I was correcting Jeannie. I guess Jeannie feels that way.

I do agree that on this matter niether side has solid tangible indisputable proof either way. I do believe refusal to consider could be part of the disagreement.

That leads one to the conclusion is the key. That does not mean that everyone will be able to follow it to the conclusion. Nor does it mean that the person reviewing will agree. Nor does it mean that that person has to agree.

Providing relevant and sufficient evidence that necessarily leads to a conclusion does not depend upon agreement. Agreement is after the fact. The fact is that the proof exists before the agreement, and therefore proof is not a matter of agreement.

It is not that hard to understand, is it?

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.

When Columbus did not fall off the edge of the earth, there were folks who would not agree that it was because the earth was round but the proof was still there.

Proof becomes accepted when agreement occurs, it exists before then. Evidence can be accepted as proof. There is no problem with that. It changes labels in the reviewer's mind. It was already proof.

Evidence is neutral. It is not proof until it convinces someone.

Proof cannot exist before the agreement.

Evidence is simply evidence, it is not proof until someone decides it is relevant and sufficient to be deemed "proof."

It is the agreement that transforms the evidence into what is called "proof."

Its just semantics.

I hope that is clear. It is just semantics. Evidence does not become proof until the agreement.

Proof to one person is irrelevant. Proof is only relevant when it convinces the target to draw a conclusion that is an agreement.

Although I like the idea that it is nothing without a positive audience, that is still not accurate.

Evidence and proof are the tree sound of the tree that falls in the forest when noone is there to hear it...lol

But I do understand what Creative is saying, I really do. His is an objective view, mine is subjective.

Even if he believes he has proof, if no one accepts it as proof and agrees with him, it is irrelevant. It has to convince someone or it is worthless.

Now you claim that proof is less relevant when first recognized/acknowledged/constructed/determined?



Alrighty then! Semantics indeed.

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.

Someone can be convinced with a bunch of bullsh*t! I witness that daily.

That does not make it proof.

Well you could just say that your proof, if not believed, is worthless and ineffective.

I see what you're saying.

I'm not thinkning that far "advanced". It sounds like your looking that the Human DNA and asking, where does the program start in a fertlized egg.

Actually I don't think even that is known in detail.

But that's not what I'm refering to. That's way too far 'down the road' of evolution.

What the Human Genome Project is claiming is that the Human Genome contains all the DNA sequences that ever were, right back to the very first primordial cell.

That's what they believe. It never quit. It's started and kept self-programming and it still contains all the information from day one. That's what they are implying.

So what I'm looking at it not really the 'human' DNA sequence, but that very first DNA sequence that all life on Earth shares.

What I'm looking to answer is, "What was the very first DNA sequence that got it all started?"

I'm going clear back to the very first primordial 'cell'. I'm asking, "What was the very bare minimum of DNA sequence that was required to get life started, in general".

The Human Genome Project holds that all life on Earth shares about 25% of their DNA in common. So the boot-up sequence that I'm talking about would definitely be within that 25% of DNA that is common to all life on Earth.

The actual sequence that I'm interested in may no longer even be used. It may have gone unused for billions of year. Still it would just get carried along anyway because it's like data on the hard drive. It's sticks around whether it's being used or not.

In fact, the people who don't believe in evolution via fossil records are going to be in for a real eye-opener!

When the Human Genome Project really gets underway they are going to be able to show precisely how everything evolved and precisely what it evolved from and where it took off from each line, etc.

There was a gentleman that posted in this very thread who still doesn't believe in macroevolution. But that's not going to be an option when the Human Genome Project is finished. They are going to be able to say precisely what animals we evolved from in detail.

It's going to be an exciting time!

In fact, I don't know what you are studying for, but if you could get in on that Human Genome Project I think you would love it. That's going to be the most exciting field of research in this millenium. At least for next few decades anyway.

Unless of course, the LHC collider comes up with something to top it.

But keep your eyes peeled, because it won't be long before the Human Genome Project has so much to say about evolution that old fossilized bones won't even be needed anymore. Our DNA contains our entire evolutionary history in precise digital detail.

Give them a few more decades, a century at the most, and they will have a complete in-depth picture of precisely how we evolved including every single animal species in the entire line that lead up to us. (even including extinct species that we might not even have fossil for).

In fact, in theory they could actually bring back any one of those animals by simply truncating the DNA at a certain point and turning the required genes on and off.

I'll bet they will do it too!

They'll start small with things like rodent, and then work up with more monkey-like animals, but where will they stop?

They already have the ability to bring back the Neanderthal if they wanted to! Or our early form of Cro magnon. It's amazing.

In fact, they could potentially bring back a lot of extinct species this way.

Genetic engineering is going to become such a hot topic in this millennium that people are going to completely forget about any religions.

But the year 3000 people won't even remmeber what religion was.

You would never make it as a lawyer. You would end up shooting yourself or going to jail for contempt of court.

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.

Thank 'God'.

This is true!

Does that mean intelligent design goes away too?

About what you said about genetic engineering.

Here is my prediction: It will be sabotaged. I suspect that the powers that be do not want us to know our true origins. As you say, it will completely destroy a lot of religious ideas about Adam and Eve etc. It could even reveal genetic tampering by aliens.