Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google
By the way when you say “everything is natural”, and you include God in that, do you mean all that exists is the natural world (ie naturalism) or do you mean that regardless of its properties, if something exists it is natural (thereby subsuming all things that people call supernatural into the natural world, like souls, gods, demons, etc)?
I can make the distinction between ideas that exist only in the neural pathways of humans and those which can be measured as having objective evidence which can be verified scientifically.
Ideas are part of human nature and are therefore natural. Some of those ideas only have a physical existence inside the neural pathways.
I think the boundaries between natural and supernatural can be expressed in the achievements of scientists like Einstein and Newton.
Their ideas had no evidentiary basis in documented physical reality but they were later proven to be correct models for understanding the physical universe.
So .... these were ideas that existed inside their neural networks prior to the physical evidence. Do we consider Einstein to be a supernatural figure ? Absolutely not. A freak perhaps .... but absolutely real and natural.
Imagination is an essential aspect of human nature.
In many ways, climate change is exemplary of a failure of imagination. People's minds can't handle it.
If you were attempting to answer this question I’m not sure how you did.
I also think you missed my point about Sherlock Holmes. The point isn’t that Sherlock Holmes or any scientific proposition for that matter is supernatural. You asked for an example of something that is not natural. Namely fictional objects are not natural because they aren’t part of the natural world. In fact I would go further and say that anything that doesn’t exist is not part of the natural world, because it doesn’t exist.
By the way when you say “everything is natural”, and you include God in that, do you mean all that exists is the natural world (ie naturalism) or do you mean that regardless of its properties, if something exists it is natural (thereby subsuming all things that people call supernatural into the natural world, like souls, gods, demons, etc)?
I think the boundaries between natural and supernatural can be expressed in the achievements of scientists like Einstein and Newton.
If there are things that can be called supernatural (even if they don’t exist) then it’s not true that all things are natural. Unless you mean that all things that actually exist are natural, in which case that’s just a naturalist metaphysic.
No it’s not. I’m saying that there exists colloquially that distinction and your writing often conflates that sense with other senses of nature.
I don’t believe in God, but I think it’s a pretty dumb definition of God to include God in the natural world.
I think Nutnut is a pantheist.
If there are things that can be called supernatural (even if they don’t exist) then it’s not true that all things are natural. Unless you mean that all things that actually exist are natural, in which case that’s just a naturalist metaphysic.
In my mind, "supernatural" is an idea. And since ideas are natural, then the concept of supernatural is a real and natural thing even if I don't believe in supernatural phenomena outside the human imagination.
I don’t believe in God, but I think it’s a pretty dumb definition of God to include God in the natural world.
I don't include God "in" the natural world.
I equate God with the natural world. Which means everything is part of an integrated whole and God is simply the name of that integrated whole.
That means you and I are part of God and so is Trump and his followers.
I don't believe in the judgmental and partisan God of tribal religious scripture. I don't consider myself religious.
I don't include God "in" the natural world.
I equate God with the natural world. Which means everything is part of an integrated whole and God is simply the name of that integrated whole.
That means you and I are part of God and so is Trump and his followers.
I don't believe in the judgmental and partisan God of tribal religious scripture. I don't consider myself religious.
By your lights, why would anyone’s actions be an issue then? If I take any action whatsoever, it’s God taking an action.
It also seems that this talk of people’s nature would be purely nominal as well, as if everything is one then all properties that seem to exist would just be illusory.
And when things are destroyed, it’s not a real destruction, because everything would be reducible to the One/Nature/God/the Universe.
In my mind, "supernatural" is an idea. And since ideas are natural, then the concept of supernatural is a real and natural thing even if I don't believe in supernatural phenomena outside the human imagination.
If there is something that fits into the category of a supernatural thing, then it seems like there could be a separation in principle between natural and supernatural. Unless we just want to rule out the supernatural analytically by defining the natural as anything that is actually instantiated.
If there is something that fits into the category of a supernatural thing, then it seems like there could be a separation in principle between natural and supernatural. Unless we just want to rule out the supernatural analytically by defining the natural as anything that is actually instantiated.
At this point, I think we're just splitting hairs.
I concede that there are things like werewolves which only exist physically as images and ideas embedded in the neural connections in human brains.
If you want to call something like that supernatural, I don't have a major problem with it.
Our capacity to imagine is a natural phenomena even if the things we imagine don't have a physical existence beyond those neural connections. Supernatural ideas are a natural feature of humans.
One of the concepts that is an obvious question is the origin of time, matter and energy. Is that origin natural or supernatural? In my opinion, even though we don't have an explanation for it ... it must somehow be natural because it happened. But others will refer to it as being supernatural. I guess it's semantics.
This forum should be renamed to 'unhinged luncatics making 100+ posts per day instead of seeking help'
At this point, I think we're just splitting hairs. I concede that there are things like werewolves which only exist physically as images and ideas embedded in the neural connections in human brains. If you want to call something like that supernatural, I don't have a major problem with it. Our capacity to imagine is a natural phenomena even if the things we imagine don't have a
I said those are fictional objects, not supernatural.
I don’t think that werewolves are natural. Werewolves don’t exist, so I’m not sure how they could be part of the natural world.
That’s my point. You asked me initially if I could name something that isn’t natural. Fictional objects would be one thing. Abstract objects are a sort of maybe thing, some naturalist philosophers want to help themselves to that but it’s hard to see how they could do that since the nature of abstract objects are that they are not causally efficacious, so if you have a view of the natural world that in order to be part of it you have to be part of the causal order, then that makes abstract objects seem nonnatural.
If there is a God that constitutes the natural universe, it seems the existence of abstract objects would also be an issue for pantheism. I’m not sure how they would address that. Maybe just more nominalism.
The list of places around the world which are setting temperature records at the moment is simply too long to list.
In the states, Montana hit a record of 116F and Salt Lake City it's highest ever at 109F. In Algeria, it's over 120F.
We are becoming more vulnerable to a phenomena called "flash drought". As the air warms, it's capacity to hold water vapor increases and sucks more moisture out of the soil. The length and intensity of these heat waves is drying things out.
My first post here about the emerging El Nino was on May 18th. Since then ....
Here's a post from the Toronto weather office explaining how heat waves are amplified by dry soil. Basically, less of the heat energy is applied toward evaporating moisture and more is available for heating the atmosphere.
A fever is the human body's immune system mechanism of ridding itself of a hostile foreign bacteria or virus.
The old version of Earth is experiencing a fever is aimed at humans.
The old version of Earth is dying. A new version is being born.
I think it's fair to begin the conversation about the version of involuntary population downsizing we prefer.
Hey NutNut, hope you're enjoying your blog!
Five posts in a row qualifies as a blog imo.
Sometimes a picture paints 1,000 words. Here's an image which highlights ocean currents and sea surface temperature anomaly (compared to averages from 1981-2011).
The gulfstream is very visible. You can trace it from the loop current in the Gulf and follow its journey.
The colors represent the degree of sea surface temperature anomaly. Yellow is much warmer than the historical average. Blue is cooler.
You can see the gulfstream water is much warmer south of New Brunswick. At 40N and 67W, it's a staggering 8C warmer than the historical average. But east of New Brunswick is a giant "cold blob" which is where the gulfstream is no longer reaching as effectively. This is the imagery of a slowing AMOC.
Here's a picture of the emerging El Nino. It's the band between 5S and 5N and between 120W and 170W.
It's getting yellower over time as the sea surface temperature anomaly builds.
