How'd you know I wrote that wiki article?? :-O

I never said you did, but I know the absurd inundates your grey matter... ;)

Some of my favorite art. Truly profound:

Not exactly my taste, but it definitely shows artistic vision.

Thanks for sharing that, Noble Truth.

Noble Truth. — John Harris

:-O You're welcome.

"You may have noticed that Thanatos imagines himself to be the Defender-Of-Science."

You may have noticed that Michael Ossipoof is making lame personal attacks, which makes him a troll. — John Harris

John Harris is Thanatos Sand, right? Who else could sound so much like Thanatos Sand?


I'd said:

...wanting to apply science outside of its legitimate range of applicability--the workings of this physical world and the interactions of its parts.

...trying to make science into a metaphysics, or even a religion.

John/Thanatos says:

I never did either of these things, and Ossipoff the troll didn't show I did.

Really? Here's a quote that I got from someone else:

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

That's a hilarious example of trying to apply science outside of its legitmate range of applicability. An example of a belief that science decides metaphysical questions. An example of trying to make science into a metaphysics or a religion.

Science is valid within its range of applicability. To try to apply it outside that range is pseudoscience--something regrettably common on Internet forums.

I'm not claiming that there's a soul, but the claim that, if there were one, it would have been detected by science is hilarious.

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

Actually, scientists admit that they don't know what dark matter and dark energy are. They don't claim to have "done a prettiy good job of explaining" them.

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

No, it's pseudoscience.

Science and the laws of physics attempt to describe the physical world. That's all they attempt to describe, explain or answer about

Except when a pseudoscientist like Thanatos gets on the subject, and seems to believe that they have metaphysical authority.

Michael Ossipoff

John Harris is Thanatos Sand, right? — Michael Ossipoff

Correct

Except when a pseudoscientist like Thanatos gets on the subject, and seems to believe that they have metaphysical authority. — Michael Ossipoff

>:O >:O

god, I'm starting to sound like

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. — Thanatos Sand

First the discussion is about the possibility of soul being natural, and then you jump to the idea that it is chemical? Sure.

Also, there are stars, planets and moons we haven't found, does this mean they are supernatural or don't exist?

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that i'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts. — John Harris

Quite an assumption.

That's a hilarious example of trying to apply science outside of its legitmate range of applicability

I did no such thing, since if people are saying the soul is natural, I was using their own range of applicability, and even if there is a soul, it has no clear range of applicability. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

As for the rest of your post, it was as incoherent as the rest of yours and not even worth addressing. And I won't address any more of your (always erroneous/incoherent posts) on this thread.

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.
— Thanatos Sand

First the discussion is about the possibility of soul being natural, and then you jump to the idea that it is chemical? Sure.

The chemical is natural and vice versa. I'm sorry you didn't take any science classes in high school. Erroneous smugness is no compensation...:)

Also, there are stars, planets and moons we haven't found, does this mean they are supernatural or don't exist?

I never said those couldn't--unlike the soul--be found. Reading classes may be a glaring lack as well. I suggest you read better if that's not the case.

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that i'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts.
— John Harris

Quite an assumption.

It's no assumption and you haven't shown that it is. Again, erroneous smugness is not an argument.

Everything chemical is natural (within the context, to stop any nit picking beforehand), but not vice versa.

I don't recall anyone saying that soul couldn't be found, you just jumped to the conclusion that it hasn't been found and therefore can't be found.

If you start with the premise that Christ doesn't exist - against which I won't argue because it's irrelevant - your comparison isn't a valid one. Also any claim is an assumption until proven and as there is no consensus on His existence you can't claim your stance to be a fact.

Thanatos Sand didn't 'forget your password.' Thanatos Sand is banned, 'John Harris' is a sock puppet account, you're a troll, pure and simple, nobody here ought to respond to your posts, until you're banned again, which is imminent.

John Harris Everything chemical is natural (within the context, to stop any nit picking beforehand), but not vice versa.

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one natural entity that isn't chemical. We both know you can't.

I don't recall anyone saying that soul couldn't be found, you just jumped to the conclusion that it hasn't been found and therefore can't be found.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you.

If you start with the premise that Christ doesn't exist - against which I won't argue because it's irrelevant - your comparison isn't a valid one.

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you.

Also any claim is an assumption until proven and as there is no consensus on His existence you can't claim your stance to be a fact.

Of course there's consensus on his existence, the consensus of the scientific world and the consensus of most of the world that doesn't believe in him. And I no more have to establish Christ's existence isn't a fact than I have to establish angels arent' a fact. Sorry.

