Sal2: No supernatural explanation for anything has yet been found to be verifiably true. By anyone. Please furnish an empirically verified counterexample, or admit that all you have is snark totally bereft of substance on this point.

I didn’t imply anything to the contrary. All I said was that MN says “pretend that N is true.” ON says “assume that N is true”. There is a difference, but psychologically, it isn’t always that big.

Sal2: You cannot deny that belief in purely supernatural entities such as ghosts persists in some civilized quarters, whereas nobody much in the civilized world believes in empirical-footprint entities such as werewolves or vampires any more. But indeed, belief in ghosts has died in many such quarters, due to a dearth of empirical evidence. Witches, on the other hand, are real, but they don’t do supernatural things; they do quite natural things, and in fact, they reverence the immanent divinity of nature (Wiccans are pantheists at heart, the God and Goddess are only mediating lenses by means of which the otherwise ineffable Divine may be apprehended in human terms).
I said “witchCRAFT” (ie the emprical efficacy of spells and suchlike) not WITCHES. Witches certainly exist. In any event, allofthis is empirically investigable and investigated. Some of it is thought to be supernatural. Handwaving aside, the supernatural is eminently investigable by science. You were wrong, next topic please.

Neither is whalesong dependent upon human existence, and some perceive melodies in it, while others do not. And black holes - are they stars or not? It depends upon who you ask. But the melodies in question can be heard; they are produced by actual instruments, they flow through real atmosphere, they impact upon authentic eardrums. So the pattern that moves from instrument through air to ear can only be described as nothing more than a mere mental state by the certifiably solipsistic.

Hey, I agree. But you were yhe one who said that a. memes are causal, unitary entities and b. that they are subjective states. If a melody is in general defineable (you said it wasn’t), then it isn’t simply a subjective state. If a star isn’t in general defineable, then you aren’t talking to a scientist. Pick your poison, bucko. The options for you don’t look good.

You know, Tullibardine is a damn fine highland malt.