quote:

---

The question is, is someone going to work for a while to improve the editor to allow new races to be made?

---

quote:

---

Man what is with you guys changing your handles every few days?!?

Anyways, I missed this post of Thuryl's(or whatever he is calling himself now):

---

quote:

---

That's a tricky one. I suppose you would have to define "direct experience" a bit more clearly. I don't have direct expereince of my thoughts in the way I have direct expereince of my hands for example.

---

quote:

---

You realize this only supports my argument right? Human eyes that are not defective or a mutation operate the same as all other normal human eyes. If soemone is seeing "green" in place of "red" then it is, as you concede above, because their eyes are mechanically/physically different.

---

quote:

---

I disagree. We disagree on the extraneous assessments of what we experience(i.e. whether something is "beautiful", "ugly" or "meh") but not the events themselves. A terrorist sees the falling of teh twi towers as beautiful. I see it as horrendous. We both see the towers falling though.

---

quote:

---

If that were so then we would all be sitting around on our hands in a nightmare bout of solipsism chattering "I cannopt say anything is true!". I cannot even say THAT is true." "I cannot say that I cannot say that I cannot say THAT is true!!"

We DO have surefire ways of distinguihsing reality from fantasy. It is a combination of concurrent observation, repeatability, testing/experiement etc.

---

quote:

---

I am sorry but from my POV that sounds like complete nonsense. It is material objects we cannot get away from and thoughts which are fleeting. A rock will exist regardless of whether you are thinking about it. That is why you are surprised when you accidentally trip over the rug or stub your toe on a rock. The object gets you even though you were unaware of it being there.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you'd support dropping the "observation" criterion from your previous method altogether?

---

No. The "dreaming"/imagining is NOT "observation". Observation would be sitting in front of my chemistry set watching how various cemicals react and discovering what flavors are produced.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Unless you're going to argue that the sciences that do require materialism are somehow more intellectually sound in principle than the ones that don't, I think it's unfair to draw a distinction between sciences which require materialism and sciences which don't.

---

I don't know that I would say "more intellectually sound..." but as far as figuring out what exists and how it exists, yes, physicists are better suited than economists.

---

quote:

---

THAT is where skepticism/critical thought come in. Any scientist worth his salt will be a skeptic/criticial thinker. Skepticism is a means of keeping an eye out for what Shermer calls "errors in thinking". Fallacies that spring forth from personal bias adn such. We cannot be completely objective/unbiased this is true but we CAN avoid the problems of being so. We do NOT necessrily have to fall into the traps of presupposition and the like.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To say that you've proved something via reasoning requires, at the very least, a conviction that your own reasoning is correct. Brains, as we've already agreed, aren't purely logical things. It's always possible you've made some error in logic even if nobody notices it, so how can you be completely certain of any conclusion arrived at through a line of reasoning?

---

Here's the thing though. BRains are capable of both rational adn irrational thought, we both agree. However it is the very fact that we DO have teh ability to think logically and rationally and therefore to spot those "errors" of thinking.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Prove it. And prove it without using empirical evidence, because there's always the possibility that any empirical evidence you use is a hallucination.

---

Not true. What I think you mean to say is that it is always possible for someone to deny what they know to be true and against such a person, nothing can be proven.

---

quote:

---

"Thinking" is the act of mentally concieving of ideas using the brain.

---

quote:

---

It makes no sense to speculate that I am thinking with a piece of magic in some other world that somehow becomes non-functional when my brain is thoroughly damaged.

---

quote:

---

Followed to it's logical conclusion, your line of reasoning suggests that we live in an "anything is possible" universe where we cannot say we know anything.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Okay, here's a simple question that will tell me what I originally wanted to know one way or the other; if I made a completely accurate molecule-by-molecule duplicate of a self-aware human being, would the duplicate be self-aware? The duplicate hasn't "experienced" anything, because it was only just created, but from a materialist perspective there isn't any difference between the two now.

---

Possibly but it would be self-aware in the same way a bewborn baby is self aware. Experiences define who we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Solodric:

Okay, about the BoA editor.....first off, are you allowed to change the system? I mean, add new spells, change old skills, etc.,? Like, lets say my scenario is one where you play in a world with many types of magic.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to add a new magic skill, like "Pure Magic" for Natural Mages, the magic that Athron talked about using, the "Pure magic" she used that came from within her but could not be taught, etc.,?

---

quote:

---

Speaking of other worlds, about the BoA character editor and scenarios, once a scenario is kicked up into the official scenario table, does it count as the "official" scenario? I suggested A4 might have something on the Lost Bahsikava, and was notified that that was Kelandon's territory, which gives the impression that each scenario is assumed to have happened in the A universe?....I'm really confused :P

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Solodric:

Okay, about the BoA editor.....first off, are you allowed to change the system? I mean, add new spells, change old skills, etc.,? Like, lets say my scenario is one where you play in a world with many types of magic.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to add a new magic skill, like "Pure Magic" for Natural Mages, the magic that Athron talked about using, the "Pure magic" she used that came from within her but could not be taught, etc.,?

---

quote:

---

Speaking of other worlds, about the BoA character editor and scenarios, once a scenario is kicked up into the official scenario table, does it count as the "official" scenario? I suggested A4 might have something on the Lost Bahsikava, and was notified that that was Kelandon's territory, which gives the impression that each scenario is assumed to have happened in the A universe?....I'm really confused :P

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Creator:

I don't know much about such things (and had never heard of that particular story), so I won't argue too strenuously one way or the other. But, apparently, they were able to tell the genetic age of Dolly.

---

quote:

---

Finally, one priest, whose faith had begun to waver, prayed for a sign as he celebrated the Eucharist. As he performed the ceremony, the bread in his hand literally became flesh, and the wine in the chalice similarly became blood. The resulting flesh has been preserved as a relic of the Church, and tests performed on it have revealed that it was cardiac tissue from a man who had died at the age of 33 and one-half, or the age of Jesus when he was crucified.

---