# Edward O. Wilson on Salon: not too sharp **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251 "2006-03-21T05:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/61 "2006-03-25T18:19:48Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > To clarify, I am _not_ including **SentientMeat** in the “butt-ignorant of philsophy” cateogory. Thanks. Thank God for that. His profound understanding of a wide variety of philosophies and logical systems cannot be overstated. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/62 "2006-03-25T18:32:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > No, you don’t have to choose. I believe that souls and every other element of the human species has arisen through evolution and other natural processes, and I consider my view “scientific,” but I am NOT a materialist. Materialism as a philosphy is so heavily dependent upon science as a methodology that I don’t think “scientific materialism” is objectionable to any but the most obtuse pedant. In fact, _un_scientific materialism would be simply _asserting_ materialism, without supporting one’s materialist explanations with experimental results, and so it’s perfectly reasonable for him to _specify_ the type of materialist explanation for the origin of the mind. Now, that’s not to say (as _you_ seem to be saying that _he_ is saying) that materialism is the _only_ philosophy which embraces science. If you say your view is _scientific_ (_ie._ could in principle be shown to be false by some test or other), could you tell me what test that would be? You say that minds evolved – I agree. You also say that _souls_ evolved - I’d appreciate your input into [this concurrent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363740) on that point. > [@](#): > > You ask what a pattern is of, but you are going to run into the exact same problem with your physicalism. Something is a “configuration of a field,” but what is a field? Moving charges. **NO IT IS NOT**. Really, if you ask me a question, please stop immediately providing an _incorrect_ answer and proceeding to argue with _it_. I would not ask you a question about Japanese and presume to answer for you – please extend the courtesy to me when discussing physics. A field is a volume of spacetime in which physical quantities take on different values: a field is a **something** every bit as much as a tree or a bright light. Even spacetime itself is a something: it can be visibly warped by massive objects as in Eddington’s 1919 observation. > [@](#): > > You are going to end up defining everything in terms of something else. Of course! There **are no** _a priori_ axioms, premises or definitions. That’s what petitio principii _means_, for crying out loud. > [@](#): > > [Undefined lines, planes etc] are patterns, relationships. So, ultimately are your matter and your fields. Patterns **of what**? When I conceptualise a line or plane, there is still a pattern of _activity of neurons in my head_. Matter and fields are patterns **of something**. If the patterns you posit are of **nothing** , what is the difference between that and them _not existing at all (ie. **being** nothing)_? > [@](#): > > You are dumbing down physics. There is a hell of a lot that is not detected directly but is deduced. No, you are dumbing _me_ down. Please, read carefully: I said detectable **consequences**. _Of course_ not everything in physics is directly detectable, which is why I spoke of hypotheses in physics standing or falling based on what _can_ be detected (such as hypotheses regarding Uncertainty, X rays, thoughts via heterophenomenological verbal communication or whatever else). That is the principle of falsifiability, which I’m sure you _have_ heard of from other sources. > [@](#): > > “Idealism” is so wide a category for philosophical thought that you’ll end up “crapping on” just about anything except–ta da!–your own physicalist perspective. Label and dismiss. I’ll get to the “Label and dismiss” later in this post, but I will say now that I simply struggle to argue _at all_ with the extended family of idealism, especially its most socially handicapped member, solipsism. Just to clarify: _do you_ count yourself a member of the family, or do you accept the existence of stuff outside your own thoughts? > [@](#): > > Of course there have been “peer-reviewed” journals that have come to the conclusion that ghosts and psi and all manner of things you dismiss exist. Yet again, careful with that word “dismiss”, but OK, direct me to one or two choice papers if you will, and we can explore their scientific rigour (or otherwise). > [@](#): > > Like the majority of the population, I’ve perceived directly something you don’t believe in (ghosts, psi, humor in GD). We’ve seen it, you’ve got your thumbs in ears and nya-nya-can’t-hear-you thing going. Your loss. If you’ve read my testimony, I have seen God, remember. Overwhelming and epiphanic as that