Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.

No, I understood your incorrect point about what i said and positivism. So, the only one strawmanning is you. And I didn't ridicule you; don't be so sensitive.

You're the one expressing Luddite disdain for scientific explanation. So why wouldn't you think angels make airplanes fly?

SSU, of course NK is a threat to China since NK can't be expected to be rationally intimidated by MAD and has less prosperity to lose. They also have much less invested in secondary countries than China.

And England is a terrible parallel, since they have proven themselves legitimate allies.

Sorry, rational science is not positivism. Your disdain for rational science is alarming; you must think angels make airplanes fly.

Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul.

No, it's rational thinking. According to your faulty logic, science is positivism; it's not.

Also, you need to read Comte, you don't know what positivism is.

Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking.

Not that much different, since Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and pushed disastrous coups in Honduras, Libya, and Syria, where she wanted a deathly No- fly zone. She also, unlike the superior candidate Sanders, was pro-fracking, anti single payer, anti-living wage, deaf to the Lakota at DAPL, and decidedly Pro-banks.

Both Republicans and centrist Democrats really love candidates who love to kill foreign brown-skinned people and don't give a damn about the Poor

Your reading is wrong since there is no evidence of anything but the body, including the brain.

The sense of real time and concrete space greatly diminishing does not necessitate a soul in any way. And neurologists have great ideas of what initiates these changes in those states of being.

And Santa Claus brings the presents and babies come from the stork. Like your fairy tale about the soul, there is zero evidence supporting those outlandish stories either...:)

Aristotle found nothing. He theorized a concept of the soul. Big difference.

The only naive one is you with your adolescent occultism. I suggest you go back to playing your Led Zeppelin albums backwards and letting the grownup continue.

The only nonsense is yours, and congrats on ending a polite conversation with it.

The Dems aren't only flirting with fracking, they're fully committed to it and even have fracking donors on the DNC board. Hillary took millions from fracking industries and advocated for fracking while Sec. of state.

And I did make a nuanced case with all my points and you just conveniently ignored. Considering Obama had 26000 bombs total dropped on Syria, Libya and Yemen last year--Yemen for the horrid Saudis, and Obama and Hillary backed disastrous coups in Honduras, Libya, and Syria

So I won't be reading any more of your delusional partisan posts

And there really are major similarities between centrist Dems and GOP now:

1. Both pro-war, particularly pro-imperialistic coups and bombing campaigns
2. Both pro-banks and think the banks broke no laws in08
3. Both anti Medicaid-for-All which would give coverage to everyone
4. Both opposed to a living wage minimum wage
5. Both pro-fracking
6. Both didn't care abou the tragedy still DAPL because their candidates didn't
7. Both are fine with weapons deals and other shady business with the horrid Saudi Arabia regime and with their candidates profiting off it, but not the opposing sides candidate doing so.

But I just showed you how it's not very different and you didn't counter any of my points. So how do you see there being a great difference?

No. it's not, not at all. It's based on the well-supported assumption it hasn't been found yet in a world that has been well-scanned by near-exhaustive means.

However, feel free to back up your unfounded assumption a natural soul could be present in our natural world without being found.

I define supernatural as it is defined. Go look it up. And since nobody has found the soul in nature or through natural means, it's either supernatural or nonexistent. You're free to show how it could be otherwise.

That's a good summary of the two groups, but MSNBC is definitely closing the gap on Fox as Comcast has given them a clear centrist, corporatist, warmongering agenda. To support that, they have:

1. Either ignored the Sanders campaign or had Maddow spread the unfounded lie of his supporters throwing chairs in Nevada.

2. Ignored the DNC primary rigging story, as well as the DAPL debacle or any story inconvenient to Hillarys campaign.

3. Unquestioningly supported the war on Syria. Which has ravaged the country and emboldened and empowered ISIs

4. Religiously and excessively fixated on the still unfounded Russia conspiracy theory to the detriment of more urgent and pressing domestic and foreign issues.

It's not just Trump supporters, not even close. Hillary supporters would deny the inconvenient reality of the DNC rigging the primary for her, even with the DNC and Brazil's emails staring them in the face.

What else would they consider? God? And scientists used to not know why electrons or singularities behave the way they do. That just necessitates insufficiency of present knowledge, not a supernatural cause.

Merriam-Webster has examples going back to 1890.

I'm sure they do, but I was referring to its current form Streetlight mentioned and MSM fomented.

Cool.

Science had one and only one thing, the Schrodinger equation that provides a probabilistic prediction for the location of the "electron". All interpretations of quanta are metaphysical in nature.

No, science had and has many things. And you haven't even established all is quanta, so how it is interpreted is moot.

Qualia is the essence of human existence (as opposed to abstract mathematical equations or linguistics) and it is what everyone experiences throughout their lives

No, it's not, and you haven't shown it is.

That Scientism, the religious belief in science, attempts to corral all of human existence in an "illusion" pretty much puts it in the realm Hinduism, with a similar caste system.

Correct belief in science, as I have shown, is not Scientism.

The actually process by which Scientism and Hinduism arrive at the same conclusion is pretty much the same - belief in some supernatural forces (e.g. Natural Laws, Maya) that govern our existence and create this illusion.

The only one who has shown belief in supernatural forces so far has been you.

There is no scientific evidence for anything relating to the nature of life. It is a metaphysical.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for anything relating to the nature of life, which is not metaphysical.

And there is also much evidence for the persistence if memory, i.e. habitual activity in the universe

There is no evidence for the human concept of memory in the universe.

