This thread does not seem very wise. Perhaps there is not God after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgHxmAsINDk

The main thing to know about David Lynch is that he is not only a completely sick minded idiot, but that he's the sort of idiot that other people fall for. Nothing he has ever done was of any value. A sick mind spewed upon the world accepted by fools and money makers.

Downfall; yes.
Tragedy; no.
The Marshall plan was not altruistic but wholly self interested. Nonetheless pay and spend economics do in fact work. In the UK the government spent its way to prosperity by providing homes, health and education to returning soldiers and their new families after WW2.

And we would do well to embrace that once again, rather than this idiotic self defeating Monetarism which causes inequality and snuffs out low end demand, upon which all healthy economies rely. We'll never get rich impoverishing the poor as if they cannot spend then there is no demand.

More billionaires means more poverty, more civil strife and conflict.

Complicity with your community's moral code is your choice. You are not even asking a question here.
It does not matter if you consider morality subjective or objective, you still make daily determination about your behaviour.

If we are contracting in all directions we would have disappeared in a moment. I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here.

" This opens for the possibility that objects or events can possess beauty as a property without necessarily being experienced as beautiful."

No.
Just because two people can agree that an object is beautiful does not mean that beauty is an inherent property of the object, It simply means that two people have an agreed standard.
With the observer, not only is beauty absent, but it is absurd.
By such misconceptions do moralists agree to hang people by their necks on false claims of objectivity.

I would want to know why the aliens are so crazy.

We have inherited millennia of language laced with teleology. Science is descriptive and yet on answering "how", as it should. it tends to conflate how with why, or at least finds the words interchangeable.
For example; why is the sky blue? Ought to be how is it that the sky appears blue, and if the word "how" cannot be used to re-parse any scientific question then it is not really science.

Thus:"Evolutionary theory does indeed answer the question of why things act as they do."
Is really "ET does answer how behaviours emerge in species"

There is no "calculation'. Calculation implies units and measurement. A dog catching a ball is a pure analogue experience where the motion of two things comes together. There is no measurement and no values. Call it what you want, but it is not calculation.

Then the soul can never be self-aware on it's own?
— Harry Hindu

More of my speculation. Self-awareness without external awareness is what we might feel in a dream state. Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about this analogy of death and dreaming. It is an interesting idea to muse over.
This is not speculation. You have not even yet established the meaning, ontology or validity of any claim for the existence of "soul".
As far as I am concerned many people consider soul great music, I'm more on the rock side of the fence.

I would not consider Dancing (Latin and Ballroom),or Tai Chi, as art, though there may be artistry in the performance.
I do sculpture

Taking a short sentence out of context does not aid argumentation.
"God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent.
— charleton

You replied"I don't think power and want are linked in that manner. Perhaps you mean perfection, not omnipotence and that deserves its own thread."

A being with all power can have no needs, as he has all he wants; QED your objection is false.
In the same way omnipresence means that we would all have to be a part of god and not apart from god, BY DEFINITION.
Any argument with "omni-" can only apply to the universe and everything in it, and has no meaning, as there is nothing that is not the universe.BY DEFINITION.

What sort of art projects are you involved in?

I think you fell at the first hurdle. What is god in the first place and what would it mean for a thing to be omnipotent. Surely it would also involve omniscience and omnipresence. Such a thing is the universe, by definition.
But it would seem from evidence that the universe is no conscious or intentional. If it were intentional then it would not be omnipotent as to have an intention is to lack a result. God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. Since it needs no intention, what would it want with consciousness anyway.

Luther had no idea what was coming so is not qualified to answer this question, yet the answer is at hand from the quote. Luther and his gang of priests had the full benefit of having vocal machines do all their work for them, whilst they wasted their time on the idle pursuit of theology with which they overturned society and caused the death of millions across Europe in the succeeding centuries.
It is said that the devil makes work for idle hands, such is the case for religious men both Catholic and Protestant; none of whom did an honest days work their whole lives.

You are not bothering to engage with the argument.
Me four hours ago...
"For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state. In the presence of 'democracy', where the potential for the state to control things more literally, the powerful have managed to use technologies and ideologies of power over the centuries; church, morality, monarchy, aristocracy. divine right of kings, nationalism, racism,... For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods."

BUT SINCE YOU CAN"T READ - I'll stop answering your idiotic responses TROLL moron.

From the start I have said that we do not live in truth but in belief. The difference is the pace of change.

You've not been paying attention.


PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

This is not a response to what I was saying.

In a really important sense all our most cherished beliefs concerning social realities are PT in the sense that they are rely on the acceptance of others around us believing the same stuff. Life outside science relies much on faith. You've only to look at attitudes to money; that curious thing that can be created and destroyed at the touch of a computer button. But even in the says when it was back up with hard metal such as gold or silver, the value of that metal was based on trust.
PT should tell us that hard truth in the social realm is fleeting at best. As for coming up with a new idea; they seem to happen daily.

"Probably it was only a matter of time before the practice of "political spinning" found its way into every crevice of our little world.
Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth."
Spin has always been the case. The only difference now is the speed with which each new thing appears. 1700 years ago the story of Jesus was spun into a state religion. After the fall of Rome tribal loyalties were subsumed and spun into the concept of the Nation State. Race and Class were continually spun by those in control to establish power.
Most of the things we all take for granted are bullshit; "England", "God", "Jew". "Negro". it's all meaningless crap by which we structure our lives.