experience was, I think I was _mistaken_. May I ask, did you see this ghost directly prior to or following a period of sleep? > [@](#): > > That is correct, actually. How do the clothes know you’re dead? Would you mind if I henceforth characterised you as ‘ **Aeschines** , the guy who thinks fabric has an afterlife’? I’m not sure I can _Reductio_ your position to any further an _absurdans_, frankly. > [@](#): > > As I said, I’m not hooked on any term or terms. Nor is there any real scientific definition (or understanding) of “mind,” so using that word hardly clarifies things. OK, so we can talk about the _mind after death_. Again, let’s return to the air molecules and gravitational and electromagnetic fields (amongst others) near the surgery ceiling. You’re saying that stuff there has a _mind_, yes? A mind which wasn’t _there_ a moment ago when the patient was alive, yes? > [@](#): > > C’mon his position is totally toolish. He’s got atheism with some really flabby and unattractive logic-handles crudely attached and flapping in the wind. You’re equating deism with _atheism_? Am I a deist, then? That would certainly be news to me, and I try to keep my toolkit as tidy as possible (especially the Razors). > [@](#): > > But then Ayer et al. came along and say, Philosophy is just one big word game! I agree. Indeed, the brain is one big linguistic processor (although not _just_ that), and there is a reason why rocks, clouds and fields don’t talk. > [@](#): > > Oh, so everthing’s been solved and no more arbitrariness exists! Please read the sentence again, noting the word “seek”. > [@](#): > > Or are you saying that IF we know everything about the universe we would see that, in fact, nothing IS arbitrary? I’m saying that once those numbers are explained by a mechanism whose veracity is tested by observation, those numbers could no longer be described as “arbitrary” as such. > [@](#): > > No you can’t. You can say it but you can’t imagine it. I am imiagining it right now. Look, I’ll even draw in shapes what I’m imagining: \*\* + \*\* = \*\*\ ***. This follows from \*=** , which I’m also imagining right now (given that I’m _not_ imagining Peano’s axioms right now). > [@](#): > > Could this universe of ours be exactly the same as it is EXCEPT that pi would be an even 3.15? Yes. It would be logically inconsistent, but that’s OK, because nothing says that A=-A is _absolutely_ forbidden: it is an axiom we must _accept_. > [@](#): > > **SM** : “I don’t think it [God] would resemble anything of the Judeo-Christian variety” is not the same as “We can definitely rule the Judeo-Christian God crap out”. > **Aeschines** : I reaffrim my slightly hyperbolic characterisation. > **SM:** OK, so long as you don’t complain about such ‘slight’ hyperbole from others characterising you. > **Aeschines** :Quit being so hyperbolic. What? In what way am I being _hyperbolic_? I am clearly not attributing to you a more extreme position than your words imply. Quit being so _patronising_ or _sanctimonious_ I could understand, but _hyperbolic_? I fear this suggests you’re not really thinking about your responses but just firing things off randomly. > [@](#): > > OK, but accepting even your physicalist principles, if we humans perceive a purpose in it, who is to tell us we’re wrong? Only other humans. Heck, people can believe in a flat Earth or disbelieve in the Holocaust and other humans can only disagree and suggest why, and even then their arguments can ultimately be countered merely by issuing a rude noise. > [@](#): > > There is no abolute Truth or God to set us straight. To be in error is the same as being correct, since even math and logic are nothing more than our opinions. I agree with this entirely. Logic is a cognitive mechanism of combining premises and axioms together. If someone refuses to budge from a logically inconsistent position (see **cosmosdan** in that other thread I mentioned), I can only _say so_ and leave it at that. In this thread, I’d like to explore the logical consequences of your “vibrations near the ceiling” premise in the same way, just for kicks. > [@](#): > > I make logical arguments about the fluff and crap EOW was spewing and you and Ekers (pardon, not that you two are to be placed in the same category, if you know what I mean), just say, “Nuh uh! What he says is cool with me. That guy’s smart!” And it is cool with me, and he is smart (but that’s not why I defended those statements of his – I did that because I largely _agree_ with them). It’s up to our audience to decide who is fluffiest and crappiest here. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe in a “God” or any beings that break the natural order arbitrarily, so there is no definition of “supernatural” that can have any validity for me. So _God_ is supernatural, yes? Are you not _labelling and dismissing_ God there? What do you say to people like **Lib** who tell you they have literally heard God talking to them directly? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/63 "2006-03-25T19:06:57Z")
Just to clarify, every reference to God through language is necessarily metaphorical, including that He talks to me. I thought I had addressed this a couple of times before, but just for the current record, I think that a better way to put it is that He causes me to understand. He places understanding directly into my brain, as if by revelation. Of course, even those explanations are metaphorical. But I do not hear voices in the sense that a schizophrenic does. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/64 "2006-03-25T19:42:09Z")
