If one uses their wants and desires to conclude what is unreasonable, then an entity creating random elements and tossing them together may seem ridiculous, I agree. But it is no more so than a purposeful designer if one bases the conclusion's label upon what can logically be inferred from what we do know.



The fact that a ridiculous argument holds as much truth value as a commonly held one, such as intelligent design, shows how easy it is for us to allow our emotional needs and desires to govern our beliefs about what is or could be true and why.

That is also an underlying point.

Thus... it is much more reasonable, in my opinion, to recognize the insufficient evidence as such and to remain open while retaining diligence in the pursuit of answers.

Of course. I have always agreed on that. But I can imagine solutions and still 'remain open.'

It is religions who do not remain open.

For the most part, I would agree. Doctrine necessarily confines belief and structures the format by which all answers must conform. It necessarily contains future knowledge, in a way which is not like 'includes', but more like containment. It establishes a basis around which all future findings must conform, no matter how distorted that new knowledge must become in order to do so.

Thus, the same concerns should be applied to any absolute belief which constitutes a hinge proposition, one of which all other beliefs build upon and therefore rely upon for their validity/grounding.

Personally, I think Taoism has it right. If words can describe it, it is not 'The Way'...

The Way representing the single element/source which runs through everything.

Well, in that case there isn't much sense in even answering the question.

If we were talking about a pair of dice and asking whether or not there is evidence of design. My answer would be yes.

But now you're saying that my answer doesn't apply because what you mean by a 'designer' would be someone who actually designed the outcome of a particular roll.

I would then concede that we indeed aren't viewing the question in the same way. I would further suggest that since you are solely looking at the outcome of rolls and not concerned about the nature of the dice, you aren't considering the full scope of the question.

To think that the rolls of dice would be happenstance is wrong.

I you designed a pair of dice, you would know that the outcome of any roll can only be 2, 12, or any whole number in between. If you are happy with that and you roll the dice and get a 7 say, then you're not the least bit surprised. Nothing came up that you weren't expecting. It may appear to be happenstance to someone who doesn't understand the dice, but to the dice-maker it's perfectly understandable and there was nothing truly happenstance about it from this higher view of the whole picture.

Now looking at the universe I say that this dice-scenario does indeed "roll-over" if you'll excuse the pun.

When we look at the universal "dice" we see that they have limited faces (i.e. there are a very limited number of elements that make up this universe). In fact, looking at it from the quantum picture we have a few leptons, quarks, and bosons. These are the faces on the dice, and are indeed very limited in scope.

If you want to carry that a bit further you can look at the periodic table of the elements and see how these leptons, quarks, and bosons can combine when rolled. Again we see very well-ordered structure and no chaos at all.

When when I am asked if there is evidence that this physical universe is designed, I say, "Sure it is. Just look at the dice!"

Then you say, "But we don't care about the dice. We want to see evidence for designer in the ROLL".

I say, "If you did that will actual dice you'd never be able to predict gambling odds."

Why should I be restricted from considering the universal dice?

If creative is refusing to look at the complete picture then his question is meaningless to me.

This would be like asking me to tell you the probabilities of rolls on reqular dice without referring to the faces or how the dice are constructed. I couldn't do it because you've already ruled out the very answer to the question.

If we're going to ask "Is there evidence for design" when looking at the universe, we must look at the complete picture, not ruling out anything.

I say, yes, there is evidence for design on the faces of the universal dice. We see it in quantum mechanics, and we see it in the periodic table. This universe was predetermined before it was rolled. Not in the precise configuration that it now has, but it was certainly predetermined in whas could possibly come up.

I have even attempted to point out just how seriously restricted this universe actually is. Of all the "rolling dice" in this universe there are extremely few faces and those faces are clearly very well-defined and consistent and do not appear to be happenstance at all.

If that idea goes 'beyond' what Creative is willing to consider then so be it. I would then concede than in his limited view of ignoring the true nature of reality perhaps there is no evidence for design. But he wouldn't be able to predict gambling odds by looking at dice that way either.

Science and math don't ignore the faces on the dice, why should I?

I thought we were going to look at everything.

So please excuse me.

Toss out the dice and I agree, you have no evidence for anything. But I personally see no reason to toss out the dice when we can clearly see what's on the faces. Why not recognize the writing on the wall for what it is?

But then ironically you just did describe "the way" in words. It's unavoidable. If humans are to have a concept, they necessarily must put it in words to communicate it.

