Thank God for that. His profound understanding of a wide variety of philosophies and logical systems cannot be overstated.
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, unscientific 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 on that point.
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.
Of course! There are no a priori axioms, premises or definitions. That’s what petitio principii means, for crying out loud.
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)?
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
Please read the sentence again, noting the word “seek”.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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 thread. I’ve reprinted my request here for completeness, changing only the subject of the essay, now highlighted in red:
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.