Interesting that you invoke Stephen J. Gould to attempt to make a case (in a hyperbolic way) for non-reductionist models of biology. This is the same Gould, of course, who proposed a "punctuated equilibrium" alternative to Darwinian evolution which has never been remotely validated.

But here is the rub: All dualist models, whichever have lasted even a nanosecond, have all been rendered redundant by the more enriched tableaux of quantum physicalism. No, as I pointed out earlier, we do not reduce humans to "quantum singularities" (a non sequitur) but we do see how, incorporating the non-locality of QM as applied to the brain - it can then do all or more that the dualists have demanded.

From the most nuanced emotions, to the most nuanced abstract thought.

Until you dualists can arrive at a non-reductive model that can displace QM then you are merely grasping at straws.

Newtonian reductive models for the brain passed into oblivion from the time the first quantum eigenfunctions and eignevectors emerged out of solutions of the 3D Schrodinger solution.

You all need to move up, or be left behind. Tilting at now bygone and ancient windmills gets you nowhere.

cabdriver said he was "just about to agree with me"

I seriously doubt it! But it does sound like my comment is what changed his mind, so I oughtn't to have rendered it. A pox on that take.

He goes on:

What are you, a bot program?

Nope. A skeptic who came to that position after taking theology and philosophy-metaphysics for three years at a Catholic University, then explored the outer realms of 'New Age' material, and thought, finally deciding - after 22 years - they were 99% humbug.

Does everything have to be run through a double-blind trial or drawn, quatered, and dessicated by "controlled conditions" before you'll accept even the possibility of its validity or reality?

Not at all, as I indicated in my post. Again, you all emulate the same mindware program over and over: you take one or two crtieria we offer and parlay into a monumental exaggeration, and hence strawman argument.

I don't need a "double bind" trial or even a direct lab experiment in which you all materialize a "soul" or a "poltergeist". But - just giving mathematical support for a claim would be nice. Again, string theory has lots of intricate mathematical ballast even though it lacks the observational backing.

Or, you could just provide me those necessary and sufficient conditions for x, y or z entity (whatever the particular claim) to exist.

To refresh memory, a necessary condition is one which - if absent - the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist.

For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. (The necessary condition is the neutral hydrogen gas cloud exist in the first place). In this case, the star’s radiation causes the hydrogen atoms in the nebula to become excited – cause electrons to jump to higher energy levels- then go to lower with the emission of photons)

You think you're the Omniscient Objective Judge of Reality, with your One True Set Of Experimental Science Postulates?

Nothing so exalted - see above. But go ahead and keep on keeping on exaggerating my criteria into exaggerated strawman demands. It merely shows what a bunch of reality dodgers you are.

If you can't even meet basic and simple demands such as giving n-s conditions, then you have nothing to offer but hot air. Or perhaps, hot nebulous bytes.

the Senate majority leader told reporters today at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "It's not helpful to me, it's not helpful to the Democratic caucus."

Of course it isn't "helpful" (to you - since it exposes your impotence and fecklessness) but we aren't here to be, but to push you weenies in the direction of the major corrective change after eight years of Bushdom.

Look, in 8 years Bush essentially extirpated the domestic landscape - from health care to crumbling infrastructure. ALL those domestic needs that were ignored in the Bush era now must be met or we are down the poop chute, and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it, Harry-O.

You find it very easy to put us down now and exhort us to cool it. Will you feel the same 4 years hence when the next general election is up for grabs? I bet you will.

My advice, don't ask for (or expect) our votes unless you also are prepared to take our criticisms.

The moderate dimmos need to get a life of their own, instead of acting as whores and shills for lobbyists.