explained by referring solely to the existence of physical entities.

This may be outside the area you're discussing in this thread but I'll throw it out anyway: unless your perceptions are trained and associate the raw data coming in with the concepts and notions you've learned then how would you associate or perceive at all?

Without the concepts and ideas you've learned and developed does the physical world have an existence? If it was just sound waves bombarding you without any language skills developed, without any association to ideas, can we say that the physical world can be referred to at all?

Granted you've never experienced anything that could not be referred to the physical at all: but is it the physical that exists that we refer to or is it because of our association that the physical is known to exist at all? Unless we associate, measure, and denote symbols what meaning does the physical word have?

So, here's the question: How specifically is a non-naturalistic explanation different from what what I've decribed above and what is the difference in explaining events that happen every day? Is it merely the postulate that there exists something that is spiritual and not physical? And (as a way of clarifying) please explain how this non-physical entity is different from universal consciousness, cosmic life force, or the astrological effect of the planets?

I think you've made the case well in this thread... But without our conscious association of symbols with physical events the whole structure of meaning collapses doesn't it? What you experience has love, hate, confusion, and so forth is not the same as the physical processes which cause or underly them is it? I suppose you could argue it is natural - but the experience of it as a human being is very different than the processes that cause it. The hormones that govern my attraction for the opposite sex, under a microscope, don't show the conscious experience I have in such relationships do they?

How can the separation of the experience and the process be reconciled by natural explanation?


Thanks again for the good thought food, look forward to your feedback!

[Cognos]

Hey Cognos - very thought-provoking stuff! Thanks for the food!

Hey! Glad you found something you can sink your teeth into.

we don't actually receive the symbol itself via the sense organs - words, for instance, are simple vibratory frequencies bouncing off of our ear drum and electrochemical signals stimulating the requisite centers in our brain... We 'perceive' the meaning of symbol only if we learned the association with that particular pattern of vibration... So the raw data we receive via the senses is not the symbolic perceptions assembled in our brain afterwards... Granted I know it's a fine distinction and you were getting at that but I wanted to make sure.

Well, it is a fine distinction, but a good one.
The part that I didn't discuss (because I don't have the answer) is the exact method of how we perceive and how we interpret sensory data. Nevertheless, for purposes of this thread, the point (as I'm sure you appreciate) is that finding the answer will involve a naturalistic method. (Unless someone else has another suggestion.)

This may be outside the area you're discussing in this thread but I'll throw it out anyway: unless your perceptions are trained and associate the raw data coming in with the concepts and notions you've learned then how would you associate or perceive at all?

Well, you've combined physiology, cognitive and behaviorist psychology, and epistemology into one question!
One attempt at an answer: You wouldn't.
You set a condition necessary for something to occur. Without that condition, that something won't occur -- if the condition is actually necessary.
I think that another choice is to address how perceptions formed in biological organisms, so the method would involve examining "primitive", simpler organisms and the subsequent evolution to organisms with higher-level capability to interpret sensory data.

Without the concepts and ideas you've learned and developed does the physical world have an existence? If it was just sound waves bombarding you without any language skills developed, without any association to ideas, can we say that the physical world can be referred to at all?

Y'know, the other day I was walking through the forest, and a tree fell. ... ... ... I didn't see it.

Granted you've never experienced anything that could not be referred to the physical at all: but is it the physical that exists that we refer to or is it because of our association that the physical is known to exist at all? Unless we associate, measure, and denote symbols what meaning does the physical word have?

It depends what you mean by "meaning". Does the physical world have any "meaning" for non-verbal animals? Is meaning something that we superimpose on the physical world because we have biological wiring that results in the formulation of meaning?

The hormones that govern my attraction for the opposite sex, under a microscope, don't show the conscious experience I have in such relationships do they?

But your differential brain wave activity, your body's metabolic functions, and your observable behavior (observable by you and by others) are physical manifestations of that conscious experience. Can you feel good without there being a physical manifestation of that feeling?

How can the separation of the experience and the process be reconciled by natural explanation?

What method do you propose to reconcile them?

Good questions. I see that I haven't attempted answers to all of them, but it's a start.

[Cognos]

For my part, I am also persuaded that intuition and faith can be methods of inquiry.

Hmmm ... verrry interesting.

Please explain how faith can be a method of inquiry. Here's a guess: Instead of the naturalistic "I'll believe when I see it", faith leads to "I'll see it when I believe". Close?

