tv33 wrote:There are countless philosophers who all think different and conflicting things. So to guess which ones Anno is drawing on is a shot in the dark anyway.

So because people disagree on some aspects of philosophy, we should throw out reasoned insight into the nature of the soul (which happens to be practically universal among non-materialists I might add).

tv33 wrote:There is a difference between Descartes thoughts on an abstract concept like a soul, and simple reason.

This sentence alone makes me think that either:
A.) You haven't read Descartes or
B.) You missed his point entirely.
Descartes goal and belief was that we could come to understand the soul and mind through reason and intellect alone.

tv33 wrote:No one brings up fairies as an explanation to the mechanics of LCL because there isn't any mention of fairies. It is completely unreasonable to do so. We do however get an idea if what Anno wants us to know about souls in the universe he created.

I'm willing to base it on Anno's "science" alone. But even in doing so, you're still going to have to point out where it is that Anno even remotely suggests a soul can be in two places at once.
I think if you're going down this path, you're going to find it difficult — as Ritsuko herself says this is impossible.

tv33 wrote:Saying Descartes or any other philosopher thinks differently, so we should as well, is silly because we are dealing with a work of fiction, which is dealing with something that hasn't even be proven to exist!

But did I say that?
Why is it that people keep putting words in my mouth?
I referenced him as one who has great insight and has put much work into understanding the facets of the soul.
And yet, here again is that philosophy so many people here care to use when confronted with something they either don't agree with or cannot refute "we're dealing with a work of fiction" — [basically saying anything is possible, it doesn't need a reason, it doesn't have to comply with reason or intellect or logically follow from its premises]

I don't see how so many people can keep using this sorry excuse for setting aside everything for the sake of their ideal image of what the show should be or what they think it is.

I, on the other hand, again, as I've said in either this post or others (I'm losing track now), am open to hearing defenses.
But all I'm hearing is "It's fictional. Forget reason. Our theories which have no evidence [*writer's note* except for the RCB and .. Newtype is it? — which are sooo infallible] are correct. We don't want to hear about your so-called logic or consistency."

(Sorry, but I'm a little bitter because this same excuse [and that's all it is, an excuse] continues to keep popping up).

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 01:39 GMT

Knives wrote:This sentence alone makes me think that either:
A.) You haven't read Descartes or
B.) You missed his point entirely.
Descartes goal and belief was that we could come to understand the soul and mind through reason and intellect alone.).

I think you missed my point. The human soul in Eva is a little red dot in the body. Where is the intellect and reason in that? Anno doesn’t have to work with the restrictions placed on an entity that hasn’t been proven to exist based on what someone else thinks.

Knives wrote:I referenced him as one who has great insight and has put much work into understanding the facets of the soul.
And yet, here again is that philosophy so many people here care to use when confronted with something they either don't agree with or cannot refute "we're dealing with a work of fiction" — [basically saying anything is possible, it doesn't need a reason, it doesn't have to comply with reason or intellect or logically follow from its premises]).

The problem is you are not talking about something like mathematics. You are not even talking about anything based on reason. The soul is an completely abstract idea that has no real bases in reason.

Knives wrote:I don't see how so many people can keep using this sorry excuse for setting aside everything for the sake of their ideal image of what the show should be or what they think it is.

I think the vast majority of the regulars on this forum have shown they have a open mind when it comes to new ideas...

Knives wrote:I, on the other hand, again, as I've said in either this post or others (I'm losing track now), am open to hearing defenses.
But all I'm hearing is "It's fictional. Forget reason. Our theories which have no evidence [*writer's note* except for the RCB and .. Newtype is it? — which are sooo infallible] are correct. We don't want to hear about your so-called logic or consistency.".

If we didn’t want to hear about it people would just ignore you completely, rather then trying to argue point and counterpoint.

I don’t see anyone ignoring reason, and I don’t see anyone pushing theories that have no evidence.

Knives wrote:(Sorry, but I'm a little bitter because this same excuse [and that's all it is, an excuse] continues to keep popping up).

It is in my mind, and the minds of others on this forum however, a valid excuse.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 02:00 GMT

tv33 wrote:It is in my mind, and the minds of others on this forum however, a valid excuse.