Ah, sorry for misrepresenting you there friend - I’ll therefore ask **Aeschines** what he’d say to people who _are_ as certain that they actually heard God’s voice as **Aeschines** was when he saw the ghost. And thank you for your kind words about me, but I fear you place me on something of a pedestal. I have a degree in physics and a PhD in acoustics, but no recognised accomplishment in philosophy. I will guiltily admit that I don’t think I’ve even _read as many books_ as you might guess - I have muddled my way through some choice primary material such as Popper, Mill and Wittgenstein, but I’ve actually gained most of my understanding merely though doing a page a day of the online Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy! So the kudos is heartening, but a little embarassing. I hope you don’t think I’m displaying crass false modesty by suggesting that _anyone_ can put in that bit of time per day and become as convincing a bluffer as me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/65 "2006-03-25T20:09:26Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I’ll therefore ask **Aeschines** what he’d say to people who _are_ as certain that they actually heard God’s voice as **Aeschines** was when he saw the ghost. Let me put it this way, I have heard and seen things that fit the concept of “ghost” but which were, in any event, not things that materialist science can adequately explain. I am sure of my perceptions, open as to the exact explanation of what I saw. “Ghost” is convenient shorthand. My arguments against someone who said they’d heard “God” would be wholly philosophical and would not depend on invalidating their experience or accusing their brains of hallucinating. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/66 "2006-03-25T22:02:54Z")
I do worry sometimes that my praise might embarass you, Sentient. And I honestly do withhold it as long as I can. But sometimes I stop and think about what you and I have, very similar to what Voyager and I have, something extremely rare and valuable — a relationship of mutal trust and understanding that transcends our diametrically opposed worldviews — and I just can’t help myself. I don’t have any degrees in anything. It really isn’t your degrees that matter; it’s your grasp. I recall that you’d never heard of modal logic before we first encountered one another. You asked a question about it. I gave you a link. You returned after a thorough read and laid out what is to this day the best, most succinct, and most honest summary of the MOP I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a lot of them. Don’t be ashamed that you’re a genius, and a damn good man to boot. Be proud of what you are. Still, I’ll try to tone it down a bit. But just a bit. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/67 "2006-03-26T02:57:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The people arguing against me in this thread are butt-ignorant of philsophy At this point, you’re engaging in nothing more than **ad hominems** and misstatements of my points; I’m not interesting in winning the discussion, and it’s clear that I’m not going to learn much from you. Bye! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/68 "2006-03-27T11:42:21Z")
**Aeschines** , it seems you haven’t time (or perhaps inclination) to address the rest of my previous post. That’s a shame, but no worries - I’m sure we’ll come back to those points in future. For now, I’d like to focus on this: > [@Aeschines](#): > > Let me put it this way, I have heard and seen things that fit the concept of “ghost” but which were, in any event, not things that materialist science can adequately explain. I am sure of my perceptions, open as to the exact explanation of what I saw. “Ghost” is convenient shorthand. Could “Dream” be _even more_ convenient shorthand? The explanation of materialist science (funny how you’re now using the same phrase as EOW, BTW, IMO) would likely be far from adequate in your eyes, too. But I suggest it is unnecessarily confusing to use “I saw a ghost” in place of “I had a dream featuring a ghost”. Are you saying that what you saw _couldn’t possibly_ have been a dream or the like, that there _must_ have literally been light incident on your retina from an