In sanskrit it's called 'Tat Tvam Asi' meaning "You are this".

Also taken to mean, "You are this universe", or "You are what you think you are", or , "Your thoughts are your reality"

You could go on and on, analysizing it to death. But in the end it means that your conciousness is what you are. 'Tat Tvam Asi', you are this. And "this" is the experience of life and all that it entails.

If you accept this philosophical view, then you've been in agreement with Jeanniebean all along, because 'Tat Tvam Asi' means, "You are the designer".

You are this.

You are whatever you think you are.

I AM that I AM.

So it appears that you actually agree with JB's philosophy but somehow haven't fully understood its deepest implications.

This is why it's so crystal clear to Jeannie that she is the creator. She accepts "Tat Tvam Asi" (I AM that I AM).

And thus she is the designer. As are we all, because "Tat Tvam Asi" is true for everyone.

Abracadabra,

There are inherent problems expressing the idea of The Tao without using words. That is impossible, and Lao Tzu knew this as well. If words can describe it, it is not the way...

Therefore, words cannot, however that does not exclude it's existence, just our ability to describe it.





On the earlier post...

What exactly are you calling 'the dice'?

I think there is some underlying confusion associated with the concept of the Tao. It all depends on what idea a person is attempting to get at. If a person is attempting to describe the nature of the "Tao" in terms of it being a thing then no words could possibly suffice because it's truly is a mystical concept that cannot be comprehended much less expressed in words.

In other words, that would be the same thing as attempting to describe the nature of "spirit". It's no different at all. It's a non-physical concept which we cannot directly discribe.

However, we consider the idea of the Tao to simple be the realization that we are what we think, then it's pretty easy to put that concept into words and it has in fact been done it's simply 'Tat Tvam Asi' meaning "You are this".

That IS the concept. Nothing more need be added. If you attempt to go beyond that to describe precisely what it is that is "you", then yes, no words could possibly suffice. But there is no need to even go there.

So again, it all depends on precisely what idea you're attempting to "get at". If the only idea that is important is 'Tat Tvam Asi' meaning "You are this", then words do indeed express that idea quite sufficiently.



Well, this leaves the Tao in the dust and comes back to the western objective view of physical existence. (Jumping back and forth between pure philosophy and science drives Shoku up the wall, so let's make it clear here that we are changing gears once again.)

From a scientific point of view I thought I made this clear.

The "dice" are the fundamental constituient of this physical universe. The leptons, quark, and bosons. Or if you like, the arrangments of elements that they permit (i.e. the periodic table of the elements).

Those are indeed finite.

In fact, many philosophers have pointed out the fact that IF this universe is infinite in size, and finite in content (in terms of the kinds of atoms it's made of, as we know the observable universe to be), THEN it follows that there must be copies of every form because there are only finitely many ways that these finite building blocks can be assembled.

Clearly these numbers are mind-boggling for humans to ponder, but in pure thought this is the consequence. Not only would we not be a random happenstance event but there would necessarily need to be copies of each and every one of us (assuming that the universe is indeed infinite in size, which obviously we can't know).

In any case, we know that there are only a finite number of "faces" on the cosmic dice, and compared with even the observable size of this unviverse the number of faces is extremely small in number. We're talking a number that a human can comfortably count to in less than a minute and even classify and organize these few elements in meaningful ways.

There are only about 100 elements? (rounding off) The Mendeleeve periodic table of the elements. This include all of the elements in entire observable universe.

Those are the faces of the "dice" of this universe.

Does that "prove" design? No.

Can it be considered "evidence" for design? Well, that would be up to the individual who is considering what constitutes 'evidence' wouldn't it?

To my way of thinking it is evidence. Without that structure (or something similar) this universe would indeed be chaos and no life, or any consistent forms as we know them, would be possible.

Your thinking may very.

According to my own understanding of reading Lao Tzu in several different translations, 'The Tao' means the nature of the universe. "For lack of a better word." Lao Tzu called it 'The Tao', translated as 'The Way'.






So your calling the subatomic particles which we know of, or postulate as 'the dice'. As useful as analogy is in communication, I would hope that you will agree that we cannot use it here. It would better serve to address only the properties of what is actually being discussed. Let's call the elements by their own names. In doing so, we will avoid unnecessarily applying the other property of dice, that is... purposeful, intentional, reason for their existence.

