I’m not sure what “supernatural” means. Out of the ordinary? But isn’t deep rationalism out of the ordinary? What are we talking about?
In the local parlance, “supernatural” is used to describe theories that have mental thingies in them whose behavior can’t be explained in terms of a bunch of interacting non-mental thingies. Pretty sure the definition originates with Richard Carrier.
I have no idea what limits there are on what “interacting non-mental thingies” can do. As an example, I don’t know what an “angel” is, much less how one works. I accept—as a Muslim—that the mention of angels in the Qur’an means something, it isn’t just stupid, but I don’t know what it is, but I somewhat assume that it refers to psychic forces, i.e., patterns in the mind, or patterns of patterns, etc.
(Actually, the first mention makes sense even though I don’t know what the angels are. That passage is really about us and what we do, and it’s a story that leads into the story of Satan, which I know is a psychic force, the hatred of the human—that is, pure intelligence that is full of disdain for this wet mess, this bag of shit. Okay, recognize.)
Reality, for me, is either Theostoa (without the ether construct) or SuperTheostoa, and I can’t distinguish them, and I can’t imagine how to distinguish them. Any mental thingie that might be ascribed to SuperTheostoa might be a not-understood, non-mental characteristic of Theostoa.
But both Theostoa and SuperTheostoa are covered by the word Reality. Aside from reality, there is nothing. When we “worship” other than Reality, we are led astray, leading me to the credo of Islam. Laa ilaaha illa ’llah, there is no object-worthy-of-worship (ilah, god) except The Object (al-ilah, the god, shortened to Allah).
All the lesser “supernaturals” seem like fantasy to me. There may be realities—defined as actual experience—behind them, but … there are other possible explanations as well. I distinguish “experience” from what we take it to mean.
Setting up Reality as God, then, as a mode of thinking, leads to study, testing, falsification, rejection of dogma, clarity (in many senses), etc. It leads to trust in Something behind life, though for some it could lead to fear, even terror. It depends on what is already in the heart. “Heart,” again, can be understood as a pile of mental thingies (high-level patterns of patterns) that are made up of interacting non-mental thingies (patterns), arising from the machine (the brain) and the programming (memories and interactions of memories). Or it is a “mental thingie” with its own existence, i.e., supernatural, but I don’t see evidence for that.
A piece of meat is trying to figure out if there is anything other than itself. Perhaps I’m actually agnostic, full circle, except that I’m also Muslim, by the definitions.
This is overthought, but maybe it’s useful to someone.
In the local parlance, “supernatural” is used to describe theories that have mental thingies in them whose behavior can’t be explained in terms of a bunch of interacting non-mental thingies. Pretty sure the definition originates with Richard Carrier.
I have no idea what limits there are on what “interacting non-mental thingies” can do. As an example, I don’t know what an “angel” is, much less how one works. I accept—as a Muslim—that the mention of angels in the Qur’an means something, it isn’t just stupid, but I don’t know what it is, but I somewhat assume that it refers to psychic forces, i.e., patterns in the mind, or patterns of patterns, etc.
(Actually, the first mention makes sense even though I don’t know what the angels are. That passage is really about us and what we do, and it’s a story that leads into the story of Satan, which I know is a psychic force, the hatred of the human—that is, pure intelligence that is full of disdain for this wet mess, this bag of shit. Okay, recognize.)
I read Carrier. Interesting.
Reality, for me, is either Theostoa (without the ether construct) or SuperTheostoa, and I can’t distinguish them, and I can’t imagine how to distinguish them. Any mental thingie that might be ascribed to SuperTheostoa might be a not-understood, non-mental characteristic of Theostoa.
But both Theostoa and SuperTheostoa are covered by the word Reality. Aside from reality, there is nothing. When we “worship” other than Reality, we are led astray, leading me to the credo of Islam. Laa ilaaha illa ’llah, there is no object-worthy-of-worship (ilah, god) except The Object (al-ilah, the god, shortened to Allah).
All the lesser “supernaturals” seem like fantasy to me. There may be realities—defined as actual experience—behind them, but … there are other possible explanations as well. I distinguish “experience” from what we take it to mean.
Setting up Reality as God, then, as a mode of thinking, leads to study, testing, falsification, rejection of dogma, clarity (in many senses), etc. It leads to trust in Something behind life, though for some it could lead to fear, even terror. It depends on what is already in the heart. “Heart,” again, can be understood as a pile of mental thingies (high-level patterns of patterns) that are made up of interacting non-mental thingies (patterns), arising from the machine (the brain) and the programming (memories and interactions of memories). Or it is a “mental thingie” with its own existence, i.e., supernatural, but I don’t see evidence for that.
A piece of meat is trying to figure out if there is anything other than itself. Perhaps I’m actually agnostic, full circle, except that I’m also Muslim, by the definitions.
This is overthought, but maybe it’s useful to someone.