I'm going to use your following quote and explanation to explain why it's a poor excuse.

tv33 wrote:I think you missed my point. The human soul in Eva is a little red dot in the body. Where is the intellect and reason in that? Anno doesn't have to work with the restrictions placed on an entity that hasn't been proven to exist based on what someone else thinks.

Alright.

So .. let's assume for a moment that Anno decided to include the Tooth Fairy in his story.

Like a soul, she is (in your words) "an entity that hasn't been proven to exist."

So .. in his story, Anno decides that the Tooth Fairy doesn't collect teeth at all. In fact, she's an axe-weilding maniac with telepathic powers.

It's within his power to do this, because, as you've stated the Tooth Fairy is something that hasn't been proven to exist and so he can do what he wishes.

However (and here's the catcher), in this story, the Tooth Fairy is no longer the Tooth Fairy (she's been changed so much, she no longer meets the definition).

Likewise, if you change the nature of the soul so much that it no longer fits its definition, it ceases to be a soul and becomes something completely different.

In short, I'm not saying he has to stick to the basic definition (again which most non-materialist philosophers agree upon).

What I am saying, is if he is a good director and a good writer (which I believe him to be) he would not have made the Tooth Fairy an axe-wielding, telepathic maniac as you are seeming to suggest he has done.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 02:21 GMT

Knives wrote:I'm going to use your following quote and explanation to explain why it's a poor excuse.

*snip*

First of all that whole post was made irrelevant because you ignored...

The soul is a completely abstract idea that has no real bases in reason.

The tooth fairy isn’t an abstract idea. It’s a fairy that collects teeth, as was the intention of whoever started that story.

If we look at the dictionary...

Main Entry: 1soul
Pronunciation: 'sOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol; akin to Old High German sEula soul
1 : the essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

Now isn’t that definition sufficiently vague as to allow a wide range of freedom in its interpretation? How does Annos ideas on the soul somehow violate the definition of what is a completely abstract idea that is based on nothing other then subjectivity?

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 02:40 GMT

Careful, Knives... Are you trying to be branded Fuzzy Chickens Mark 2?

I can follow what tv33 and Shin-seiki are saying. Your posts are mostly making me go " ". I guess we're just no match for your level of thinking.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 04:23 GMT

tv33 wrote:Now isn't that definition sufficiently vague as to allow a wide range of freedom in its interpretation? How does Annos ideas on the soul somehow violate the definition of what is a completely abstract idea that is based on nothing other then subjectivity?

I'll tell you what:
You give me either one of two things and I'll consider your position —
A.) Evidence that Anno believes the soul can be in multiple places simultaneously
or
B.) Name any philosopher who reasons (reason being a facet of the mind/soul) that the soul can be in multiple places simultaneously.

If you can do either of those things, I'll consider your argument (I won't necessarily agree, but I'll give it more thought).
Until such time, all you're offering me is, "How do we know this isn't what Anno was thinking?" — a question we could ask about anything. But without supporting it, we achieve nothing.

Reichu wrote:Careful, Knives... Are you trying to be branded Fuzzy Chickens Mark 2?
I can follow what tv33 and Shin-seiki are saying. Your posts are mostly making me go " ". I guess we're just no match for your level of thinking.

I'd love to hear how you're understanding what they're saying.

Because (and I feel like I'm repeating myself) what I'm hearing is:
"This is Anno's world and he can do whatever he likes" which makes any discussion into any matter (philosophical or scientific for that matter) a moot point, because there are no holds barred — anything and everything is possible with no chance of factual defense.
Do you at least understand that much, and why, therefore, it makes for a bad defense?

tv33 wrote:The tooth fairy isn't an abstract idea. It's a fairy that collects teeth, as was the intention of whoever started that story.

Furthermore, any thought or concept which does not exist in reality is abstract:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Link
1 a : disassociated from any specific instance b : difficult to understand : ABSTRUSE c : insufficiently factual : FORMAL
2 : expressing a quality apart from an object
3 a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : THEORETICAL b : IMPERSONAL, DETACHED

And in regards to this Fuzzy Chicken business, if I'm crossing any lines, please tell me. I've told you on several occasions, Reichu, that I have the purest intentions of merely discovering the truth in as amiable and civil means possible.
But I feel I'm justified in pointing out the flaw in this particular (what I believe to be fallacious) argument.
If I am in the wrong, point it out. Say "Knives, this is where you are crossing the line." For if I am, I do not see it. I see a line, but it's not crossed by me — it's crossed by those tossing reason out the window via some undefendable "what if" shield.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 06:54 GMT

However (and here's the catcher), in this story, the Tooth Fairy is no longer the Tooth Fairy (she's been changed so much, she no longer meets the definition).

