JillSwift

There's no evidence that I am aware of that word order makes the difference being claimed here.

Yes. Mind, the words are just handy labels. They don't define anything absolutely, and only work well within a given context. Its nonintuitive, because our brains are the result of evolution within the context of matter-as-objects.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

In reality*, everyone here is a moderator, except mooeypoo. *For values of "reality" including "not this one".

Always room for Python No, I do not make very good bridge building material

Piffle. It's obviously blue magic, as it tastes like blueberries. I can control rain, too, by the way. If I go outside while it's raining, drops of the rain will hit me instead of the ground, and when I go inside, the drops where I was then hit the ground. I can repeat this experiment with completely predictable results. I win.

And a serious case of thread necromancy.

You say that like the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

Oh, it is fun. And the penguins* collectively had a snit of such intensity there was some speculation one or two might explode. I withhold comment based on my 5th amendment rights. *Catholic nuns.

If you think folks get in a snit over running down a hallway, try bicycling!

Yeah, next time: Skip!

What about us gals? Science is the most successful epistemology we humans have - and thus it's meaning to me is: Our best (and perhaps only real) hope for understanding our universe and ourselves.

Speed kills.

Another iteration of "all ideas are equal"? Value is related to goals. A pile of cow manure is of no value to an apartment dweller but is of significant value to a hobby farmer. An idea that makes no testable predictions about reality is utterly worthless to the goal of actually understanding reality. On the other hand, it is of great value to those who enjoy interesting ideas for their own sake. Your ideas about energy fall into the latter category.

Sure we do. Doctors not finding anything wrong. No one is saying it's not disappointing, or even frustrating. But this need to place blame and punishment is just shameful.

I'm thinking something from the Cluster-B group of PDs, perhaps BPD.

Guess all you like. The standards for "best effort" are not set by your whining. Given the pattern so far, had every battery of tests possible been performed (with a successful diagnosis or not) you would no doubt be complaining about the costs and discomforts.

Even if true, irrelevant and immaterial. Not unlike yourself.

In short: You have a grossly inflated sense of entitlement.

So? What difference does it make how long you were sick? Do you know the difference between an inability to reach a goal and an unwillingness to reach a goal? Doctors aren't magicians, and your body isn't a simple machine that is perfectly understood. Because of that, all you are owed when you pay a doctor to do a diagnosis is their best effort. Unless you can prove negligence (an unwillingness to give that best effort) then you have no standing what so ever to sue - or even complain for that matter.

Wow. Is there nothing Google isn't getting into?

With evidence. Nothing is set in stone, any bit of evidence may change any given theory. Well, not that there are sides to take here, but: Posting any idea on a science forum rather suggests a willingness for it to be scrutinized by users of the method, que no?

This is a science forum, though. If this isn't a scientific theory, why discuss it here?

Phenomenon first, mechanism second. In the post you link to, you assume a phenomenon: Duality. You offer no evidence for duality. Parsimony says if you don't need an entity and there is no evidence for the entity, discard it. As you offer no evidence for human duality, all your conclusions and hypotheses of mechanism are, by definition, pseudo-scientific. There's no point in looking where you next step might be if you've already lost your footing.

Why? We (as in every human) do this all the time, with an infinite number of possible subjects. No, it would not. "Closed minded" means rejecting ideas regardless of validity. I can easily say "Telepathy is bunk" while being open to changing that opinion if real evidence comes to light. Which is true of everything, really. No one knows anything absolutely, even if they believe they do. The problem isn't what you believe to be true or not true, nor is it what anyone else believes or not. The problem is evidence, or in this case, the conspicuous absence of it. Any hypothesis about the mechanism behind a phenomenon that has not yet been established is by nature untestable. Ignoring the important step of establishing the existence of a phenomenon before trying to understand the mechanism of the phenomenon makes for pseudoscience.