[AoshiShinomori]

Nice argument but a bit vacuous however. If Light wants to play hardball then Ryuk will dodge too! ^_^

Originally Posted by CoolNard

Your perspective is that of an antirealist. You are going against a fixed definition, which we base our lives on...
...Are you claiming the same effects of "alive" on the non-living or stating "alive" in a different meaning?...
...The keyword is "possibility", which is associated with "if it can be done". The allegedly accomplished claim is thus, irrelevant...

I'd probably classify my perspective as that of a theoretician. It would be antirealist if I forefully claimed that the deathnotes have been used to kill buildings. It would be antirealist if I stated that the lack of proof that they haven't been used to kill buildings so far implies that they definitely can. But I state neither. I simply hypothesise the possibility that they might and attempt to prove that as long as it's non-zero, the word "sum total" can never be applied to the deathnote's destructive power over "inanimate" objects (as defined by human standards). This means that there is reasonable probability that the death note canNOT in fact kill a building. But until such proof is concrete, the acceptance of that possibility is moot. The true definition of "sum total" (even by our own society's standards) is when the possibility of the negation of the statement is abosulte zero. I re-emphasize, it's the possibility itself being zero not just alleged claims of the statement's negation being non-zero. Just because no-one in say, Missouri, ever rides a bycicle that pulls three people behind it, and earns a living out of it, one can't claim that it can't be done. All the way around the world in India, people do it on a daily basis. The only thing the missouri observant would be able to state is that "nobody in Missouri rides a bycicle and chugs people behind them for a living". Alleged claims count for factual evidence. Possibilites don't deal with evidence, they deal with the lack of them. Given that information and based on our society's definitions of sum-total, there are still no proofs that corroborate the counter argument put forth.

Originally Posted by CoolNard

My understanding is that all living things need energy to survive

The key word here being "my". You and me are both human so we again base our understanding on human society's. I'd agree with your statement, since I'm human too. But that doesn't mean the "deathnote" needs to agree. It isn't bound by our understanding or our laws. In fact, it isn't human at all. Even if the worlds oldest buildings were alive for centuries without requiring energy, it still wouldn't support the counter argument, simply from the fact that it doesn't counter the original argument. For all we know buildings do absorb energy, we just haven't been able to measure it so far. That's how it started out with plants. The stone age man couldn't prove that plants absorbed energy since they weren't from a measurable source. Yet 2 million years later we have an entire proven theory of photosynthesis. From the worlds youngest building to it's oldest, from the smallest pebble to the biggest mountain, "our" understanding is based of a supposition that completely denies any fragment of life in them. All I'm saying is that this cannot be taken as abosute proof that they do not absorb energy from a source. I don't believe they absorb energy either (coz I'm human too ^_^) but I'm just willing to accept that there is no proof for my belief...yet(this is what makes me a theoretician as opposed to an antirealist)!

Originally Posted by CoolNard

This point bewilders me: How can a building which isn't alive even know anything? It's contradictory..

Yet again we're hitting the same brick wall. That statement only depicts a contradiction if the first part of it were valid absolute fact. If the building isn't "alive" then of course it can't know about it's own existence. But hypothesizing the fact that it IS alive, why then couldn't it know? I explicitly stated this point in my concluding statements in the earlier post. If my point 1 were somehow breached than the stone hurdle that point 2 presented was in fact, this statement that you bring forth. Once more I emphasize (in case the last 2000 words weren't clear enough), I'm not dealing with a claim that a deathnote was used to kill a building. I'm simply dealing with the claim that it might be possible, though at this and all other junctures I refrain from making conclusions on through who or how it might come about.

Originally Posted by CoolNard

A good example would probably be a patient in a mental hospital who believes and REALLY believes she is a piece of non-living, stagnant, dead wood named Plank. Light could kill anyone, regardless of their mentality. .

I wouldn't agree it's a good example because it fails to apply the counter argument to itself. Here is how:
1. No depth of belief can replace gut knowledge. Unless the woman "knows" that she is a piece of wood named plank her belief counts for nothing.
2. So assume then that she did "know" in her gut that she was a piece of wood named plank. Even then, she'd still believe she was a piece of wood that was "alive" which would automatically imply that life could be taken from her and prove my theory rather than the counter argument.
3. So to support the example more, I'll assume further still that she "knew" she was a piece of dead wood named Plank. First up, this statement is contradictory since "knowledge" presupposes "life" but again given that even that assumption is based on a human definition of "life", there is still no proof that Light would be able to kill her with a deathnote. Until it can be proven that Light would definitely be able to kill her, the possibility that he couldn't is still non-zero which again by our human standards counters the "sum total" theory.

Originally Posted by CoolNard

To top it, the death note HAS its limitations, which is due to its rules refering precisely to "human". In another words, even if it is used on an animal, say a dog, while complying to all your connections stated, it would never work.

Completely incorrect and I can state this as absolute fact based on evidence taken right from the series. The deathnote had written facts about what would happen when used on humans. That cannot, in any sense of the term, no matter how loosely interpreted, be taken as conclusive proof that it wouldn't affect anything but human. There is evidence in the series for this too. When Rem gave Misa her deathnote, she told Misa that it actually came from Jealous who died using the deathnote to save her. But who knew that a deathnote could kill a Shinigami when using it to protect a human? It wasn't written in the rule book, yet guess what?... it's true and it's a factual rule. A deathnote can, in fact, be used to kill a Shinigami. Light himself did it, by playing the circumstances so that Rem would die protecting Misa. He didn't personally write Rem's name in the deathnote, but you can't say that he didn't "use" the deathnote to kill Rem. None of the rules in the deathnote mentioned that, yet it's true. The entire argument that the written rules point to human, imply only and I repeat only, that the human race is suceptible to it's deathly reach. It does not imply that animals aren't susceptible, it certainly did not imply deathgods weren't susceptible, and without loss of much generality, I'm including the possibility that it does not imply that bulidings cannot fall by it either. So outside of all proverbial misconstruances and/or subtitling errors, even with the agreement that the noble subtitling section did an efficient job with the series the fact still doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by CoolNard

What was the harm in deviating their thinking from the norms of society?

None whatsoever, but this again comes back to two points I covered earlier. For one, no depth of belief can surpass gut knowledge. If they "knew" the building was dead then no matter how hard they willed it to be alive there would be part of them that knew it wouldn't work. Even so, suppose they did break the barrier from belief to knowledge, if they did deviate from societal thinking, they still would only breach point 1, which as I had previously stated would still not count until point 2 was also valid. So assume then, to support your claim that points 2, 3 and 4 were also valid at the time that any of the characters human thinking was influenced. There is still no proof that it wouldn't happen. If the series had an episode where Light magically broke the knowledge-belief barrier and wrote a buliding's name (that was also shown to be "alive" in some sense of the term) AND the building didn't fall, only then would it be conclusive proof that the possibilites are complete and absolute zero. Until such proof is ascertained with verifiable fact, probabilities will always have play in theory and with such probabilities in play, the "sum total" argument is entirely anulled.

**Erm.. mathematics?.. teehee.. what mathematics? *rushes to edit previous post* ^^.. I agree I hated maths at school and even through a couple of years of college, but once you delve into the more abstract branches of math, it's more deep thinking and less actual numbers.. I guess that's when I began to see some hint of appeal in it**