Likewise, if you change the nature of the soul so much that it no longer fits its definition, it ceases to be a soul and becomes something completely different.

I think you just might understand my original view on it now that you aruged your way in this far...

First, yes those things can still be refered to as Tooth Fairy because that is their given name in the fiction. Sure, they defy all previous fictional work about Tooth Fairy, but guess what, they are still CALLED Tooth Fairy.

By your logic you should make an argument that "angels" in evas are not "angels" because they defy the real life/popular definition.

Even if we should take away people right to change things in work of fiction to be different from real life/popular definition, you started this argument against nothing. Anno calls those "things" in eva as "souls", but they are very different from what we normally consider as "souls" and that's what I just wanted to say. Those "things" in eva certainly did not behave like "souls" but that's what they were called in the series.

Nobody here tried to argue that souls in real life(if they exists) are not eternal/corporal/physics defying things, yet all your arguements were about that. What I wanted to say is that eva's idea of "soul" is very different from what "soul" should be, so that it's very weird. That is what they were trying to point out but you kept ignoring it. Sure, eva's perception of soul could be wrong, but you are arguing against me for pointing that out.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 20:14 GMT

Gaizokubanou wrote:By your logic you should make an argument that "angels" in evas are not "angels" because they defy the real life/popular definition.

... They aren't angels. They're children of Adam called "angels." I don't think even Anno himself would claim that in "his universe" that Angels are "angels".

Gaizokubanou wrote:Even if we should take away people right to change things in work of fiction to be different from real life/popular definition, you started this argument against nothing. Anno calls those "things" in eva as "souls", but they are very different from what we normally consider as "souls" and that's what I just wanted to say. Those "things" in eva certainly did not behave like "souls" but that's what they were called in the series.

Here's the argument again, which I'm arguing against.
This is like saying "well sure, in real life 2+2=4 is the popular thing, but because this is a work of fiction, we can let Anno say that 2+2=5"
As soon as you do this, you throw all debate and discussion out the window.
Understanding is no longer a viable option, because everything is simply explained away by saying "Because it's fiction, everything is possible" and I'm have a deja vu here, but "north is west, red is black, air is more dense than water"
This is the fundamental point which several people seem to keep glossing over.

Gaizokubanou wrote:Nobody here tried to argue that souls in real life(if they exists) are not eternal/corporal/physics defying things, yet all your arguements were about that. What I wanted to say is that eva's idea of "soul" is very different from what "soul" should be, so that it's very weird. That is what they were trying to point out but you kept ignoring it. Sure, eva's perception of soul could be wrong, but you are arguing against me for pointing that out.

In what way is it "different from what a 'soul' should be"?
The only way it's "different" is if it holds to this theory that the soul can be in multiple places at once (so again, you're [not you, but "everyone" {not "everyone" but a lot of people}] defending this theory with circular logic).

That is to say, you're defending this theory that the soul is unique in Evangelion — why? Because it can be in multiple places at once.
Why can it be in multiple places at once? Oh, because the soul is unique in Evangelion.

Can no one see this circular fallacy?

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 09:22 GMT

Knives wrote:I'll tell you what:
You give me either one of two things and I'll consider your position —
A.) Evidence that Anno believes the soul can be in multiple places simultaneously
or
B.) Name any philosopher who reasons (reason being a facet of the mind/soul) that the soul can be in multiple places simultaneously.

If you can do either of those things, I'll consider your argument (I won't necessarily agree, but I'll give it more thought).

Knives, I for one am not sure that it's necesary or productive to subject discussion of NGE to the same level of intellectual rigour as the types of subject to which you are obviously accustomed. At the end of the day, the show exists, complete with it's flaws, and the only purpose of these discussions is in order to understand better the meaning of the show.

With regards to your evidentiary requests, I would say that while it may be possible to answer your first request, your second request is not valid. Philosophers who have reasoned out principles governing the soul in the real world can not possibly hold sway in the world of NGE.

You yourself expressed what you see as the prevalent view of those arguing against you as being, "This is Anno's world and he can do whatever he likes".

