Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Mudhammam]

The problem is, I think, that unless the distinction is more clearly defined and demonstrated, we're merely arguing semantics, describing the phenomena of experience in a manner--on the one hand--that tries to appreciate the notion of objective facts, and on the other, that seeks to reduce them to merely esoteric symbols, symbols that offer no predictive value or shed light on uncharted territory of human experience. What justification do we have for extending spiritual experiences beyond the physical when the only widely accepted definition of a supernatural occurrence is that which eludes critical examination?

Substitute the word mental for spiritual, and it leads back to the original post. And yes it is a matter of semantics in the truest sense of the word. The question is about how significance can supervene on physical processes. The meaning of signs and symbols have absolutely no objective relationship with the form or medium of the signs themselves. Abacus beads have no inherent meaning until a knowing subject assigns them meanings. Nor do arrangements of LED lights on a screen. And when I say the same about the fully physical states of the brain it is completely consistent with the relationship between signs and significance with all other physical systems. Materialist make an exception for brains without any evidence for a mechanism that defines the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. That's what they call special pleading.

Well, I think materialists can agree with you that there is an element of mystery involved. My problem is filling that mystery with inferences that I find arbitrary and unhelpful. I don't think it is special pleading to make an exception for brains, in terms of being the original Unmeant Meaners, because clearly this appears to be the case in Darwinian processes--in building complex neural structures, a semblance of significance begins to to emerge, and I think there are many plausible "Just-So Stories" relating to the concept of self and the development of language that explains just how this might come about. This gradual awareness of the self, of symbols and meaning, is evident in humans, along with other primates, such as chimps, and probably even dolphins and pigs, to name a few. And of course, in our own development we "witness" its arrival from "nothingness" first hand, from birth to early infancy, childhood to adulthood. So certainly brains have evolved with a special capacity for creating significance, and the human brain is by far the best at it. Why or how that occurs, I don't see how we're equipped to seek out anything but naturalistic answers, which is why I think materialists are correct in citing them, even if they ultimately turn out to be wrong (which we will only discover through more scientific ingenuity)

I'm not sure if you ever saw my long address to you, regarding similar lines, back on page 8, but I don't think you ever responded to it. Or I just missed it. But it largely addresses this, though in particular regards to your criticisms of reductionism.