Ditto.

If you “narrow it down”, but I don’t agree with what I think you’ve narrowed it down to, then what would you suggest I do? Be truthful and tell you that I don’t agree, followed by trying to explain it in terms I think will show it more clearly, or lie and tell you I do agree?

I am willing to take full responsibility for my own shortcomings in being able to explain it in a way that you can understand it. But if it always come back as something that looks to me to be different from what I said, then it smells just as fishy to me.

As I said above, if what you’ve refined it down to does not appear to me to match my intended meaning, then what would you suggest I do? Leave it there and build on what I consider to be an error, or go back to before the error occurred and try a different way?

Well it is definitely true that some people get frustrated talking to me. I cannot deny that in the face of this very conversation. But it is also true that some other people do not get frustrated with me.

And there is another scenario that produces frustration, also easily illustrated with children. Ever seen a child get frustrated with a schoolwork? They’re not “trying to explain” something and they’re not being “outwitted”. They’re running up against a continued failure in attempting to grasp a concept or perform a required action.

But if you’re implying that you perceive me to be trying to “outwit” you, I would say “No moreso than I perceive you to be doing the very same thing.”

If you’re referring to something that has happend in our conversation, I’m afraid you’ve lost me.

Specifically “it's when they are dense to what you are saying but then turn around and show that they have the capacity but just aren't using it”.

I don’t recall that happening.

I’m not sure how that even applies, since I don’t think I’ve ever “declared victory” any more than you ever did.

I don’t recall ever “clearly stating that [my] understanding is that [anyone is] immature and closed minded”.

Interstingly enough, I feel pretty much exactly the same way about the way you treat quotes.

And I don’t usually considered them to be “editing out meaning”. Only that they are the most succinct expressions of the point we wish to reply to. Either that or they are points on which subsequent statements rest and the point is not agreed upon, so there is no reason to include the subsequent, dependent argument.

You’re welcome.

Maybe this is just a misunderstood referent.

I was referring to the Holographic Universe idea.

I don’t see how either the Holographic Universe, or “other people in the same situation” equates to solipsism. As I understand it, the Holographic Universe theory says nothing at all about individuals and so can’t be equated with solipsism in any way. And the idea of “other people” is contrary to the very foundation of solipsism.

I agree.

Those who have been around for a while remember when there was only the "General Religion" forum and all of this stuff we discuss in here was mixed in with what you now see in that forum (i.e. mostly the Christians.vs.everyone else.)

But really, the most heated arguments in that forum were usually (and often still are) between the "scientists" and everyone else, which is exactly what you see in this forum.

So maybe it would be good to give the scientists a place to discuss things scientifically, without being interfered with by the philosophers - and vice versa.

The only problem I see is in drawing the line. Science and Philosophy are so closely related that it is difficult to deparate the two. I'm mean, look at string theory and the Holographic Universe theory. Are they philosophy or science? There is a lot of science and logic involved in both, but both are based on as-yet unprovable (and possibly not provable at all) ideas. So where does one draw the line?

Just some thoughts.

I’m not even sure that “broad-mindedness” (to pick one of a dozen possible terms) is inherently any better than it’s opposite.

It seems to me that single-minded cockiness is a valuable trait when looked at from the perspective of “progress”. It is generally those with a vehement narrowness of focus that push the edge of the envelope into the greatest advances of mankind – as well as the most ignominious failures.

But hey, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”.

Such is the game of life.

As I understand it, the concept of reptile-like life forms/beings goes back a long ways (e.g. "Dragons" and "Nagas"). Not to say that Dr. Who plagarized the concept. Just that neither the concept itself, nor the label, originated with that show. And I'm not even sure the idea of reptile-like alien life forms originate with the show. Seems to me I remember some Sci-Fi stories, predating the show, that described reptile-like alien life forms.

If you consider communicating with someone else as “interacting” with them, then I would say we interact with things other than bodies all the time, if indirectly.

And while it’s true that most people are (or at least believe they are) unable to interact directly with anything other than their own body, that is not necessarily true of everyone – as evidenced by literally millions of anecdotal reports, not to mention scientific studies, such as those done by PEAR into man/machine interfaces and remote viewing.

Sure, if that’s what the rules of the game said and you were playing by the rules.