I am not at all sure that this represents a popular view when expressed in those words, but it might do, were it to be expressed as, "This is Anno's world and he can do whatever he likes, as long as it is internally self-constent."

Adding that proviso then allows rational debate to continue, albeit with the added dimension that the parameters and rules of Anno's world must first be established. Therefore, it is not always going to be useful to quote real-world philosophy.

In the case of your first request, I would hope that you would agree that it would be sufficient to prove that the rules of Anno's fictional world allow for souls to be in multiple places simultaneously. The distinction is small, and yet, important.

I am unable to offer proof of this claim, since I cannot claim to fully understand the issue of souls in NGE myself, but I would like to offer up a thought for others to debate. It is my understanding that following her contact experiment with Nigouki, Kyoko continued to live her life, albeit with severe mental instability, until such point as she committed suicide. Does this not imply that the soul of Kyoko was both in the core of Nigouki and also in Kyoko herself?

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 09:27 GMT

Knives wrote:That is to say, you're defending this theory that the soul is unique in Evangelion — why? Because it can be in multiple places at once.
Why can it be in multiple places at once? Oh, because the soul is unique in Evangelion.

Can no one see this circular fallacy?

Uhhhh....

In the words of the immortal Eric Cartman: "What's the big ****ing deal?"

* NGE is fiction and Anno can do whatever the hell he wants.
* This includes making up his own rules on how souls work.
* Therefore, if he posits that a single soul can be in two or more places at the same time, that's his prerogative.
* If you give a damn, you can debate about exactly how this affects things in the show, or you can say that NGE is bullcrap and move on with your life.

Maybe we're just not seasoned in your brand of profound logic, but, I hesitate to say, the one with the problem here seems to be you and not the "rest of us".

Reminds me of an interchange between Dr. Nick and RahOtaku here. THAT is an exercise in futility. If I find any of our classical debates with our old friend Fuzzy Chickens, I shall have to point you to those, as well.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 13:04 GMT

... They aren't angels. They're children of Adam called "angels." I don't think even Anno himself would claim that in "his universe" that Angels are "angels".

yeah I'm sure you are right and everyone in Gainex that called them "angels" is wrong...

They created the darn thing and they NAMED them "angels", so how are they not "angels" anymore?

By that logic Shinji shouldn't be called Shinji but rather be called "fictional main character of NGE" for your strange need of 100% matching definition with real/popular identity. There is no Shinji in real world that is identical to that of Shinji in NGE, so calling him Shinji would be wrong, right?

This is like saying "well sure, in real life 2+2=4 is the popular thing, but because this is a work of fiction, we can let Anno say that 2+2=5"
As soon as you do this, you throw all debate and discussion out the window.

ROFL

Did I say Anno's definition of soul was correct? NO

Nobody tried to defend Anno's concept of soul in NGE.

What Anno said was like 1+1=1, but our point was that it was HIS idea in HIS work of fiction. YES he is probably using the term "soul" in the wrong way, but all I claim was that it was how he used the darn term. And you are trying to argue against that by putting words in our mouth as if we claimed that Anno was right. Just because what he tried to portray is wrong doesn't mean that he didn't try.

Now don't even bother trying to say that souls in eva are on whole different field then physical beings, cause they extracted Yui's soul and put it in a different body through scientific means, and I consider that pretty damn physical.

Your arguments are not necessarily flawed... BUT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EVEN CLAIMED BY ANYONE HERE.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 17:44 GMT

Reichu wrote:* NGE is fiction and Anno can do whatever the hell he wants.
* This includes making up his own rules on how souls work.
* Therefore, if he posits that a single soul can be in two or more places at the same time, that's his prerogative.

Hey Reichu, do you think there'd be any advantage in trotting out "Quantum Magic" at this point?

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 17:58 GMT

Reichu wrote:* NGE is fiction and Anno can do whatever the hell he wants.

I keep hearing this excuse (you've used it, Soluzar's used it, Shinseiki's used it, and Gaizokubanou's used it), and every time I hear it, I will continue to point out how poor it is.

This is an excuse used any time something comes up that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion of the show.

If it be that your views are this narrow, I accept that. If this not be the case, then you'll see the logic in what I'm saying.

All I have to say, is once I do get around to this issue of the defense of Rei, you're not going to like it, because you have some notion stuck in your mind that (a) can't be defended and (b) is shielded by poor logic ("Anno can do what he wants").