John Harris Thanatos Sand didn't 'forget your password.' Thanatos Sand is banned, 'John Harris' is a sock puppet account, you're a troll, pure and simple, nobody here ought to respond to your posts, until you're banned again, which is imminent.

Yes, I did forget my password and explained it to, and cleared it with, Baden, who has erased the Thanatos Sand account. And since I never hid the fact who I was, and the Thanatos Sand account no longer exists, this isn't a sockpuppet account. And you're being a troll, pure and simple.

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one thing natural that isn't chemical. We both know you can't. — John Harris

Are hypothetical examples ok? If not, I could take anything from the fields of social sciences which you can theoretically explain with chemistry but no one does for obvious reasons.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you. — John Harris

So you made a false assumption and everyone else made the mistake of not noticing it and attacking other parts of your arguments. The point still stands, "hasn't been found" does not equal "can't be found".

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you. — John Harris

The comparison between two things of which one exists and other one doesn't is not a valid one, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't take it as a premise that soul doesn't exist either.

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one thing natural that isn't chemical. We both know you can't.
— John Harris

Are hypothetical examples ok? If not, I could take anything from the fields of social sciences which you can theoretically explain with chemistry but no one does for obvious reasons.

Natural entities arent' hypothetical examples, you know that perfectly well and just cant come up with any examples. Thanks for proving I was right.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you.
— John Harris

So you made a false assumption and everyone else made the mistake of not noticing it and attacking other parts of your arguments. The point still stands, "hasn't been found" does not equal "can't be found".

No, I made no false assumption since nobody, including you, has shown that it is false, and I showed they havent' again above. You're clearly just trolling now, so I wont be responding to any more of your posts.

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you.
— John Harris

The comparison between two things of which one exists and other one doesn't is not a valid one, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't take it as a premise that soul doesn't exist either.

No, it absolutely was a valid one in the context I used it, and you haven't shown otherwise. And I, and others, can take it as a premise the soul doesnt' exist just as one can take it as a premise God doesn't. You need to get better at this, even if you are just trolling. So, good bye, I won't even be reading your next posts.

Natural entities arent' hypothetical examples, you know that perfectly well and just cant come up with any examples. Thanks for proving I was right. — John Harris

Is reading that hard for you?

If not — BlueBanana

just as one can take it as a premise God doesn't. — John Harris

... this is a fucking joke, right? No they can't while discussing the existence of God.

I won't even be reading your next posts. — John Harris

We both know this to be a lie.

Shall we make a straw poll on which one of us is the troll?

this is a fucking joke, right? No they can't while discussing the existence of God. — BlueBanana

John Harris makes the judgement "X does not exist because X's existence has not been scientifically proven", then proceeds to discuss the question of whether X exists by asserting this bias. I've been trying to explain to John Harris that this is nothing more than prejudice, without any progress.

And It is absolute nonsensical and hilarious that you compare the directions for finding something that someone theorized to directions to an already-physically discovered river. — John Harris

When someone gives you directions for finding the river named "X", how would you know whether that river exists or not?

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that I'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts. — John Harris

This is exactly the prejudice I am talking about. You decide "X does not exist". You have no justification for this decision. You decline and deride anyone's directions as to how to find X by referring to your prejudice "X does not exist".

And now you're saying your parents are no more real than a non-proven soul.. — John Harris

Correct, my parents' existence as living beings is dependent on them having a soul. To prove that they exist, I must refer to the soul. "Exists" is the most general predicate. I say my father was a man. A man is an animal. An animal is a living being. I want to prove that a living being, my father, "exists", but I need to account for the gap between animate and inanimate existence. So a soul is assumed, and this allows me to say that my father exists, regardless of whether he is dead, because his existence is other than as an inanimate physical object. Does your scientism give you something better? How would you prove that your long dead ancestors are real? Please adhere to your insisted principles, that theory cannot prove existence.

Are you a physical being? — Anonymys

I guess this is the crux of the question for anyone interested in exploring who they are.

When I touch myself, I feel something solid. But physics tells us they we are not solid, but empty. That there are no boundaries anywhere. So how does the transformation from the insubstantial to the substantial take place? There is no explanation.

Further exploration reveals that we are fundamentally qualia: memories of emotions, images, feelings, thoughts, ideas. These are all insubstantial. There is nothing substantial there. Again, no explanation.

And even more inviting to exploration is the rather interesting changes of states that we go through during a given day, from awake, to contemplation, to daydreaming, to sleep. Where or what is the impetus for the becoming and transitions into these states, which feel completely different?

