This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found".
— Janus

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.

Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital.

So you have evidence of immortality? LOL

Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital. — John Harris

Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.

Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really. ]

Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.

An analogy can be made between 'soul' and 'body' as being like the relationship of 'meaning' and 'letters'.

Symbols - like the letters this sentence consist of - are material objects. They're pixels on a screen, or lines on paper, and so on. But the meaning of those symbols can't be understood in those terms. Meaning requires judgement and interpretation, and those are always internal to thought itself. And meaning can be expressed in many different forms - different languages, different symbolic systems - whilst retaining its identity. So, a sentence may be translated into different languages, or transformed into different symbolic forms, but still retain the same meaning; which demonstrates that the meaning and the physical form are different.

A materialist will counter that the meaning is encoded in brain cells or neural patterns. But the point is, to demonstrate this alleged fact, also requires judgement. 'Look here', a materialist will say, 'this neural pattern means that the idea is "in the brain" '. But that, too, is a judgement, whereby the data is said to support a particular interpretation. But there have been many doubts cast on the notion that through analysis of neural imagery, one can ascertain the 'mechanism of meaning' in the brain; even though materialists would like to say this is something that has been done, we're still far from it.

Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point. — John Harris

Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found. — John Harris

you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.

It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.

This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found". — Janus


Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being. — Locks

Can you explain how the assumption that everything that is "natural;" is capable of being found is supported? Really the assumption at work here is an even stronger one: that everything that is "natural" must be capable of being found. If this is meant to be an analytic definition of "natural", (along the lines of 'everything that is a bachelor must be single') then that would capture only one dimension of the term.

On that definition the existence of things that do not qualify as "natural" cannot be ruled out. In addition to that we would need to define what it means for something to be "found". It seems obvious that in the context of this discussion 'found' means to be 'observed by means of the senses' and/or 'inferred as forces that can be mathematically or quantitatively modeled to explain what is observed by the senses'.

Taking the example of the OP, the question of the existence of souls, then according to the circular definition outlined above, souls if they existed, cannot be natural. but what if we define 'exist' as 'being natural' or 'being capable of being found'? Now we would be circumscribing possibilities to suit our own definitions; we would be defining terms such that it would not be possible for souls to exist. Can 'what is what' rightly be decided by definitional fiat, or is this not a huge presumption?

On the other hand if human beings are ensouled; in other words if the notion that they are is metaphysically robust, then to be ensouled would be an essential part of human nature; and hence souls would have to be natural. The notion of the soul is not, and arguably has never seriously been, a notion of something that can be found "found" by the senses, or inferred in a mathematical or thermodynamic context.

I think it should be acknowledged by both proponents and opponents of the idea of souls that their attitudes merely reflect their own subjective preferences and assumptions; that is they merely reflect the worldviews they have come to accept for multitudes of reasons; not all, or even most of those reasons, being by any means purely rational.

I have evidence of persistent memory.

Can you please have a heart to heart with your Laws of Nature and tell them that my Laws of Nature and suggest to them that it is still to try to change anything that is determined by itself. Such a conversation may reveal to yourself how preposterous is your metaphysics.

On the other hand, I am presenting real mind, real memory, real evidence of persistent memory without resorting to some supernatural God-like forces that take over us and determine everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen - including your dogmatic, religious-like belief in such forces.

Now, exactly why are you trying to change anyone's mind if it is what the Natural Laws dictate? Are you going to tell me it is because the Natural Laws that you worship wishes you to do so? Did you ever ask your professors what Natural Laws create disagreement?

That's why something being actually found is vital. — John Harris

Which, again, is positivism.

Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.
— John Harris

Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.

No, I pointed out far much more than that; I'm sorry you're having reading problems. So, the only pointless words were all yours.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.
— John Harris

you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.

It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.

No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.

That's why something being actually found is vital.
— John Harris

Which, again, is positivism.

Which, again, is not, and you haven't backed up that claim in any way. I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.
— Locks

Can you explain how the assumption that everything that is "natural;" is capable of being found is supported?

The better question is can you explain your erroneous assumption that something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things? If you can, you could win a Nobel prize. You've made pretty clear you can't.

I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is. — John Harris

I'm sure I'm not the only participant here who notices that your typical modus operandi is to mock, belittle and condescend to anyone who tries to interact with you. But regardless, almost every statement you have made in this thread has been textbook positivism, along the lines of 'if 'the soul' was real, then science would have found it, and as science hasn't found it, then it must not be real'. Then, when this is pointed out, you deny that it is positivism, by saying that those who point it out 'don't know what positivism is'. I can assure you, I know that, and you're advocating it. It's open and shut.

