So that means a virus IS alive?
Does the virus not fall apart until it's stream has been disrupted?

This leaves the interesting question of what reason there could be to behave morally if our bodies are not even a part of us so much as something we're using.

What's a life stream?

...are viruses not alive because they're not connected to that?


I can understand a player having to control a paraplegic character differently but if you mess up the prefrontal cortex the personality takes a big hit in rationality and shifts way over to emotional. If you can change a character that much why would it even matter if someone was a the controls?

So after have damaged the brain of your body what words would you use to describe what happens to that unit? Is it still connected? Did it leave? Is it like the plug is all loosely connected and giving a crappy signal?

Well to play along you'd need to be organized. They want you to pay your way in after all.

Well if you don't think it exists you shouldn't have any problem with me stabbing your relatives and loved ones with a physical knife, as it would be fake and do nothing to them were it not real.

So do you think there's not a physical universe?

Finally! Thank you!
Yes it's logical and no it's not happenstance. I'm so glad- well crud, I'd better read the rest first.

Not as direct as I was worried about but I think I still have to do this anyway.

In other words, to demand that the designer must adhere to strict logic whilst simultaneously demanding that it's happenstance is an oxymoronic claim to begin with doncha think?

If I gave you a lobotomy would that be an act of replacig you with a dumber yet similar being or would I have just taking something away from the indivisible unit?

Unlike most of the people you seem to meet I've not just taken a peak at Hinduism and those others but actually tried to grasp the meanings of those religions. I've had some guidance and guided myself.

So basically I'm saying it's not as distant a concept for me as you're making it sound.

Now, as I've told JB my understanding how to solve the puzzle myself doesn't have anything to do with your solving the puzzle. I'm not asking you to help me figure it out, I'm just asking you to show that you've put enough thought into these things that you might have something to show me.

Well that and calling you on bad science but you know that drill by now.

You shouldn't after I explained that emergent properties were really properties of the smallest levels and that we just assign them higher because we can't keep track of a google particles just to talk about something like pottery.

I'd say suggest was too subtle a word for something I directly said -_-;

**** you. Your belief is the one that's random nonsense chance and I'm going to start saying that every time you insist I've ever been talking about us coming from random chance. It's not a good argument technique but I'm through validating you by spending any effort thinking of new ways to tell you I'm sick of you replacing my argument with that fake one so you can knock it over easily.

Ya, that randomly "just nonsensically there" designer sure doesn't seem like anything we should have expected.

You accept the concept of designers, but everything that would be required for all of them to fall into place would themselves need to be random happenstance.


So no amount of reference to "A Designer" can negate the initial requirement that everything that led up to it/them necessarily had to be "pure chance" in the first place.

So now "anything deeper than random chance" is the same thing as "an intelligent designer"?

I've already shown that there are other options. I haven't given a particularly long list but should I have to give ten or fifty options to show there are more than two or does just a third show that two wasn't enough?

Since our understanding of the true nature of reality is quite sketchy I see no reason to favor pure random designer over something deeper. And that "something deeper" could indeed be some form of non-physical process that brings everything that is seemingly physical into being.

This has always been my annoyance with agnostic views. "The Earth was created in a week or has been around for billions of years. These options seem completely equal to me so I can't choose."

It feels like that's just "I haven't really looked into the issue."

Different in what ways?

Just pop into a Scientology church prepared to take the place over n_n

*they train to not lose their cool against people's usual arguments but I suspect they'd be vulnerable to someone playing along with the belief.

Oh wow, you were being sarcastic. I sort of saw it in that but didn't think you were the type.

So is that a "definitely not" about demons then?

I question the Bible.

In particular why can't we think that that was metaphorical?

No, that would be the eternity we have earned in accordance with the covenant with Abraham. We deserve better so the Jesus dieing for our sins thing was a reforging of the pact so that we could drop the physical laws and work on their spiritual counterparts that people had been too blind to recognize.

If not for having described it as "nailed to a pole" I would think you were a copy&paste jerk throwing a wall of text at me without the courtesy of typing it up yourself.