I'll only answer the Kyoko evidence and then I'm done with this conversation because you're all clearly too entrenched in this concept in your minds to be open to anything else:
In the case of Kyoko, two other things are possible:
(a) Her soul was in fact placed in the Eva — leaving her a soulless shell with only "personality data" (which would explain her weird, some may say "evil" actions).
(b) Her soul wasn't placed in the Eva, but the experiment drove her mad. After killing herself, they moved her soul to the Eva.

I'm not saying at this time that it's either one of these, merely pointing out very valid options that refute this as evidence that her soul is in two places at once.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 19:15 GMT

Shin-seiki wrote:Hey Reichu, do you think there'd be any advantage in trotting out "Quantum Magic" at this point?

Always a good start.

There are probably enough bits of weirdness in material being written by real respectable Nobel prize-winners to smooth over these little local difficulties. For example, take this paper String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal by Brian Josephson (of Josephson Junction fame). Combine it with a dash of retrocausality as propounded by Jack Sarfatti, there are almost certainly more than enough seriously proposed bits of quantum magic for the job.

Admittedly these Penrosian papers are philosophically at odds to the other useful notion necessary to stop us playing "Cherchez la femme" with Lilith's soul - the idea of soul-as-software - mint another disk and install it on demand.

EDIT/PS - It's possibly also worth citing David Brin's novel Kil'n People, in which the whole book is driven by the idea of soul replication. Perhaps I should be posting this on the latest Rei thread instead - the idea of Rei as a set of dittos.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 19:59 GMT

Knives wrote:I keep hearing this excuse (you've used it, Soluzar's used it, Shinseiki's used it, and Gaizokubanou's used it), and every time I hear it, I will continue to point out how poor it is.

How is it poor? If I am writing a story and I want to make the sky green and the ocean purple, I can. If I want to make watermelons shaped like pyramids, I can. If I want to have a black hole in a kid's skull that robots pop out of, I can. If I want to the Earth to be run by a sentient species of penguin, I can. Why? Because the person making a creative work is the master of that universe. I don't recall there being any "rules" about what is and isn't allowed in a work of fiction. As such, I am really kind of baffled as to what exactly you are arguing about.

This is an excuse used any time something comes up that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion of the show.

How is it "pre-conceived"? We've arrived at these ideas because of observations we have made from the show itself and by discussing these things collectively. Accusing our own ideas of being "pre-conceived" doesn't do anything to strengthen your own position.

If it be that your views are this narrow, I accept that. If this not be the case, then you'll see the logic in what I'm saying.

All I have to say, is once I do get around to this issue of the defense of Rei, you're not going to like it, because you have some notion stuck in your mind that (a) can't be defended and (b) is shielded by poor logic ("Anno can do what he wants").

It's been my experience that the people here are rather open-minded. I've encountered resistence in the past to some of my own ideas -- some of them have come by the way side, others have caught on. While both sides here are guilty of some degree of prejustice, please try to let go of this preconception that you are right and we are the "narrow-minded" ones, because things aren't that black and white, ever. I think all you need to do is look at some of those old threads I bump to see that we ARE, in fact, very open to new ideas and get rid of the old ones when they no longer work.

I'll only answer the Kyoko evidence and then I'm done with this conversation because you're all clearly too entrenched in this concept in your minds to be open to anything else

Don't let your frustration cloud your judgment. You know you're going to come back for more.

Gaizokubanou wrote:Now don't even bother trying to say that souls in eva are on whole different field then physical beings, cause they extracted Yui's soul and put it in a different body through scientific means, and I consider that pretty damn physical.

Not to burst your bubble, but real life science can manipulate energy in addition to matter. We don't know exactly WHAT makes a soul in the NGE universe, but, whatever they are "made out of", they do not have to be something tangible in order to be affected by technology.

Originally posted on: 16-Nov-2004, 08:50 GMT

I keep hearing this excuse (you've used it, Soluzar's used it, Shinseiki's used it, and Gaizokubanou's used it), and every time I hear it, I will continue to point out how poor it is.

This doesn't even deserve a full original reply.

Did I say Anno's definition of soul was correct? NO

Nobody tried to defend Anno's concept of soul in NGE.