I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.
— John Harris

I'm sure I'm not the only participant here who notices that your typical modus operandi is to mock, belittle and condescend to anyone who tries to interact with you.

Whatever other participants say is irrelevant. That's your modus operandi you described as I didn't mock or belittle you and the only one who has been condescending is you, just saying I'm wrong without backing it up in any way.

Thanatos has no soul.

But regardless, almost every statement you have made in this thread has been textbook positivism, along the lines of 'if 'the soul' was real, then science would have found it, and as science hasn't found it, then it must not be real'.

And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism, failing to back your false claims in any way. Nothing I've said has been textbook (or any) positivism; everything you've said has been absurdism. And until you actually back up your false claims, absurdism they will remain.

Thanatos has no soul.

I have a deep soul. Buxtebuddha has no soul and no cerebellum.

Deep like the pits of hell?

The better question is can you explain your erroneous assumption that something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things? — John Harris

I haven't assumed that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". I have not assumed anything either way but have instead eschewed assumption and allowed for the possibility that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". There certainly seem to be some careless readers here!

Also you tendentious phrase " all the exhaustive means" is just the senses, and explanatory inference, as I already explained.

↪John Harris Deep like the pits of hell?

No, deep like your nether regions...:)

And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism, — John Harris

OK to ease your soul, here are a few examples of Thanatos Sand/John Harris advocating positivism.

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. — Thanatos Sand

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. — Thanatos Sand

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. — Thanatos Sand

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. — Thanatos Sand

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. — Thanatos Sand

All of these are textbook cases of 'verificationism' which is fundamental to positivism.

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics.

this is exactly what you're saying throughout this thread, and the only defense you can offer, is that you're not, actually, saying it. You can't even own your own statements.

I have not assumed anything either way but have instead eschewed assumption and allowed for the possibility that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". There certainly seem to be some careless readers here!

The only careless reading has been yours. I read and addressed your posts well and clear. And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. If you can't do that, your correction was just trolling.

Also you tendentious phrase " all the exhaustive means" is just the senses, and explanatory inference, as I already explained.

My phrase wasn't tendentious at all; I suggest you go look up the words. And no, we have many means besides the senses in those exhaustive means. I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.

And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism,
— John Harris

OK to ease your soul, here are a few examples of Thanatos Sand/John Harris advocating positivism.

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.
— Thanatos Sand

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.
— Thanatos Sand

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.
— Thanatos Sand

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.
— Thanatos Sand

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.
— Thanatos Sand

All of these are textbook cases of 'verificationism':

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics.

this is exactly what you're saying throughout this thread, and the only defense you can offer, is that you're not, actually, saying it. You can't even own your own statements.

LOL. Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been.

And now you're throwing out verificationism at me without backing it up as well. I'm sorry, Wayfarer, but children pick out philosophical terms and erroneously throw them at people. Adults actually use them correctly and back up their usage. I suggest you finally join the latter.

And I don't have to make a defense against false statements you fail to back up. And the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right.

My reasoning is such:

If persistence of a life is known via memory of oneself (as well as memory of others) over a duration, then similar persistent memory might provide evidence of a persistent "soul".

Hence, the evidence that inherited traits, innate skills, unusual talents (e.g. child prodigies, idiot savants, as well as any advanced talent) might provide evidence of this persistent soulful memory. How would such soulful memory persist? In exactly the same way as any memory persists.

Memory is very natural, not measurable, but integral too everyone's inner experience of life.

the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right. — John Harris

>:O This might go into my quotes section on my profile, for real.

Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been. — John Harris

You're not even capable of owning your own statements or making an argument for them. All you can do when challenged is resort to insults.

Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been. — John Harris
You're not even capable of owning your own statements or making an argument for them. All you can do when challenged is resort to insults. — Wayfarer

No, that's you as you make no arguments for none of your statements. I own up to all my statements, just not your nonsensical claims their positivist. Sorry.

Now actually back up your claims with support from Comte and real Positivism or move on. You've just been wasting everybody's time.

No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point. — John Harris

and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.

i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.

so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.

And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. — John Harris

So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???

I don't have to show how something natural that might not be capable of being found could avoid being found, because I haven't claimed any such thing exists, merely that it might exist. If it did exist it would be impossible in principle, obviously, to demonstrate how it could avoid being found, because in order to do so you would first have to find it; which is a contradiction. So, don't ask for the impossible, and pretend that my inability to do so in any way supports your contentions. I am now not even sure what your position is, since you seem now to be inconsistently claiming that you allow for the same possibility that I do (which if it were true would make your initial disagreement with me totally senseless).

I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar. — John Harris

What are those if not mechanical extensions of the senses?