Because of all this, I have taken the position that we are fundamentally memory with will and creative drive that is imbued with qualia. All of this appears to be fundamental and irreducible. And if this is so, then we are not physical/solid subject to dissolution but rather some form of energy that appears to persist in some form that cycles between sleep/awake, and through these cycles we evolve.

I've been trying to explain to John Harris that this is nothing more than prejudice, without any progress. — Metaphysician Undercover

So then question arises, what is the point?

To learn means to be open to new ideas. Some will learn more than others in this lifetime and others may learn in future lifetimes. There is no rush. We are all different. The problem with academic Western Philosophy (there are economic reasons), is that its whole premise is that there is a truth, and we have to convince others of the truth. This is the raison d'etre for academic Western Philosophy.

I take a different approach (which is why I received an A and not an A+ in my college philosophy courses). I study philosophy to learn not to teach.

The problem with academic Western Philosophy (there are economic reasons), is that its whole premise is that there is a truth, and we have to convince others of the truth. This is the raison d'etre for academic Western Philosophy. — Rich

Philosophy is the love of knowledge, it is a manifestation of the desire to know. I do not see a necessity to convince others, like you do. But involved with the desire to know is the necessity of discourse with others. The act of considering another person's ideas, assessing them, and laying out one's own ideas for comparison and assessment is all a part of philosophy.

I believe, the idea that we have to convince others of the truth is a misrepresentation of philosophy. The desire to know indicates that one does not believe oneself to have the truth and therefore a true philosopher could not believe oneself capable of convincing another of the truth.

I believe, the idea that we have to convince others of the truth is a misrepresentation of philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was careful to say academic philosophy for a reason. Certainly there are many ways to approach philosophy without concern to truths but rather with the idea that there is much to learn.

It was via online philosophy forums that I was introduced to Bergson, Whitehead, Sheldrake, and Robbins. If there are new ideas about the nature of the soul, I would love to hear them.

↪ssu 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? — Thanatos Sand

Lol.

Not only didn't you understand my point (and continue to do so), but also you just made my point that "the word has too much religious baggage and hence people will frown it's use and avoid the term".

That my point, that it's a useful word to describe, to be a metaphor, of the part of man which enables him to think and which renders him a conscious subject, is so objectional to you that you accuse me of being hostile to science as a luddites were to machines, simply shows this religious baggage of the word. Anybody talking of a "soul" has to be religious and anti-science! I thus must believe that angels make airplanes fly!

Well, using a metaphor doesn't actually mean anything of one's religious views. So if someone uses word like "speaking from the heart" he or she likely doesn't have any misconceptions of how the human body works, yet people do understand the metaphor and what he or she is implying. (Or hopefully understand)

And I guess you don't find the philosophy of science important either. Who needs it? Because we have science, right?

Many who say so, who "believe in science" but have a "disdain for philosophy" are basically are positivists, yet are likely ignorant about being perfect examples the school of the philosophy. They see themselves not followers of any philosophy, but someone who only believe in the scientific method! The facts! Nothing else!

(And before you start, I will say I believe in science and think that the scientific method is the only way for science)

I did no such thing, since if people are saying the soul is natural — John Harris

In your usage, "supernatural" is the same as "nonphysical", and so, for you then, "natural", must mean "physical" :D

Newsflash: When someone said that the soul is natural, they didn't mean that it's physical.

A more reasonable meaning for "natural" would be "not artificial". Most people who believe in a soul probably don't believe it to be artificial :)

Two good dictionary definitions of "natural":

Not artificial.

Usual or ordinary, rather than an exception..

You're all confused by your funny meaning for "natural".

To anyone who isn't a Materialist, Reality is nonphysical. But such a person doesn't believe that Reality is other than natural.

It's common knowledge that "supernatural" is often used as a double-meaning trick. Anything that isn't physical is, by some people's definition, "supernatural". But, in movies, "supernatural" means "in contravention of physical law", like vampires, walkling skeletons and mummies, witches, sorcerers, etc.

So "supernatural", and its two meanings, can be used to equate non-physicality with contravention of physical law, and vampires, etc.

Sometimes that's dishonest, but sometimes it's just ignorant or sloppy.

If you're trying to advicate Materialism or metaphysical Physicalism, someone should let you know that you aren't an effective advocate of it.

No, there isn't a soul--but not because science hasn't deteected it.

,I was using their own range of applicability, and even if there is a soul, it has no clear range of applicability. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

What can be grasped there is that you haven't a clue what "range of applicability" means.

Michael Ossipoff

Those are wise words. Thank you.

No, thank you!

I believe that a philosophical forum should be a place where minds young and old should feel at ease in expressing new ideas. Something fresh and exciting. I'm hear to listen and learn.