Naturalism is Insanity & Descartes

 Probably narcissism. Pride - anything they can't understand must be inexplicable. 

 The Naturalist asserts that everything that exists is natural. Then they turn around and assert [there's no evidence for the supernatural]. It's just a trick. Circular logic. Proof by unsupported axiom. 

 Even then it wouldn't be too bad, except they gerrymander the definition of [natural]. Why can't the 'supernatural' be natural? "Because there's no evidence for it." Why doesn't this count as evidence? "Because it's supernatural." 

 If Naturalism is subjected to scientific tests, it fails. Sogol. They've pre-determined what they want to discount, then defined all evidence and logic for those things as invalid. When they define the natural in terms of the supernatural, they reveal their real focus. It has nothing to do with studying nature and everything to do with spiteful ostracism of the "super"natural.

 What is immaterial about Descartes? Nothing. He simply raises the idea of two kinds of material - an extant material and an intentional material. The "super"natural is fully material. What is a material, except a substance? Nothing.

 Descartes made an error when he used the nonsense conjunction, 'immaterial substance;' the materialists a) confirmed and embraced this error b) reveal that their tradition is nothing but negaverse Cartesianism. Literally the science of [fuck you dad]ology. No identity, no personality, no values, except resentment.

 Continuing this thread, cogito ergo sum contradicts the premise from which it was derived, [our senses sometimes deceive us]. Descartes would count as a B-tier philosopher, like Plato, if he was capable of following his own ideas to their conclusion. Instead he would skip a track and accidentally find himself at the truth. 

And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations 

 Greek Skepticism re-discovered. Despite many centuries of accumulation and change, still self-refuting; if you have Demonstrated that Demonstration doesn't work, thusly and accordingly I reject the Demonstration, proving that Greek Dogmatism is correct.
 Also it's an empirical question. I believe I have not erred when I supposed I could type and publish text to a blog. I suggest that it is not impossible to know things, and Demonstration is merely what we can do when a truth is known. Tamper-evident etc etc. 

And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep

 Nope. While awake, it's very obvious that dreams are dreams. It's not the same at all. Empirical question: I don't care about dreams because they have no permanence. Nothing I do in a dream affects the next dream, no matter how badly I might want it to. Wakefulness is privileged because I have to care about the consequences of my actions - no matter how badly I might want not to. The only time I'm fooled by dreams is that (so weird) I'm not at 100% when I'm asleep, and I forget to check whether I'm dreaming. 

 Further empirical question: if you're honest, and remember to check, you're not as open to error as any other. 

 Descartes frames the problem wrong, and the Naturalists make the identical error. Argument is vassal to values. First, decide what you want. Then you investigate how you get that thing. Do you want to prove a particular idea? What do you mean by 'prove'? Is this idea an end, or a means to some other end? Without desire, there is no meaningful knowing. You can't tell if you've succeeded or not, because you cannot fail. 

 With desire, why would you care if reliable evidence is 'natural' or 'supernatural'? You wouldn't. Either it gets you more of what you want, or it doesn't. It works or it doesn't. All other distinctions are rendered meaningless due to being arbitrary post-hoc projections. You won't even bother to keep track of the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' or nor this 'perfect certainty' nonsense Descartes fiddled with. Reliable evidence is back-defined as successful evidence. Unreliable evidence is unsuccessful evidence. 

 Logic is the set of systems that work. It is what persuades Reality to agree with you. (Or rather, in most cases, persuades you to agree with Reality.)

 

 The true difference between Skeptic and Dogmatic is rejection of Logic itself. The Skeptic cannot Demonstrate anything, as that requires first accepting the Logic he has rejected.
 No, that's actually underselling it. Because they can't Demonstrate anything, they can Demonstrate everything. Because they reject Logic, they accept it. Because they don't exist, they do exist. Because they doubt everything, they credit* everything. Et cetera.
 *(Heed linguistic corruption is in fact decay: yes, 'credit' is the correct word here, it's not about banking.)