If you didn't grab this from someone else I can tell that you at least derive your fatih from a Catholic view though.


Dear Heavenly Father,
I reject the holy spirit. I rejected it roughly a decade ago.

Well shoot, according to Matthew 12:31-32 it's too late for me.


Now, if you don't accept that Jesus could have been speaking literally (asked above) I'm curious as to why you're alright with thinking "God's dirt" could organize itself into life. Genesis speaks of quite a different origin and Jesus never revised that. Are you alright revising the Bible so long as it isn't recounting the words of Jesus?

Are you saying that I understand it or that I don't?

I'm obviously made of pieces because if you take just a few of them away you can change who I am but as that's the change I'd not longer be me but rather someone else. There's a fuzzy line between how I grow into being someone else all the time and how just switching who I am would be something drastically different but I don't think that's a line anyone doesn't intuitively understand well enough.

So if I pull one level and get treasure we can't say my pulling the lever caused that because other levers might drop me through a trap door in the floor. The lever needs to take responsibility for it's personal feelings?

I'm thinking I'm finding another similarity between you three- but before I go blabbing what I think it is, do you believe in demons of the hell variety?

Here are some quotes:




So are you now saying that it's not an extremely important factor in life (the game) that influences it's very nature and by which we should (possibly exclusively,) evaluate the game?

You told me we don't start over from nothing when we reincarnate so that would either be the same character placed elsewhere or the player goes making his character do things it couldn't have otherwise known about.

I'm an organ donor so I don't think the pieces that make me or memory positions that store me are me. I'm a combination or a pattern- wipe that away and I'm gone; take the pieces apart and they're just generic pieces.

"As far as the game is concerned" is a bad way to look at things when we're talking about if the game is perfect or not. As far as any game is concerned it's perfect- except maybe if it contains any information stating it's a piece of junk or something.

You talked about playing a different game. I'm comparing that to playing different characters in the same game and after long enough playing these games should become a horrible existence. Everything should be so infinity is really just a trap.

I'm try to lead this into the bigger question of how we get out of the trap.

Take itself out of all of eternity. Erase itself past present and future.

So they don't check baseline very often and sometimes the baseline goes past the limits they've defined for nonrandom behavior- doesn't that make it not-random to begin with?

Quantum stuff is hard enough to measure as it is- we have giant contraptions concentrated on doing so so that little box isn't directly measuring anything like what the word quantum makes us think of (else you would have to wait years between each cycle of numbers if it was tip top in ability to sense these things per it's size.

I looked through a bunch but couldn't find any others that gave any actual data.

Well Google has informed me that other groups can't replicate the results so as of right now it looks like they don't just have bad methodology but that it was a hoax. There's still room to vindicate them in the future but as of right now the outlook is grim.

What does "close to perfect" mean? How would any game not be close to perfect?

Ya, "real life doesn't have any respawn points" is a joke but I knew it wasn't going to be funny after I had to explain what those were.

I spent too much time around 4chan
---------) . (-----------
just reminds me of goatse DDD:
*one frowning mouth wasn't enough but three seemed like about the right number.

Personal moral views are of paramount importance if we're discussing the subjective.

What is there to ask?



-_-;
As I've been saying the game turns into a bland purgatory. Isn't there any way to not just sign out of the game but turn ourselves off as well?


I can't find where they tell me how they made their "Psyleron true random event generator." For patent purposes I could understand them not giving a schematic of the thing but you can say well enough how a nuclear power plant generates electricity without telling someone everything they need to build one.

I want to know if these things are "random" in that they're measuring radioactive decay. Showing that human thought could alter the rate of radioactive decay would be pretty huge news.

I did hear "quantum electric field" in there somewhere but they've only used it as a technobabble diversion as far as I've seen. I'd like for that to not be the case but I can't find what I need to make it anything more.

So what does it mean when you say the game is perfect? Is any game not perfect?

Naw, you respawn with the general equipment you were wearing and at least basic guns, though with a relatively small amount of ammo.

What's really important though is that it's on the same map and you go right back to the task you were working on before dieing until the end of the match. If you start up a whole new match that's "just spawning."