Hello David. I believe that it was Auguste Comte who is considered the "father" of positivism. He is the one who is quoted: "the brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile." Cheers.

Fair enough, I accept that. And quantum is where I stop being able to say anything. Though I don't understand quantum mechanics to necessarily contradict determinism.

I'll defer to the experts on this.

Alright, then. If I were a materialist, I would highly value the thoughts/opinions of one of the world's most intelligent and knowledgeable materialists concerning topics on materialism. I wouldn't completely dismiss them, as if they were the opinions of some random guy posting on the internet.

He is a theoretical physicist not a philosopher of mind. Thus, I take him very seriously when he talks about cosmology and particles, but I am not particularly interested in what he has to say about the philosophy of mind. Nor am I sure why I should be interested in the opinion of a smart materialist, because he is a materialist.

And so you must also think that Hawkings creates a caricature of his own by describing us as biological machines. If you want to accuse us of caricaturing, then apply the accusation consistently.

It seems to me that Hawking makes a greedy reduction. It is rather silly to attempt to evaluate Hawking's position from one quote. You and Stacy do engage in caricature, because you assume that materialism implies simplistic reductionism.

And yes, I do think materialism implies reductionism. Otherwise, as I quoted Bedau above, things become "uncomfortably like magic".

Prove it then. You haven't even offered an argument. The truth is not subservient to Bedau's (whoever that is) comfort.

No, it is his position. I happen to think he is wrong.

Alright, then. If I were a materialist, I would highly value the thoughts/opinions of one of the world's most intelligent and knowledgeable materialists concerning topics on materialism. I wouldn't completely dismiss them, as if they were the opinions of some random guy posting on the internet.

The caricature comes in when you and Stacy claim that materialism implies reductionism.

And so you must also think that Hawkings creates a caricature of his own by describing us as biological machines. If you want to accuse us of caricaturing, then apply the accusation consistently.

And yes, I do think materialism implies reductionism. Otherwise, as I quoted Bedau above, things become "uncomfortably like magic".

No, it is his position. I happen to think he is wrong. Am I going to as a Theoretical Physicist about the philosophy of mind or am I going to ask philosophers and psychologists?

I am not sure why we are arguing about a quote from a book that I haven't read. I can't comment on Hawking's thoughts without giving the justice of actually reading them. The caricature comes in when you and Stacy claim that materialism implies reductionism. So stop dodging and show your work.

Edit: or you could just admit that you made to strong of a statement. happens all the time.

Do you think Hawking's "biological machines" description is also simply a caricature? If so, why would Hawking caricaturize a position that he holds, in his own book (The Grand Design)?

I'm not sure what I am supposed to gather from a list of quotes from Stephen Hawking. I noticed one quote in which Hawking says:

A study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.

I hesitate to critique an argument without reading its source. I am not even sure where this quote originates from. However, judging only by this quote, it seems that Hawking not only assumes reductionism, but uses greedy reductionism.
This is why you need to show that materialism implies reductionism. You can't just assume it. Otherwise your restatement of the materialist position is simply caricature.

Show your work.

I don't have to, because if you clicked on the link I provided in my previous post and searched "biological machines", you would see that Stephen Hawking already did the work for me. So apparently you disagree with Stephen Hawking with his argument that we are merely biological machines. It is now your turn to show your work and explain why you think Stephen Hawking is wrong.

Actually, you are claiming that materialism implies reductionism. You are not only claiming that materialism implies reductionism, but some caricature of reductionism. "Atoms colliding" is a caricature of reductionism. If you think that materialism implies reductionism please show your work. It is not at all obvious to me.

Would you think it's a disingenuous straw man if instead we labeled humans as "biological machines"? I mean, what is a machine other than mechanical parts obeying the laws of physics?

Now you are saying that materialism implies determinism. Show your work.

I don't think it's disingenuous at all if the point of that phrase is that there is nothing more than physical matter and laws.

Would you think it's a disingenuous straw man if instead we labeled humans as "biological machines"? I mean, what is a machine other than mechanical parts obeying the laws of physics?