I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.

It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young. What I don't want to see is yet another long overdue sequel where they have kept the male characters but replaced the female characters with younger eye candy. For some reason, women aging appears to be a taboo in Hollywood, and one I thinks needs to die.

I did. I provided the book, chapter and verse for each, and you can read all the context you need. Or cherry pick the context and interpret it so it doesn't have to apply to you.

(And the fallacy you just fell for is known as the continuum fallacy - rejecting all of a claim because the part you saw is not as precise or extensive as desired.)

What does that prove? That they would not have had the advances if it wasn't for religion? Why do you think so?

Mind that everything had to be done in the name of religion in past days. There was no way around it. You couldn't build a bridge without it being to the glory of fucking god. Any healing was attributed to the deity. Those who tried to practice outside the confines of the church, like wise women, were killed as heretics. The only safe way to practice was within the church.
And even today, religion holds medical science back. Stem cell research is a good example.

But all in all, most scientists today are, fortunately, atheists or agnostics, and manage to roll out miracle after miracle without the need to attribute it to a faith. The rapid increase in science coincides nicely with the loss of control of the religions.

Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.

"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" -- Mark 10:21

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." -- Luke 14:26

"Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." -- 1 Timothy 2:12

"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle, but also those who are harsh." -- 1 Peter 2:18

What's your picks, and rationale for not following ALL of those? Pick and choose, pick and choose...

Even with your definition which seems to conflict with the one I responded to, there would be logical issues.
Would it be the soul at the period of dying that should be counted, or at any other point? What if brain deterioration or augmentation occurs during life? What about people with a severed corpus callolsum? Do they have two souls?

The very concept of soul seems to me to not be compatible with science. It is up to those who believe in a soul to define what a soul is, and what the rules are. It is too easy to come up with cases that doesn't fit, and no firm boundaries seem to be possible.
I would call the soul myth debunked.

Allow me a small thought experiment, okay?
You presumably believe that you have an eternal soul. If you don't, bear with me and pretend.

What if science proceeds to the point that we can transfer your brain into a computer. Would you lose your soul?

What if we proceeded further, so we could transfer your memories and thoughts into a replica of your own brain? Would you lose your soul?

What if we could clone your brain? Would that create an additional soul?

What if, in order to save your life, we would replace part of your brain with machinery? Would you lose your soul? Would it depend on whether it was 5%, 50% or 99% of the brain? If so, how much?

I'm sorry, but the only definition of "soul" that makes any kind of logical sense to me is that "soul" is a fear of death, and willingness to believe absurdities to not have to deal with the probability that this life is it.

They can claim all they like, but from what I can see, advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion, and there is absolutely no indication that any of what happened within a religious context happened due to "communications with their god". And there are plenty of examples of religion setting us back and suppressing the truth - sometimes centuries. The ancient knowledge of the earth circling the sun, medical knowledge that thought and feelings originated in the brain, and the mathematical concept of zero were all suppressed. Was this too due to "communications with god"? Or is it only "proof" of communications with god when the result is in your favor?

One of the big fallacies of religion is the belief that everything good comes from good, thus because there is good, it proves god. This is absurd and false.

What is it acceptable to base worship on, then? A perfect set of boobs?

As I see it, worship is destructive.
Faith can be useful, as long as it's used for making predictable decisions with lack of data. But when data arrives, the faith should be abandoned.

To paraphrase Captain Kirk:

What does a starship need a god for?

Anyhow, I think it's a non-issue. Long before non-squishy machines will have the ability of independent thought, which is mere science fiction today, I trust that we squishies will have looked embarrassed at our feet and admitted that the emperor has no clothes.

Why presume the two are mutually exclusive?

There isn't a finite amount of jobs that people compete for. When we buy cheap stuff from China, we make a decision not to pay for creation of more jobs here. Jobs that can go to people willing to work and live here, pay taxes here, and support the local economy - whether the workers were born in Tijuana or San Diego.

My guess is they learn that the first time they bite the nipple.

I'm not too sure. I lost my father when I was young. I think that if he had made a video for me, I would find it more than a little creepy, as well as being a forceful reminder of what I had lost. It would not make me happy; it would make me cry in pain, and perhaps even feel controlled.

Unless he can make it a Haron Seldon tape, to play only during special occurrences, I think the best answer might be not to.

If you want her to be able to let go, perhaps the best thing is for you to let go.

That's two disjointed statements. Wearing a band that slides the width of the watch up and down makes skin breathing no issue at all. Not wearing an appropriate band is going to cause problems whether you sleep with the watch on or not.

What purpose would it have? Unlike a watch, which does tell the time, also in bed.

That says a lot more about your sleeping habits than mine.

No, it doesn't work that way. See, when the alarm goes off you know you cannot go back to sleep. That's kind of what the alarm is for. So when you turn it off it's always time to get up and never time to sleep in.

It's when you wake up without the alarm going off you may want to know what time it is, preferably without any fumbling that makes you more alert, nor noises waking partners, dogs, cats or walruses. All I have to do is lift one hand and open one eyelid and blissfully slip back to sleep. Thank you, Omega.

Why not?
The smart watches just need to be far more frugal and, dare I say it, smart? Passive NFC powered devices already exist, for example.

A pacemaker can run 5-10 years on a battery. A wristwatch that mechanically moves hands and dials runs for years on a single battery.
Saying it can't be done is copping out. It's like saying we could never have an electric car that could go for 300 miles on a charge.
We can, and we should.