> As I told you, I can't. I can prove it to myself about myself, I can't prove it for you. If you are asserting something to be true, show me how you got there. I'm not name-calling, if you believe in something, why should I believe it if you cannot prove it? If I tell you the sky is green but can't tell you why, not only that I believe it to be true but is true for everyone else, (for argument's sake) then why should you believe me without reason? > I can't prove you're sentient Do you think you are talking to Tam bot? Sentience is about feelings, not logic, so I *feel* as though you are giving me the shits because you cannot quantify your belief. By definition, even dogs can have limited sentience as they exhibit self-awareness and have feelings. You can't just run on feelings, are you saying your entire belief is based on emotion and zero logic? > On a semi-related note to the existence of a soul, how would any system of ethics apply if souls didn't exist? I've posted it before, they are cultural customs. Ethics are not universal and different tribes value different governing moral principles and acceptable forms of behaviour. e.g Collectivist and Individualistic attitudes are expressed as predominately oriental vs occidental and tribal groups evolutionary strategies to survive the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. > I can argue semantics if you want, but not only will you be wrong on this Wrong huh? Dove prism manipulates light, it is exactly and specifically 'Negative refraction' which is the unusual bending of light. They're using the word transform non-literally, as transform means modification of form, nature, or appearance. So light is the inclusion of all colours and separating the wave-lengths is a transformation of form and appearance, they are not literally transforming light into something else, even splitting light is the incorrect term as they are bending it as it passes through the prism.