When dealing with sub-atomic particles, that is an unwarranted attribution. That is something to be logically concluded based upon what is known, rather than presumed in the premise. Other than that, I have no problem focusing upon the sub-atomic particles.



Is the universe infinite in size, factually? Doesn't the observed inflation imply that it is not? Infinite size cannot grow, can it? Nevertheless, I would concede to the liklihood that there are only a finite amount of ways that the elements could be connected. Again, I would avoid the term 'assembled' because of the necessary presuppositional content of an assembler.



How does finite and multiples thereof necessarily deny random happenstance? Happenstance only applies to how the matter conforms to the physical laws which we seem to observe the universe following.



Evidence is any information which is presented as support for the case at hand. The key to me is in assessing the evidence for relevance, accuracy, and adequateness or sufficiency.

There are *about* 100 different possible known molecules, which are combinations of *64???* different elementary particles.

How does that establish enough reason to warrant the conclusion of design? Is design dependant upon a certain number? Isn't the reason for those things described and accounted for by particle physics, without the need for a designer?



So basically your saying that because we recognize and acknowledge that the universe has a *known* number of elementary particles which can only form a limited number of molecules that follow rules and laws fairly consistently, that constitutes sufficient reason to conclude that it was intentional, purposeful, and with reason(s)?

A design?

It also constitutes reason to believe that structure necessarily needs to be designed?

Ok, my bad for not presenting in a manner that you could understand.

I agree with this……and it is not significantly different from my intended meaning.

Now do you follow me?

Well, it doesn’t matter to me what you want to call it. You can call it a “frame of reference” and I’ll call it a “reference point”.

So here’s how I evaluate the “absoluteness of a first-person reference point”.

If an observer observes an object from the front and the side, that constitutes two different reference points.

But the observer does not change. It is always the same observer regardless of where it is located relative to the object.

Now if there is no observer, then the whole system is irrelevant/meaningless/useless/valueless. Without an observer, the very concept of “reference point” does not even exist. It is the observer that determines the reference points. That is, the existence of reference points is wholly dependent on the existence of an observer.

And that is why I say that if anything could be considered an absolute, it can only be the first-person (observer) perspective (reference point), because that point is the point to which all other points are relative.

But let me rephrase that slightly, considering the change in context.

If anything could be considered an absolute, it can only be the first-person, because the first-person is what determines the reference points.

Just to clarify: It isn’t the reference point that does the assigning, it is the first-person.

Now it appears to me that, to you, “assignment” is, by definition, the result of a thought process. So rather than go into a long dissertation on that, I will agree – within the current context, as I understand it.

Well, this is where our personal understandings diverge evidently. From my perspective we are the nature of the unviverse. 'Tat Tvam Asi' meaning 'You are this'.

You seem to still be in an 'objective' western mindset of imagining that the nature of the universe is something 'other' than what you are.

Based on what you are saying here it appears to me that you are viewing the work of Lao Tzu through the western lens of scientific thinking.

I don't see it from that vantage point, although I can understand that vantage point. I just don't see any value in that vantage point. From my perspective that vantage point misses the point altogether.



No, I do not agree.

It's not merely a useful analogy. As far as I'm concerned it's a precise metaphor that conveys exactly the idea that I intent to convey. Mathematically speaking there is no difference between the way that dice work and the way that atoms work.

So if you find it of no value here then you are viewing the question from an entirely different perspective from the way I view it.

It's that simple.



I personally don't believe that the universe in infinite in size. That's not important to my point. I was merely pointing out something that other philosophers have recognized that I felt might be insightful. Obviously you didn't find it insightful.



Once again, you lose me.

When addressing the question of design we necessarily must assume that we can address the "last turtle down". That's a given. If you don't concede that, then there's no sense in even asking the question.

To not concede that is to recognize that the question is indeed unanswerable.

In your quote above you're just assuming the laws of this universe as a 'given' and attempting to go from there. That's futile. You may as well attempt to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you're going to approach the question from that perspective.

If that's your view, then what you truly need to reconcile for yourself is that you concede that the question is unanswerable and therefore your request for 'evidence' is a hollow empty request at the onset.




As long as you lock yourself within the box, you've already refused to consider an evidence.



That depends on how you define 'design'.



No absolutely not.

"accounted for"?

Described, yes. Accounted for, no.

If you've described a pair of dice, have you accounted for their structure? I think not.



