Jejudo, South Korea
Well, if this is a thread that deals with supernaturalism and naturalism, I suppose we have to be clear on the kind of naturalism I subscribe to:
Both functionalism and verificationism imply an interest in relations rather than in properties, or, stronger, properties turn out to be relations. Functional roles are relational structures, and evidence are phenomena related to what they are evidence for. Such a relationism will reject the idea of intrinsic properties and all notions of "direct" experience of phenomena, of acquatintance with qualia, or intuition of intrinsic properties. It will deny us the possibility of "grasping" an object, or "entertaining" an idea, at least in the sense of having it present in its totality, in favor of a structuralist, holistic position, according to which an object always refers us to other objects, and can only be apprached though its relations to others.
--Bo Dahlbom, introduction to Dennet and his Critics , p. 5.
An example of this involves a Dennet 'intuition pump':
There was once a chap who wanted to know the meaning of life, so he walked a thousand miles and climbed to the high mountaintop where the wise guru lived. "Will you tell me the meaning of life?" he asked.
"Certainly," replied the guru, "but if you want to understand my answer, you must first master resursive function theory and mathematical logic."
"Well then . . . skip it."
In other words, TANSTAAFL.
So let's see, let's divide the supernaturalists and naturalists up here:
1. supernaturalists: berengar, serenity blaze, Stephanos, Denise, Essorant, Tim, and jbouder
2. naturalists: Brad
It would be fun to play W. Churchill, "Very well, then alone." But, from my standpoint, it really ain't that big a deal and all the rests of the supernaturalists will disagree with each other anyway.