What Anno said was like 1+1=1, but our point was that it was HIS idea in HIS work of fiction. YES he is probably using the term "soul" in the wrong way, but all I claim was that it was how he used the darn term. And you are trying to argue against that by putting words in our mouth as if we claimed that Anno was right. Just because what he tried to portray is wrong doesn't mean that he didn't try.

And

Not to burst your bubble, but real life science can manipulate energy in addition to matter. We don't know exactly WHAT makes a soul in the NGE universe, but, whatever they are "made out of", they do not have to be something tangible in order to be affected by technology.

What I meant when I used the word "physical" was that it was "of this world, realm, demension, etc." I used that word because I thought it would relate to the study of "physics" and everything that can be explained by it.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 21:33 GMT

Reichu wrote:Don't let your frustration cloud your judgment. You know you're going to come back for more.

I suppose you're right. I concede this point . I will answer relevant questions as I see fit. In this case, you have a question, and I will address it and only it, and go no further into other discussions so as to make my point clear and distinct.

Reichu wrote:How is it poor?

You've answered this question for me (see quote directly below).

Reichu wrote:Because the person making a creative work is the master of that universe. I don't recall there being any "rules" about what is and isn't allowed in a work of fiction. As such, I am really kind of baffled as to what exactly you are arguing about.

If you want to stand by this opinion, then everything (all discussion) is thrown out the window, because there are no measurable distinctions whatsoever. Physics, math, reason is all thrown out the window with this claim. To stand by this claim is to stand by the belief that any discussion into the nature of this story or what occurs in it, is not up for debate, because ultimately, in the end, there are no "rules."

All discussion, then, into any aspect of the show (cloning, death, pain, character interaction, anything) becomes moot (that is, "pointless"), because in the end, no matter what justification there is to prove otherwise, we can always fall back on this so-called defense that Anno can do whatever he wants.

[[The problem is that in holding to this claim, it makes any sort of reasonable discussion impossible.]]
This (that is the section in [[ ]] ) is what makes it a poor defense.


I will also address this point in concession:

Reichu wrote:How is it "pre-conceived"? We've arrived at these ideas because of observations we have made from the show itself and by discussing these things collectively. Accusing our own ideas of being "pre-conceived" doesn't do anything to strengthen your own position.

I apologize for calling the theories "pre-conceived." I have read the old threads, and accept that you have indeed done much observation and discussion into these matters.

The blame is on my part in that in reading these discussions, I have found what I feel to be many faults and holes in the theories which are either unexplained or undefended (or undefendable), and yet have not addressed them in a logical and systematic presentation.

As such, I am the one with the pre-conceived notion that you know what I'm talking about, without having pointed out the flaws I see in proper fashion.

For this, I apologize.

But again, this was simply concession to that one point of pre-conceptions. What I mean to address in this post is the answer I provided you with above to your question.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 21:43 GMT

I would like to see some direct response to my replies, instead of just labling them.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 21:55 GMT

Gaizokubanou wrote:I would like to see some direct response to my replies, instead of just labling them.

... I am unaware of what you mean by "labeling" them ...
But if you insist, list the post numbers and I will give direct responses if necessary upon my return.

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 22:09 GMT

Knives wrote:If you want to stand by this opinion, then everything (all discussion) is thrown out the window, because there are no measurable distinctions whatsoever. Physics, math, reason is all thrown out the window with this claim. To stand by this claim is to stand by the belief that any discussion into the nature of this story or what occurs in it, is not up for debate, because ultimately, in the end, there are no "rules."

All discussion, then, into any aspect of the show (cloning, death, pain, character interaction, anything) becomes moot (that is, "pointless"), because in the end, no matter what justification there is to prove otherwise, we can always fall back on this so-called defense that Anno can do whatever he wants.

Well, I don't see how you can deny the fact that he DOES do "whatever he wants". This is his world; he makes up the rules. This is true with plenty of types of fiction, as relatively little fiction adheres to the rules of reality (because that would just be boring). Part of what we do by immersing ourselves into these worlds is observe how they work -- how they are the same as our own, how they are different, etc. If a fictional world is carefully, deliberately constructed, it will (generally speaking) adhere to its own rules and function within the diameters set by the story.

On a related note, Dr. Nick once said:

When talking about fictional details such as this it's useless to ask whether something is possible or not; but we can ask whether there is a certain logic behind the phenomenon, even if the explanation is something "impossible".

Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 23:09 GMT