Absolutely. But only if you concede that we're talking in terms of the "last turtle down".

If you're not willing to concede that, then the very question is meaningless because it will forever be 'turtles all the way down'.

You can't ask this question from "inside the box" and expect to get a meaningful answer.

So as far as I can see, all you've truly been saying all along is that you simply don't see the limitations of what your attempting to get at.

If you assume "turtles all the way down" that an assumption.

That leads to one conclusion.

If you assume "that the last turtle is just outside of the box" that also is an assumption but it leads to a totally different conclusion.

If, like Jeanniebean, you recognize that the turtles are an infinite loop, that leads to even a different conclusion yet. Which is the conclusion that she promotes, as do the philosophies of the Eastern Mystics such as Taoism.

I personally go for the Loop Quantum Turtles.

That's cute, I'll have to start using that phrase as the title of my philosophy.

Loop Quantum Turtles.

And of course, that picture concludes "Tat Tvam Asi", "you are it"

You have to address the proverbial turtles if you're going to address this question. You can't remain inside the box and claim to have addressed the question. That's really nothing more than avoidance.

I think your missing the point of the box Abra. As soon as you find a way outside of this universe, you'll be outside the box.

You misunderstand Lao Tzu, but that is another topic.

The rest of your reply will be addressed later on. I have something else pending at this time.

If he intended to drop the coins, and for the dropping of the coins to result in the establishment of natural laws, then the whole process was by design, regardless of what the result was.

If he didn’t intend to drop the coins, or for the dropping of the coins to result in the establishment of natural laws, then it was happenstance.

So I really don’t see this as “another option”.

I'm saying that that they're two different things. You can use both in a lovely mix to arrive at your position (but as you're only presenting your opinion you've no need to show us the science and philosophy that are your reasons for holding it,) but they are different kinds of points.

It is similar to the distinction between known and unknown. We know something or we don't and it doesn't make any sense to act like we know something when we do not or to act like we do not know something that we do.

I resent that. How dare you tell me I'm not a philosopher.


It would. The universal consciousness part of what you believe doesn't mesh so well with the laws of science though- you've got the speed of light limiting the speed information can be transferred, energy being required to have any impact on matter such as the contents of your skull (and because it has to translate into charged ion flows and electrical currents we'd be able to see that indirectly,) and so on. You can hold out and hope that one day people find some special type of force or energy that accounts for that but at current it classifies as a spiritual belief, whether you want to call it spirits or not.

Uhhhhhhhhh.

Depends on how you want to use that word. Some definitions of belief mean "to know" while others are specifically require that you not know it.

No. Well maybe where you originally posted that but not here. Faith is ok and a useful thing to a lot of people. So long as they don't think, no, "believe" that their faith needs to be forced on others I've got no reason to want to take it away from them.

But personal experience isn't worth very much to anyone but the person that experienced it. If you've looked at many court trials you'll know that we have to throw out a lot of testimony because what the person thinks they saw is incompatible with what we know happened (such as them describing a taxicab that doesn't look like taxis anywhere in the state they were in.)

Our personal experiences are not a record of what happened. They're a narrative we build and we'd never know how often we throw in details that weren't really there if not for the lengths other people have gone to to show that we do that.

I personally spend a lot of time thinking about how I shift my memories around.

Well no. I'm just asking that if you go beyond just sharing your opinion that you not use fallacies. The great Greek philosophers took to time to do big set ups to show why you shouldn't use use them (though we've added some since then,) so if you want to call yourself a philosopher you should really step lightly in terms of those.

If you hadn't written this elsewhere I'd be pretty annoyed about being described that way when I've pointed out particular fallacies so often.

My experiences are hallucination. I don't rely on them if I know better.
Yours probably are too.

They're an alright starting point but you need to confirm them with something else.

Of course, there's the other option of accepting all experiences as fact but then if anyone has experiences contrary to yours there's a major problem. I avoid that because I don't want to say my experiences are superior to someone else' by virtue of my having experienced them- I'm not better than other people. Definitely different but our worth as humans is the same.

Subjectively I think you're wrong, ignorant, illogical, and intellectually deaf. That's nasty though so I try not to let it influence my behavior and I go an awfully long way to try and silence it in my thinking.
With objectivity you have a chance to show you're better than that.

I've had something like the opposite of that and I've met a ghost.
*I was four or so and my parents filled in the details differently than I did so there's big subjective disagreement with what happened. Because I can't build a consistent picture of it I try to stay agnostic on the matter.