The same reason one treats other’s property nicely in “real life”. It usually leads to enhanced ability to achieve one’s goals and purposes. That is, it leaves one to focus on personal goals and obtain assistance from others with common goals, instead of fighting off reprisals or having to “go it alone” without any assitance from anyone else.

But if those things were not a factor, then you’re right – there would be no reason for it.

Well, now you’re asking me for other people’s reasons and purposes for playing the game, which I cannot answer for them. The best I can do is again compare it to something simple like basketball.

Different people have different reasons for playing basketball. Some play it for exercise. Some play it for fun. Some play it to make money. Some people play it simply for something to do. Some people play it for different reason at different times. And some people like to watch it, but not to play it – also for various reasons. And some people think it’s a stupid, pointless game. But no one has to play it, and no one has to follow the rules if they do play it.

And the same thing applies to computer-based MMORPGs. And the same thing applies to the “universe game”.

The main difference is that, from a human perspective of the universe game, very few believe they have a choice in the matter.

You have apparently mistaken "using a more accurate analogy" for "dismissal".

The "things" I am referring to (including the "character") are a part of the game, the "person" I am referring to is the creator/player of the game.

I didn't say the person was like the car/character. I said the body is like the car/character and the person is like the player/driver.

I agree with that. However, I think it's a moot point. I don't think it is possible for the scientific method to result in a conclusion about the existence of a god, simply because the creation itself cannot prove it's creator. As with the final result of the "Evidence for creation" thread, a first person cause cannot be proved from a third person perspective. It can only be disproved.

(But then I guess you've been saying that very thing all along. Salud! )

I have noticed what seems to be a fundamental difference in approach to “arguments”, in this forum, and which seems to be very much related to age.

The major difference seems to be something like “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “broad-mindedness”, “temperance”, “indulgence”, “forbearance” or something along those lines.

Not arguing for or against anything. Just making an observation and wondering if anyone else is/has observing/observed anything similar.

(One wonders if this might be a key factor in “the generation gap”.)

And anything other than malevolence refutes malevelolence.

Thus, indifference refutes them both.

Just a note: "Able but not willing" could mean he's simply "indifferent" and not necessarily "malevolent".

No, because it's false.

Shoku saidYou see this is a very good example of our differing approaches. To you it seems to be a “fight”. To me it is (or should be) simply a conversation.

I have to say I feel the same way about you as you say you feel about JB – the short attention span. That is why I must “jump back” – to show how what I am saying “now” relates to what I was saying “then” – because you are apparently unable to make the connection.

You are the one that specifically stated the reason for asking the questions was justice, and immediately following that implied that revenge was also a factor. It seems to me that you projected your own perspective on others, and then denied that it was your perspective by dnying you want revenge.

And don’t talk to me about “chopping up quotes”. Your very first post in this thread consisted of no less than twenty four separated quotes, “chopped up” to suit your needs, followed by several more of the same. So you can call the kettle black all you want. But don’t be surprised when the kettle calls you black in return.

I don’t happen to agree with that, but I would agree that someone who does wouldn’t care about them.

But "we" don't.

People who believe that platitude aren't thinking.

And you’re getting your so-called “justice” by asking question? Well … ummmm … more power to ya!



Well I notice you’re still posting. And so far, you have the highest “reply count” (measured by number of quotes replied to). So in a contest of relentlessness, I would have to concede that I am no match for you.

…it's no wonder people want revenge.And again, you’re getting your revenge by asking questions???



That need for revenge is what causes the spiral. And personally, I think that indicates just how transparent your goals really are.

Only those who want to use the roads, and care about others using the roads, care about the rules of the road. If you don’t want to use the roads, or don’t care about anyone else who wants to use the roads, then there’s no reason for you to care about the rules of the road.

I don’t believe you actually understand the whole notion of what I’m proposing, so I can understand why you would say that. People tend to reject things they don’t understand – some more acrimoniously than others.

Apparently, you and I have very different ideas about what consititutes solopsism.

I believe that evolution is a product of creation as opposed to a means of creation. That is, evolution is the result of a design that is/was intended to produce forms capable of interacting with the environment in the way that they do.

The thing I think is basically what makes man superior to other life forms on earth is that this particular form (the human body) is better for exploring and investigating different types of environments in more detail, and thus, is more suited to gaining a wider and deeper understanding of the world and has a greater capacity for monipulating the things of the world.