external source in the room? These are crucial distinctions IMO - if you’re claiming the latter rather than the former it is important for you to say so to prevent others misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > My arguments against someone who said they’d heard “God” would be wholly philosophical and would not depend on invalidating their experience or accusing their brains of hallucinating. But you admitted that you don’t think that God is real. When someone says they have seen or heard something you don’t believe is real (but they clearly _do_ believe is real), do you **say so**? Simply stating your position in this way is surely not “invalidating their experience” (since they clearly _had one_), and if you don’t use the word hallucination, what word _do_ you use? You might remember me asking you in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6696786) thread. I’ve reprinted my request here for completeness, changing only the subject of the essay, now highlighted in red: > [@](#): > > Reading throught the whole thread again I think there is still an important barrier we’ve yet to break down, regarding the language you will accept when I describe my position. You complain of being treated unfairly by skeptics but, if I may say as respectfully as I can, throughout this thread the person who has mischaracterised their opposition most seems to be **you**. Who says that neuropsychology is about “brain farts”? Who says that the Afterlife is **dis** proven? Not me, or indeed anyone here. Are these words, and many like them, not introduced just to conveniently make the opposing position easier to argue with, perhaps? > > Words I have used here: _extraordinary, evidence, paradigm, scientific, pseudoscientific, experiment, prediction, falsifiable, ‘radically impugned’, dream, matter, hallucination, neuropsychological, delusion, Ockham’s Razor, unnecessary, actual facts_. And I’ll introduce another important one: [symbol]Skepsis[/symbol] - _Skepsis_ (“inquiry”). > > Words I have emphatically **not** used here: _disproven, ‘brain fart’, dismiss, ‘totally sussed’, empty set, void, perjorative, ‘not real’, illegal, myths, ‘forget about’, BOOL-shit, ‘a priori false’, assumption, disharmony, arbitrary opinion._ > > You say that “philosophy is messy” when, like a playroom in which new toys have continually been rejected, the one _making_ the mess seems to be _you_. (Again, understand that I speak candidly as a friend here). Philosophy can be tidied up most effectively by judicious use of Ockham’s Razor in preventing entities and explanations multiplying without limit. By rejecting even the language of reasonable skeptics like (hopefully) myself, **tom** and **Doc** because you don’t want to be considered a “woo woo”, you make it very difficult to discuss the subject of inquiry at all. > > So I have a request which might make our future discussions more productive. I will ask you to write a brief essay on a certain subject. Please, don’t just instantly fire off a one-liner in response - I’m not seeking to make you look foolish. I’m just seeking language by which I can accurately describe my position which _you_ find acceptable. Specifically, I’d like to see how you characterise your _own_ [symbol]skepsis[/symbol] in order to later convince you that I’m merely doing exactly the same when it comes to ghosts, ESP, afterlife-glimpses or anything else which would radically impugn the current scientific paradigm (and I agree that those literal alien abductions _wouldn’t_ do this - I’d actually place them with JFK conspiracies and the like rather than “paranormal” phenomena) that you presumably do with the essay subject. Please take time (if you have it) to consider the essay question, but if you really think it _that_ uninteresting or unfair, then feel free to choose another subject (vitalism or Intelligent Design versus “the genes do it”, perhaps). In any case, here it is: > > Many people, in history and throughout the world today, believe that they have literally heard and experienced **God**. Please write a brief essay, most importantly _using as many of the words in those two lists above as possible_, detailing your thoughts on God: why you don’t believe in God, and what you would actually say to people who told you God was real because they’d actually experienced him. So, to repeat, I’m not really that interested in what you _wouldn’t_ say: I’m not inviting you to attack those skeptics less reserved or diplomatic than myself. I’m asking **you** what you **do** say, in order that I can characterise _my_ position in a way that you don’t object to as mere “labelling and dismissing”. Do, please, try and use as many of those words (especially in the first list) in your response. I realise you’re busy right now, so anytime in the next fortnight or so is fine, and I would be very grateful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251.md?page=3)