Here's one: no beginning. Our universe has existed eternally.

Not popular but it's another option. Look up the history of Big Bang theory if you'd like to see some of the other stuff people have posited throughout the years.

Isn't the same thing true of starting from an external designer?

So basically you're saying that there is no possible (or even impossible,) set up we could see that wouldn't look like a design?

Are you saying that the designer is competing against other entities in a test of skill?

The regular designer arguments don't say squat about how the designer did it either.

Isn't the external intelligent intentful designer sky na abra have been promoting a ridiculous example that can't really be taken seriously?

Or are you saying that popularity is what an option requires to "not be ridiculous"?


Whaaaat?

You defined intelligent design as anything that results in a universe that has intelligence. Your definition was loose enough that a very rare happenstance cause that could result in us would count as intelligent design.

Is it any wonder why I am fighting that definition?

But why seven instead of twelve? What was the determining factor that made them come up as one number instead of another?

I'm glad you understood the dice analogy though. Feel like the first time you've said anything that followed from what I said.

But with the universe as the product wouldn't it be better to compare the universe to a single face on the dice (or a combination of faces on several dice)?

You've been saying all along that the universe seems to have had a starting condition that would automatically produce life. If we're rolling dice all the time isn't that saying that you get life from chance as long as there are a lot of chances?

I brought up the combination of quarks resulting in those particles in the first place. Wouldn't it be fair to say that I was talking about the dice back when you were stuck on the roll?

Well now it's starting to feel like you're taking things I've said and labeling them as your own ideas. I'm not sure if I should be flattered at the mimicry or annoyed at the plagiarism.

Well actually no, I can't let you get away with saying that right after you brought up the inflation theory. With you way you've described the dice and the combinations of their faces none of that was present in that first planck's length of time- to keep the metaphor alive you'd have to say that some other set of dice set up that set of dice but it get's convoluted at that point.

You've yet to tell me why dice without a creator should have poorly defined faces or anything of that sort.

Show me the writing.


There's just one tiny problem with the copies thing: light. We see the light from galaxies billions of light years away from us. In infinity you can easily get another Earth surrounded by copy galaxies in all directions... except that that's actually the problem. We see light a great distance away so if you swap perspectives those things so far away are getting light from us. You've gone into quantum issues enough that I shouldn't need to bring up that the photons interacting with matter impacts it but for the sake of making sure everyone else can follow there it is.

So we have some effect on everything we can see that changes it. It should be obvious that likewise all of those things have some effect on everything they can "see" and so on. So there can't be copies of us because we change them by existing.

Now, I'm going to admit that all of that is a lie but the reason I've said it is that I want you to explain why it's false. There's a fairly obvious problem as you go through it and the way you point it out will be useful for me in knowing how to talk philosophy with you.

But you're presented two options where the creator was involved. Obviously there are many other things we can alter about this. Perhaps the coins were on a table and fell off of it. Perhaps the coins "fell" up into the sky. Perhaps the coins were not dropped but used in a transaction.

And how do we know they are coins at all? Do they have some country motto printed onto them or faces of leaders and prominent historical figures? Perhaps these "coins" were the material the pants were made of and some came off from wear and tear as the figure intentionally went about some sort of business.

Shoku saidWhat is the problem? It seems to me that if that were true, then any conflicting beliefs of any kind would constitute a problem.

Are you saying that any two conflicting beliefs are a problem?

No. One starts from the laws inside the universe, The other starts from a creator outside the universe.

Nope. Never said anything even remotely like that. But since you brought it up, personally I don’t see anything that doesn’t look like either a design or the result of a design to me.

No. Are you saying that “a test of skill” is the only possible reason for playing a game?

I submit that this is solely because of your own inability to take some things seriously or accept a conflicting viewpoint without ridiculing it. Others do not have that problem.

Well first of all, that should be addressed to Creative, not me, since it was his analogy, not mine.

But in any case, there are only three possible options:
1) Intentional cause (designed)
2) Unintentional cause (happenstance)
3) No cause (eternal)

Now at the point in the discussion being referred to, the causeless/eternal option was not being considered, so there were only two options – design or happenstance. And every one of the “options” you suggested above falls into the “happenstance” category.

there are a great many nonreligious folks who are far from open minded. once you believe anything to be fact, you've closed your mind to that particular issue. some say that it's a proven fact that a designer created the universe for instance. could be but i think that there are likely other other answers.