As for intuition, I think that it's an amalgam of biological "wiring", diverse sensory input, and some randomness, all of which sometimes lead to a good guess. As a method, it's not very effective at solving mysteries, but I can appreciate its role in starting the investigation.

Now, I also realize that because of those limitations, logic, reason, intuition, and faith can also be tools of self-deception. But they're what we've got to work with.

Well, that's a pretty good tool kit. As long as the tools are in good shape and we know how and when to use them.

[technomage]

Please explain how faith can be a method of inquiry. Here's a guess: Instead of the naturalistic "I'll believe when I see it", faith leads to "I'll see it when I believe". Close?

Cute, and not too far from reality. But I have to use a really basic example.

Imagine if you will someone doing Tai Chi. He's grumping his way through his routine, and ends up aching, sore, and generally grouchy. Now imagine him "getting into the spirit of things," as it were ... and the difference it makes, not only to his outlook, but also physically.

Is there a "spiritual" difference between the two situations? It's nothing you'll ever directly measure on a meter, though you can certainly measure the results. And it's quite possible that it is nothing more than a natural result of the difference in brain chemistry between the two emotional states ... but it's certainly a dramatic enough difference to make me wonder. If you look at it as a scientific experiment, faith can be seen as being the variable--thus allowing faith to be a method of enquiry.

And yeah, I know--that's a botch of scientific terminology. But we're not dealing with scientific method ... and frankly, I don't have the terminology to explain the difference, so I have to do the best I can.

As for intuition, I think that it's an amalgam of biological "wiring", diverse sensory input, and some randomness, all of which sometimes lead to a good guess. As a method, it's not very effective at solving mysteries, but I can appreciate its role in starting the investigation.

Hmmm ... I tend to also include the possibility of assembling information unconsciously.

Well, that's a pretty good tool kit. As long as the tools are in good shape and we know how and when to use them.

And what tool(s) are appropriate for which situation.

[mentored1]

This thread is a good example of philosophical inquiry - I'm proud of ya!

The part that I didn't discuss (because I don't have the answer) is the exact method of how we perceive and how we interpret sensory data. Nevertheless, for purposes of this thread, the point (as I'm sure you appreciate) is that finding the answer will involve a naturalistic method. (Unless someone else has another suggestion.)

I don't know if there is an answer given the current state of human knowledge - maybe our answer is "I don't know" and we're left to just throw questions against the wall like spaghetti and see if something sticks? I certainly do appreciate the pursuit at least... Let's have at it.

You set a condition necessary for something to occur. Without that condition, that something won't occur -- if the condition is actually necessary.

Maybe it is necessary then? Is it part of the anthropic principle to say that the causal nature of the world we experience is the necessary result of human perception? So the perception of the world, the human perception, that couldn't occur without the conditions of the human brain - the perception might be radically different if a different species, possessed with different faculties, sat in the seat that we now occupy... Maybe that's an assumption we can work with: that the human perceptions of reality are exclusively the human perceptions tied inextricably to the conditions fashioned in the human brain.

I think that another choice is to address how perceptions formed in biological organisms, so the method would involve examining "primitive", simpler organisms and the subsequent evolution to organisms with higher-level capability to interpret sensory data.

That seems to be a reasonable approach - a scientific approach, at least. The only hang-up might be what I mentioned in my previous comments regarding the differences in faculties between other creatures and mankind... Obviously we're at the point we're at for something related to the rapid development of our brain, and as such display a radical split with the rest of this world's creatures... Can we hope to hit any discoveries by studying species that failed where we excelled?

Y'know, the other day I was walking through the forest, and a tree fell. ... ... ... I didn't see it.

Touche!

It depends what you mean by "meaning". Does the physical world have any "meaning" for non-verbal animals? Is meaning something that we superimpose on the physical world because we have biological wiring that results in the formulation of meaning?

Perhaps I can describe 'meaning' as related to 'quality'? Sensory data related to quantity? The color 'red' as a wavelength of light is quantity right? Which is the raw sensory fact. The perception of red, redness, the like or dislike of its effect, and so forth is qualitative - perception. So the physical world, as far as we know, has quantitative effects on lower biological forms - reactions, instincts, whatever...

It would seem necessary there is SOMETHING biologically that enables us to qualify that quantity... finding what it is will be a big step towards understanding perception: and more importantly, IMO, if perception had a necessary evolutionary catalyst... If so much life can thrive with only quantitative sensation why the one dominant race with qualitative perception?

But your differential brain wave activity, your body's metabolic functions, and your observable behavior (observable by you and by others) are physical manifestations of that conscious experience. Can you feel good without there being a physical manifestation of that feeling?

