From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100   
   >> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-12-17, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and   
   >>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and   
   >>>>> spaceflight, for example.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150   
   >>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with   
   >>>> indigenous people.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and   
   >>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.   
   >   
   > Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the   
   > standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and   
   > there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by   
   > definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to   
   > that.   
      
   A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",   
   with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the   
   supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition   
   is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."   
      
   > I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific   
   > evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both   
   > evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.   
   >   
   > Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in   
   > explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that   
   > religious believers term the soul.   
      
   That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on   
   consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.   
      
   > I thoroughly disagree with those   
   > who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at   
   > finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,   
   > somehow or other figure out consciousness.   
      
   The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of   
   the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding   
   the science) will reject the explanation. Nobody wants to be told that   
   their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)