The Supernatural is a Logical Implication of Naturalism

Posted by:

To many atheists the word “Supernatural” is synonymous with Magic. And of course Magic is synonymous with “Nonsense” making any further discussion somewhat pointless. If however naturalism is correct, it will eventually lead to the supernatural. It’s quite simple actually:

Most religions of the world believe that the human soul is itself a supernatural entity without which out biological bodies would be insufficient to account for our self-awareness. Naturalists of course reject this view. To them every aspect of who we are as human beings is entirely accounted for by our brains.

We don’t at present understand just how our brains are capable of accomplishing all that they do. However, if Naturalists are correct, then some day we WILL be able to understand how our brains work. And, once we do, it will only be a matter of time before we will be able to build machines similar to the brain.

In essence, one day we will be able to create a virtual universe on a computer and within this virtual universe we will be able create virtual beings with the capacity to think, dream, love and basically do everything humans do.

And, when that happens, to these virtual beings, their virtual environment will be considered the “Natural” while everything else, mainly our realm of existence, will be considered by them as “the Supernatural”.

So in other words, if naturalism is correct, then someday WE will become supernatural to intelligent entities that WE create. And, if we can do it, no reason why it could not have been done to us.

3

Comments

  1. Lausten North  March 29, 2013

    You might like a recent PBS show I saw about the computer named “Watson”. That’s the computer that recently won on Jeopardy. To create its intelligence, they figured out that it was better to first teach it how to learn, then give it data that it could learn from. So, instead of telling it how to recognize all the different variations of the letter “A”, they taught it pattern recognition, then started giving it examples of “A” in a variety of fonts and handwritings. As it got better at recognizing any “A”, they refined the algorithms or fed it more examples.

    What’s important here is, at some point, many points in the beginning, Watson was wrong. Telling it that it was wrong might have been part of the learning, but could not have been very useful data to a machine that had no way to determine what was right without the external input.

    How does this map onto your analogy? How do we know when we are wrong? What is the input that tells us we are wrong? If Watson had awareness, wouldn’t he be aware that he was getting these external inputs? Couldn’t he directly interact with us?

    reply
    • Unapologetics  April 16, 2013

      I don’t know. Not sure how your example applies to my analogy. I am not here trying to explain how human or artificial intelligence work but simply making the point that if naturalists are correct, it is inevitable that at some point in the future we will figure it out and duplicate it. And weather this intelligence will be able to interact with us or not will depend entirely on us and how we set up it’s existence.

      reply
  2. Lausten North  April 19, 2013

    I don’t think you have to understand the details of AI either, I’m just trying to understand your analogy. Do I have it right? That in this imagined future, the morals that we apply to our creation will depend on us, fallible creatures that we are? We are able to do this now, we could program drones to identify enemy targets and deploy weapons without any human intervention other than that programming. The final “decision” would be in the circuitry of the drone. How does that fit your analogy? If you were in charge of the drone program, would you authorize that programming?

    reply

Add a Comment