Right - but those are only symbolic of my conscious experience aren't they? By analogy the language symbolic of the acoustic vibrations: they symbolize events going on but only the perceptual faculties and knowledge in the observer can understand the corresponding activity right? If I display 'feeling good' and the observer doesn't "speak" the same symbolic tongue what good is it?

Good questions. I see that I haven't attempted answers to all of them, but it's a start.

Are there even answers to these questions? If there were we'd be very sad persons sitting here trying to figure out why the wheel is round!

Thanks for the start - keep 'em coming!

[technomage]

...maybe our answer is "I don't know" and we're left to just throw questions against the wall like spaghetti and see if something sticks?

Oh, I do like that metaphor!

[Cognos]

Hmmm ... actually I don't like it! I taste my spaghetti to make sure that it is properly cooked, rather than throwing it against the wall. Uh, what?? It's a metaphor?

Imagine if you will someone doing Tai Chi. He's grumping his way through his routine, and ends up aching, sore, and generally grouchy. Now imagine him "getting into the spirit of things," as it were ... and the difference it makes, not only to his outlook, but also physically.

Interesting example.

I started learning Taoist Tai Chi a few years ago and one time I went to the lesson, feeling grumpy, sore and aching. (I had just played and lost a brutal squash match) and I was wondering why I was going, rather that lying in a hot bath.

After an hour, I was physically and emotionally energized. It was amazing. I've had similar experiences since then, including one following an extended weekend of meditation.

Is there a "spiritual" difference between the two situations? It's nothing you'll ever directly measure on a meter, though you can certainly measure the results.

Actually, there is plenty of research that has measured brain functions during "spiritual" activity. Here's one hit from a Google search:

Meditation and the Brain

In front of a sellout crowd of 1,200 in MIT's Kresge Auditorium, the Dalai Lama and Buddhist scholars traded insights and questions with neuroscientists and psychologists on such topics as attention, mental imagery, and emotion. Discussions of science are of deep personal interest to the Dalai Lama, who has held similar meetings in private with esteemed scholars for decades. But this conference-organized by the Boulder, CO-based Mind and Life Institute and cosponsored by MIT's new McGovern Institute for Brain Research-was the first such meeting opened to the public.
...
Those involved hope the event will spark more rigorous, collaborative research between Buddhists and Western scientists, who have long held diametrically opposed views on how the brain functions. For example, Buddhists view mental attributes such as temperament as skills to be cultivated, while Western scientists generally believe that such traits are fixed in the brain at a young age. But modern neuroscience and the advent of new imaging technology have challenged scientists to think more broadly about how the brain functions. "
...
Harvard University psychology professor Stephen Kosslyn, an authority on mental imagery, was at once perplexed and enthralled by reports of trained Buddhist monks maintaining intricate mental images for hours with no loss of detail, exclaiming, "By my understanding of how the brain works, that should not be possible!" Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama's persistent gentle humor helped weave philosophical and scientific perspectives together.
...
In his seminal 1970s research, Harvard Medical School cardiologist Herbert Benson found that even a highly simplified form of meditation produced sustained physiological benefits such as reduced heart, metabolic, and breathing rates. His 1975 bestseller The Relaxation Response detailed the first scientific validation of meditative practice and fostered the growth of stress reduction clinics in workplaces, hospitals, and other settings.
...
Advances in functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) have opened the dynamics of the human brain to objective study. Recent fMRI studies on brain activity suggest that moods and dispositions are rooted in specific regions of the organ. For example, positive states of mind are marked by high activity in the left frontal area, while activity in the right frontal area coincides with negative states.
http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...on0204.asp?p=1

© source where applicable

[technomage]

Actually, there is plenty of research that has measured brain functions during "spiritual" activity.

I've seen and been quite fascinated by such studies. But the question is this--are the measurable phenomena (in this instance, of meditation) a cause, or an effect? And that's one I'm not sure science is going to be able to answer definitively.

Well, let me rephrase that--if it is a cause, then science should theoretically be able to find the connection. But if it is an effect of interacting with something "spiritual," science may be out of luck.

[Cognos]

Well, let me rephrase that--if it is a cause, then science should theoretically be able to find the connection. But if it is an effect of interacting with something "spiritual," science may be out of luck.

Please clarify what you mean by "it". The measurable phenomena? Please present an example of how the fMRI readings, for example, are a cause.

Are you saying that there still is a cause and an effect? Or are you saying that there is something other than cause-effect?