A perfect illustration of the leap a mind must go through to grant the universe properties of a single example among a googleplex of order that arise within it.

If we set up an experiment with several billion earth like planets all with life starting from scratch, the likely hood of getting humans on 1 in a billion earth like planets would be extremely rare all but zero, you would have all kinds of other kinds of life, but humans not likely.

If a 24 hour period such as is represented by a clock on the wall where used to represent the 4.5 billion year time span of earth, then mammals only showed up at 2 minutes to 12, and humans showed up at 11:59:58

Why then if humans represent so little of earths time should they represent anything on a universal scale?

One would think that if universes where designed to build humans then they would have more features that help bring about humans . . . of which we find none, and when we look into the sky's we see far more that could never allow humans to survive then could.

Its an amazing little spec of nothing this humanity that thinks everything is for it.



Abra, some growth, I am so proud. Yes, its a misnomer indeed, and that is why every time you use it to support your argument for universal designed I cringe.

Its funny in one sentence, he uses it, the next he derides himself using it . . . ahh the wonderful irony.


I agree, abra has proved for us that no evidence exists to support the notion that a purposeful personal perspective created the fundamental properties of the universe which where necessary to give rise to all order. He has conclusively shown that all we can know is that they are what they are, we cannot know from whence they came, ohhh woe is me.


Now lets party.


Di has shown that we must not jump to the final conclusion but must link the intent up the causal chain, rightly so, if I drop a bowling ball out my window with the intent to smash my neighbors car, but it rolls off his hood and down the street smashing through my girlfriends garden one cannot say that I intended to smash her garden from the initial action itself, you see its unclear what the intent of any given action was far from its epicenter, it requires far more data to explain.

So this then further burdens the argument of design with the purpose to link said design back to humans of which we are the last two seconds of the clock of time.

Rather big job there . . . .

This is very true.



Who has ever said that ?

I have always said that "proof" is a matter of belief and agreement.

and:

The only thing I KNOW for certain is THAT I EXIST.

Given that, I can't even prove that I exist to a person who refuses to believe it and agree that I exist.

So here is what we have of the causal chain so far.


* Start of universe *
- So far, unsure if this had intent or not. No way to tell if universes just start like this, or have a small amount of play in the variables and we are a little lucky, or if we are in a megaverse of failed universes and just happen to be here becuase this is the only place we could be, or if an eternal mega intelligence decided out of the blue of eternity to create it with or without us in mind . . . .
*
*
*
*
*
Every moment since then . . . . .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Humans.

Then beyond humans, long after humans are no longer extant in the universe the universe will go on, long after earth has been obliterated the universe will go on, long after the atoms that where earth had been reclaimed by stars, or a black hole.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


We would have to link every single cause all the way back and have a justification for saying that this intelligence wanted this to all be for us . . . .


I can think of nothing more egotistical. There is nothing more humbling then knowing how wonderfully special we are becuase of how thin this argument for design really is . . .

If only I where more poetic, I might be able to express how my understanding of science effects me, and how my world view gives me a great appreciation and respect for life.

Good! Now I think we have arrived at three choices for consideration. We have also agreed that nobody has "proven" anything one way or another, at least to the satisfaction of the opposing party.

We have repeatedly stated that we do not know, and cannot prove any conclusion that anyone might pick to be the right one.

We have also concluded that to pick one over the other or to rule one out and pick the remaining one(s) as true, is not the 'right' way to find the truth or form a final conclusion or agreement.

So what I see here is that we all actually agree -- even though some might favor one solution over another, and some may choose to remain in limbo, pretending to be 'open minded.'

From this point I see the conversation going in yet another circle.

Shoku, your posts are so long and you are talking to different people its hard to tell who you are talking to.

Billy, glad to have you back, don't get frustrated and leave again. We like you.

Creative, Thanks for being our Spock.

Abra, thanks for your deep thoughts and ideas, I appreciate them.

Sky, Love your tact, diplomacy, wit and detachment.

Dragoness, your philosophy is an enigma, but it empowers you and that's a good thing.

Smiles, the peacemaker, nice to have you peeking in and contributing very interesting information.

Another round of drinks for everyone.

If by "US" you are referring to our current physical form of "human" you have a point.

But Perhaps "we" have taken many forms, and will take many forms in the future.