This was brought home to me quite clearly after having a few discussions with those who used the term 'fake news' unironically. If you actually talk to these people, it's quite clear that 'fake news' has nothing or very little to do with 'news that is not factual'. It simply has to do with 'news they don't like/does not represent their worldview'. 'Fake' in the phrase 'fake news' quite literally does not mean what you or I mean when we say 'fake' (i.e. unture, unfactual). It means something else entirely (thus liberals who reply that such and such news story really is true miss the point entirely).

The problem with this differentiation is the "fake news" term was first started by the often-lie spreading MSM to try and discredit not only joke right wing sites like Breitbart, but also legitimate progressive sites like Intercept and Counterpunch. They did this because those sites brought up facts about the DNC's rigging of the primary; shady dealings in the Clinton foundation; the horrors of America's policies in Syria, Libya, and Yemen; and the holes in the Russia conspiracy theories. So, when MSM--WaPO in particular, CNN, MSNBC, and NYT--coined and tried to foment the term "fake news," they were doing exactly what you those people you complained about did. They weren't complaining about actual falsehood--except in the Breitbart, Alex Jones cases--they were complaining about the revelation of actual news they didn't like and was inconvenient to their narrative.

1) No one can say what is the nature of quanta and energy. It is all subject to interpretation and quanta phenomenon (such as entanglement and noon-locality) had been observed at the molecule level. Thus there are many unknowns regarding the stuff off nature of nature that can only be discussed philosophically.

Physicists can. The fact you accept the terms as separate shows you acknowledge someone can say what their nature is.

2) Science had no explanation what's so ever regarding qualia which is pretty much fundamental to human experiential existence.

Qualia is an abstract human concept; so science need not explain it or even accept it exists.

1) There is no duality in nature. Everything is made of the same stuff with different substantially.

So, you do think people can say what is the nature of quanta and energy; you just think it's only you. Sorry, the scientists are a bit more qualified.

2) Everything is fundamentally mind that grows along a substantiality spectrum starting with quanta, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc.

No, there is no scientific or factual foundation supporting this.

It is this persistence if memory that we might call a soul.

Since you've spread the definition to the entire universe, we can't call it an individual soul.

Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.

its also to the great benefit of China, so you're not even reading my posts. And they are a significant threat to China, both because of nukes and erratic leader and their being much more Communist than China.

And your second paragraph neither counters nor addresses my post.

Quote seemed relevant to the thread, e.g.

[...] unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true
— Sagan

Not really, since Sagan was just making a personal prediction and many people distinguish between what feels good and what feels true. In fact, since you think his post is true, you were trying to do it yourself.

It certainly doesn't establish our present world as a "Post-Truth" one.

Sagan got it. :)

He got many things, he just didn't quite get our present.

Carl Sagan, 1996.

Care to make a point about an astronomer's prognostications, Jorndoe?

We can certainly learn something about a person by virtue of paying attention to whether or not they follow the same standards that they expect others to meet.

The lady doth protest too loudly.

The only lady is you, and you just protested very loudly...:)

The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold"...

That gave me a nice chuckle... out loud even.

I'm sure it did. It's clear language baffles you...:)

If post-truth world means to denote American society after the truth-as-belief has taken hold and is now several generations deep.

The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold" in America or anywhere and was never several generations deep, so there is no different "Post-Truth" world following it.

Which is merely to say, that many more now use the term "truth" as a synonym for that which one believes to be the case(belief) than did prior to the rise of American pragmatism and postmodernism.

This is more erroneous conjecture Creative throws our there with no specific facts backing it up, as if everybody is just supposed to take his delusions at his word.

Of course, that is not the way that the notion is being used in the American news media.

The news media's notion of a "Post-Truth" world is as unfounded and in-supported as Creative's

Due to what I've seen for myself regarding folk from all walks of life, it seems that a common misunderstanding of what truth is and the role it plays is shared by most... unfortunately.

We've always had this common misunderstanding in the world. That doesnt' make this a post-Truth world.

The saddest part, to me at least, is that not everyone is capable of knowing better, and many of those that are perpetuate the misunderstanding of those that aren't.

The saddest part is people perpetuating the myth of us living in a Post-Truth world, even when its clear we're not.

There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true.

There has always been a sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought belief being bandied about, so this isn't a different "Post-truth"" world. And MSM is making a lot of false statements and mistruths as well.

There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem.

This big problem has always been the case, too.

Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion.

This describes most of media as it has been since corporations began taking over in the 70's. So, not only does this not point to a "Post-Truth" world, it would be wrong to make it applicable only to Trump's presidency.

Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.

This is a nonsensical, unfounded rant entirely free of any specificity to support it.

The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so

Another rant of pure conjecture with no specific facts to support it. Creaive sure likes to share his personal fantasies.

All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.

This rambling is just too incoherent to read. However, again, it clearly has no specific facts. Creaive really believes people should just take him at his word.

And I asked you a simple question to provide evidence to back up your claim. You clearly can't do so.

And you would have to back it up for state to state now. We both know you can't, So, when you provide evidence, I'll respond to you. If you don't, you'll just have proven you have none and I'll move on.

What kind of evidence?

Sorry, Creative. You either don't know what evidence means, or you have no evidence to back up your claim. I think most will go with the latter.

So, they never taught you English either? You have my sympathies.

Showing evidence that that is actually the main curriculum in our public education system. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out.

It is not the curriculum and you haven't shown it is. It's just another one of your delusions.