For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state. In the presence of 'democracy', where the potential for the state to control things more literally, the powerful have managed to use technologies and ideologies of power over the centuries; church, morality, monarchy, aristocracy. divine right of kings, nationalism, racism,... For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods.

We have an obsession with cultural structure. Breakfast is breakfast. We divide raw and cooked; male and female; black and white; gay and straight; dead and alive; up down; left right Forks on the left. Such cultural norms are without reason. 90% of what we think of as real is nothing but myth. It's nice to take step back and be critical; to challenge those norms. This is where progress resides.

"How do we prove PUN to give a solid foundation to induction?
Note1: We only have access to observed events."

Well yes this is 'the problem'. Inductive knowledge is as good as it continuance. When it looks wrong you throw it. Deduction has nothing new in it, so is basically of little use. Induction is all we have to move knowledge forwards.
But there is no "only" about access to observed events. Observed events are everything; if only we would keep to them rather than fill our world's with made up shit we'd be a lot better off.

So you have evidence of immortality? LOL

That's just the problem - I already have.

There is no logical reason to honour a dead body, yet the body is the direct object of perception of those we love, and logic has very little to do with emotional attachment. When my dog died, his fur felt much the same, as he would have had he been sleeping. That body I had such a tactile relationship with.
Here's "Beau" by james Stewart.
He never came to me when I would call
Unless I had a tennis ball,
Or he felt like it,
But mostly he didn't come at all.

When he was young
He never learned to heel
Or sit or stay,
He did things his way.

Discipline was not his bag
But when you were with him things sure didn't drag.
He'd dig up a rosebush just to spite me,
And when I'd grab him, he'd turn and bite me.

He bit lots of folks from day to day,
The delivery boy was his favorite prey.
The gas man wouldn't read our meter,
He said we owned a real man-eater.

He set the house on fire
But the story's long to tell.
Suffice to say that he survived
And the house survived as well.

On the evening walks, and Gloria took him,
He was always first out the door.
The old one and I brought up the rear
Because our bones were sore.

He would charge up the street with Mom hanging on,
What a beautiful pair they were!
And if it was still light and the tourists were out,
They created a bit of a stir.

But every once in a while, he would stop in his tracks
And with a frown on his face look around.
It was just to make sure that the old one was there
And would follow him where he was bound.

We are early-to-bedders at our house--
I guess I'm the first to retire.
And as I'd leave the room he'd look at me
And get up from his place by the fire.

He knew where the tennis balls were upstairs,
And I'd give him one for a while.
He would push it under the bed with his nose
And I'd fish it out with a smile.

And before very long
He'd tire of the ball
And be asleep in his corner
In no time at all.

And there were nights when I'd feel him
Climb upon our bed
And lie between us,
And I'd pat his head.

And there were nights when I'd feel his stare
And I'd wake up and he'd be sitting there
And I reach out my hand and stroke his hair.
And sometimes I'd feel him sigh
And I think I know the reason why.

He would wake up at night
And he would have this fear
Of the dark, of life, of lots of things,
And he'd be glad to have me near.

And Now he's dead.
And there are nights when I think I feel him
Climb upon our bed and lie between us,
And I pat his head.

And there are nights when I think
I feel that stare
And I reach out my hand to stoke his hair,
But he's not there.

Oh, how I wish that wasn't so,
I'll always love a dog named Beau.

Try and THINK about it.
You've not ever asked the question you think you have.

That's all fine, but that is not "soul".

I think you are shooting you self in the foot with your parenthesis; and your evidence is evidence of the things you mention, nothing suggesting a soul at all.

The same goes for you too. If you have a theory of soul then present it. You will get nowhere with childish strawman arguments.
You have all your work to do , to make your neolithic myth look reasonable. Wasting time using strawman arguments is only going to make you look like you are floundering.
If you do not know what one is, then please consult your comments to me above.

Yes but you can blather on and on about your neolithic myths as much as you want. You have no evidence and present a theory that does no work.
You might as well be positing the existence of dragons.

This is a painfully simple answer. Without the unconscious you could never play tennis, a piano or drive a car. What we think of as our conscious perception only sees the immediate past. all the important stuff goes on without our understanding or knowledge. From as something as simple as a handclap appearing simultaneous with the sound of it, our brain tricks our conscious into a simultaneous world, as the sound waves reach the brain at a different time to the sensation of the clap and the sight of it with our eyes.
Were we to have to calculate the trajectory of a tennis ball, or think about each note on the page as we play the piano we would fail to achieve the simplest thing.

You are trying to pretend that I agree with you that nothing follows from perennialism. I'm telling you that your query makes no sense at all.

Science does not explain, it describes. Since there is no such thing as a soul there is nothing to describe here. It's just a feeble minded attempt to produce a theory to avoid death.

Please run along and consult the term "strawman".

"If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept?."
For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in.
"If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept."
The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts for those without the will to think.
8 of if 10 Americans believe in angels.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

"humans" have not improved. In fact I do not think that the species has evolved towards any more intelligence or capability. What has changed is that in the last handful of generations the population has increased, social density and hence the body of knowledge has been communicated and the sum of human knowledge has evolved. But this only really goes back as far as the invention of the printing press which enabled men of thought to join a community of peers across a whole continent, and now the whole world.
Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. Time will only tell if common sense and rationalism can prevail over this new system of communication, or whether we shall enter an idiocracy.