From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   rOn Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:08:02 -0800, Mark Isaak   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/3/26 7:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:24:22 -0800, Mark Isaak   
      
   [...]   
      
   >>>>> A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",   
   >>>>> with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the   
   >>>>> supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition   
   >>>>> is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam   
   >>>> Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost   
   >>>> identical Cambridge Dictionary definition   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       - caused by forces that cannot be explained by science   
   >>>>   
   >>>>        - things that cannot be explained by science   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell   
   >>> people what they are.   
   >>   
   >> A definition is useless unless people accept with the definition. Can   
   >> you cite any source that supports the definition you give above?   
   >   
   >The etymology of the word "supernatural."   
      
   Absence of any attempt at a cite noted.   
      
   >   
   >>> The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including   
   >>> dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.   
   >>> And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that   
   >>> your idea of "supernatural"?   
   >>   
   >> No, there is a distinct difference between not having an answer at   
   >> present but good reason to think that we will get one in the future   
   >> compared to not being able to see where we might even start to look   
   >> for an answer - cf for example  the 'Hard Problem of  Consciousness'.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness   
   >   
   >I seriously doubt that anyone in the mid-1400s would have good reason to   
   >think that we would, in the future, have a good reason to expect to have   
   >an explanation of why the sun shines, much less of schizophrenia.   
   >   
   >But let's accept your definition for now. How do you determine whether   
   >there is good reason to expect that we will understand something in the   
   >future? Do you say that abiogenesis is supernatural? Mark E certainly   
   >expects us never to understand it. How about schizophrenia? Before you   
   >answer, consider that understanding schizophrenia will probably entail   
   >understanding consciousness.   
   >   
   >Finally, consider Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly   
   >scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly   
   >right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very   
   >probably wrong."   
      
   And someone else said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over   
   again and expecting different results." Also reputed to come from a   
   distinguished scientist called Einstein though that has not been   
   verified. Neurology has failed time and time again to produce a result   
   in this regard so it really is time that they started taking a   
   different approach.   
      
   Before you ask, I can think of two areas where results might possibly   
   be achieved. One is the work thta is going on in AI (I mean the   
   development, not the application of it) which is trying to understand   
   the nature of consciousness rather than just the processes that enable   
   it; the other is panpsychism but it seems to me that that is rejected   
   simply because it might open the door to some kind of dualism.   
      
      
   […]   
      
   >> Wilder Penfield was one of the leaning neuroscientists of the 20th   
   >> century; he was regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and   
   >> developed the process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients   
   >> which allowed him to observe and record the effect of stimulating   
   >> various parts of the brain. He found he was able to stimulate various   
   >> muscular reactions as well as inducing dream-like states but he never   
   >> ever encountered anything that could be considered to be reasoning or   
   >> abstract thought or evoke anything that resembled 'things seen or felt   
   >> in ordinary experience'. [1]   
   >>   
   >> Penfield started his career as a convinced materialist and ended it as   
   >> a convinced dualist:   
      
   […]   
      
   >   
   >Penfield is one of those distinguished but elderly scientists whom   
   >Clarke referred to. As for his ideas on consciousness, it is my   
   >understanding that the dualist Cartesian theatre idea has been roundly   
   >discredited by both philosophers and neurologists.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)