More FYI...

I've also seen the circumflex (^) used for that same thing, as in 1*10^5. I guess either one can work, depending on the cultural circumstances.

Yeah, I think that bolded sentence pretty much says it all for me too.

One could look at it from the persepctive of "giving up power". A lot of "convenience" can be seen as "not wanting to deal with it ourselves". We don't want to deal with crime, so we have cops deal with it for us. We don't want to deal with dirty dishes so we have dishwashers to deal with them for us.

From a philosophical perspective, it could be seen as abdicating responsibility. The cops are responsible for dealing with crime. The dishasher is responsible for dealing with dirty dishes. I mean, we even blame inanimate objects for not doing what we want them to do - "D**n that dishwasher for not cleaning the dishes right!"

Intersting how that kind of thing can happen.

Maybe it was "reading between the lines". Maybe it was pure coincidence. Maybe it was a case of "two wrongs making a right". Or maybe it was an example of "telepathic" communication that transcends mere words.

I like to think the latter.

True.

So we, as gods, failed to understand what Creative, as another god, was requesting.

On the other hand, if the system under consideration were defined as “things that follow the known laws of physics”, then there is evidence – the PEAR research into man/machine interfaces, for one. There is a significant body of scientific evidence that shows there are phenomena that do not follow any known laws of physics, but yet have intent, purpose and order. And such phenomena have been replicated many times under laboratory conditions.

So my question would be: Are things that don’t follow any known laws of physics considered to be external to the system under consideration?

If so, then there is evidence.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I took it too.

And looking back on all that's been said in this thread, particularly by the OP himslef, I'm not even sure what he would consider evidence.

It seems to me that, from his perspective, any evidence of a design would necessarily require a viewpoint that is external to the system under consideration ("the universe" in this case).

So the question itself contains an inherent contradition - "I want to see evidence of the existence of something external to the system, but the only evidence you're allowed to present is from inside the system."

Silliness. Pure and simple.

1. Is your clone a human?

Yes

2. Does your clone have a soul?

Trick question, but the true answer is No.

3. Is that clone's soul YOUR soul?

No.

I don't see how it's even possible to say souls don't exist.

First of all, what exactly is it that you're saying doesn't exist? Do you have a definition for "soul"? And is it the same definition use by Jeannie?

In other words, you can say what you define as soul, doesn't exist. But you can't really say that what Jeannie defines as soul doesn't exist without knowing what it is that Jeannie defines as soul.

And you most certainly cannot say that what I define as soul cannot exist.

So back to the main question, what exactly is it that you are saying doesn't exist?

Sorry 'bout this.

I meant to say ..."the potential benefits don't outweight the potential problems"

Just curious but, do patterns prove anything at all?

I hope you don't mean to imply that words have inherent meanings, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not.

I've been waiting for an answer to this myself. SO just to get you to tell us, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark...

Andreas Vesalius?

(For future reference, it's "entendre". And yes there were some good one's there once I went back and read them again myself. So back to the topic...)

It seems that the only real objection is the privacy issue.

The basic reasoning is obviously that we don't want information to be used to hurt us.

But I think there are two distincly different parts to that.

The first is a situation involving evil intent by the user of the information. That is, we might not want people to know that we have a lot of money so as not to become the target of identity theft or some such. The is basically an ethical person who doesn't want to be victimized by an unethical person.

And then there is the other side, which certers around people who have "something to hide". This is basically an unethical person who doesn't want to be "found out". Such a person is on the other side of the situation in the previous example. He is the unethical person who has victimized an ethical person.

So the reporter at the end of the video pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's really a tradeoff between security and convenience. And both of those really depend on the viewpoint. For the cops, it's convenient to be able to instantly identify the location of anyone. But also, for the cops, it's insecure in that it opens up a whole area of potential crime. And the same logic applies to all aspects of the whole situation.

Personally, I would be against it because for me, the potential problems don't outweight the potential benefits.

But that's just my own perspective.

Yes, that is exactly the key here - "relevance". It must be relevant to someone or it is a meaningless fact in a vacuum. It is the relevance itself that gives it meaning. In fact, you could say that the relevance is the meaning.

Here's my opinion...

I agree proof is proof, or not, regardless of whether or not any one sees it, accepts it, or agrees on it. Just as actuality is actuality, regardless of whether or not any one sees it, accepts it, or agrees on it.

But my whole point is basically "So what?" That fact by itself has no bearing on interpersonal interactions whatsoever.

"A cube is a cube, regardless whether or not anyone sees, accepts or agrees."

But that's just a fact in a vucuum. It has no relationship to anything outside of itself. It certainly has no relationship to me – because I’m not there to be related to.

So saying that “the proof exists regardless of whether anyone see it” has just as much relation ship to me as that cube – i.e. NONE.

Now if you were to say “I see the cube/proof/actuality”, then you are there to relate to. But it’s only relationship is to you, not to me, since again, I am not there to be related to.

And if I were to say “I see the cube/proof/actuality”, then I are there to relate to. But it’s only relationship is to me, not to you, since again, you am not there to be related to.

So what I see this argument about proof amounting to is some people saying “The proof relates this way to me, therefore it must relate the same way to you.”

But that is a fundamental fallacy. It assumes that everyone must have the exact same relationship to everything as everyone else.

Not a very smart practical position to take up.

Again I'm hanging up on the use of the term "reality". Do you mean the reality of the player (i.e external to the game) or do you mean the reality that is the game?

Conceiving of a reality external to the game is not easy, since the rules of the game seem to include disabling our ability to do so. Which I think is why perople in general, and science in particular, have such a hard time accepting a differentiation between player and game.)

So personally, I think the inspiration for current games is mostly based on the "here-and-now". However, I do think that it is likely that quite a bit of fiction, particularly science fiction and fantasy, (and not just in computer/video games) has at it roots some relation to prior situations experienced while "playing previous characters". So yes, I do think that "subconscious memory" (for lack of a better term) does play a part in the design of current games.

Ok, so again we disagree. :sigh:

So you agree that proof is not always seen and/or accepted.

Now where do you go from there? If it exist but is not seen and accepted, what good is it? It is only useful when it is seen and accepted.

What I see throughout this thread is an inability/unwillingness to either
1) see the proof, or
2) accept the proof or
3) both

That's really all it boils down to.

And that applies to both sides.

Ok, so proof exists (or not) regardless of whether anyone sees it or not.

So you say, "The proof exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

You could also say, "Reality exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

And you could also say "The Fying Spaghetti Monster exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So now I will say "The same logic exists in all three statements. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So do we agree?

By George I think he's got it!