Harrison Danneskjold

I think this is what he was referring to. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24986 I hadn't read this thread yet, but what I was trying to describe was Non-eliminative physicalism. Just because we know how all the different neurons fire together to form any given thought (as I think we will, someday) doesn't mean that the thought didn't occur in someone's mind. If Red Wanderer takes his own metaphysics seriously then the world he experiences must be a nightmare.

I, for one, actually loved the first two. But I watched both before reading the book so I had no idea what I was missing. (incidentally, I was forced to read the whole book immediately after seeing Part II. "My name is John Galt," roll credits. . . "Curse you, Hollywood!!!!!") As for deliberately altering it. . . If he wants to then he should change the name and sell the movie as his own idea. You don't edit the thoughts of someone who's too dead to say otherwise; if not then, really, Thomas Jefferson was a Communist and Moses was an atheist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable If someone starts "upgrading" my ideas after I'm dead, please shoot them. It's not even about the subversion of reason to faith in that suggestion; it's about letting the woman's legacy speak for itself. That's brilliant.

Neuroscientific experiments have shown that infants are born with some basis for logical reasoning. They assume, before able to speak, that objects remain in existence even while not directly visible and that a lamp yesterday will still be a lamp tomorrow. (something about watching their eye movements, facial expressions and brain activity while playing a very complex game of peek-a-boo) Otherwise there would be no way to learn that voices belong to the faces which move when they're audible. But note that this isn't really a priori knowledge, at all. It's not innate knowledge-before-experience; it's the physical mechanism for gaining any sort of knowledge in the first place (and this mechanism may, in adulthood, be enhanced into formal logic). And neither does it function automatically. It is only there, ready to be actualized, by virtue of being born a human being. This is incorrect, but it would accurately describe the intentional and explicit realization of one's own rational mechanisms. (common sense into formal logic) This is required for any sort of success with science, philosophy, or purposeful reason of any degree of difficulty.

To reach the conclusion of political freedom: 1. Existence exists 2. Man's method of knowing it is reason 3. Man's purpose is the fulfillment of his own life 4. Man must be allowed to use his own mind; he must be free Starting from mysticism: 1. Existence doesn't exist 2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces which he can never understand 3. Man's purpose is to escape existence and reach the mysterious forces 4. Man must obey the forces, at all costs And since the purpose of obeying Alleh is to reach heaven (to die), to enforce obedience at gunpoint goes hand-in-hand. (I don't personally know any Muslims, but) a mystical capitalist; a modern Conservative: 1. Existence doesn't exist 2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces, although reason can be useful sometimes 3. Man's purpose is to be happy and then die 4. Man must be free

I was trying to be civil with you.

Never mind; I just answered my own question. Thank you! =] Freedom and the rule of law aren't opposites; sometimes I find myself treating them as such. Old habits.

Alright then; if, in my original post, you change "control" to the use of reason and productive action then I guess it becomes a fairly standard Objectivist line of reasoning. My main idea was that "control of nature" is an entirely different concept from "control of man" and since they have such opposite literal meanings they're a package-deal (I think). But the rest is semantics. If you actually want someone to do something for you, I'm contending that the ONLY way to achieve that (in any matter that requires skill or reason on their part) is by persuasion and commerce; not bullets. Tara Smith's reasoning was very helpful and enlightening, though; thank you for sharing it. But how would you derive a need for governance from the need for freedom?

You still haven't explained what pattern in nature could exist without being the product of a mind. If you consider it to be a logical contradiction in terms then it's a moot point and the discussion is an excersize in futility.

Mysticism is based on the primacy of consciousness, which is a rejection of reality. You are part of reality. When you reject reality, you are rejecting yourself. This is probably why so many varieties of mysticism are openly and specifically anti-life. The ultimate goal of a truly devout Muslim (which holds true for Christians and Jews, as well) is to reach heaven; the after-life. The purpose and the drive is for life to be over. That is the prime directive. Freedom is a requirement for life here, as man, on this Earth. For a mysticist, life is waiting in a long line which you can't exit for an entire lifetime. This is why moderate mysticists, who advocate freedom and capitalism, are contradictory. I'm not going to point it out to them, though; contradictions can be solved in one of two ways, and it could be either. . .

Force is the opposite of reason; it prevents its victims from using their minds properly- AND ultimately harms its perpetrators. It isn't control, the act by which we've built aircraft and skyscrapers; I think it's mutually-assured destruction.

Firstly, I was responding to you. (sorry for the ambiguity) Secondly, that is true. Your point is entirely valid; mysticism is voluntary and self-induced insanity, complete with all the dangers of medical insanity, but without the associated innocence.

"It is not physically possible for a tornado to assemble a Dell computer by traveling through a junk yard." So any pattern found in nature, any pattern at all, must be the product of an intelligence? What is an intelligence? An "effective probability of zero" would be identical to "basically zero" which is the same as "vanishingly improbable". Not impossible. Alright; Quantum Physics. According to Quantum Physics (the double-slit experiment, the Heisenberg principle, et cetera) particles are actually waves of probability, which do not become particles until part of the probability-wave interacts with something else, causing the whole thing to collapse into a single spot smaller than the Plank length. Basically, at the most fundamental level of the universe, everything is random. Everything, always, until something interacts with anything else. (Quantum foam) So, logically, anything could happen. Nothing is ever set in stone; gravity could decide not to work at any time. It only appears stable to beings as massive as ourselves (as compared to subatomic particles) because of the law of large numbers. But any particle physicist will tell you with a straight face that, if you walk into a wall one million times consecutively, at least once you'll phase right through it. The laws of physics are actually more what you'd call guidelines. If so, then nothing is predetermined; the future is completely up in the air. Einstein's theory of Relativity, among other things, states that time and space are relative to the speed of the observer. Everything is always moving at the speed of light, when you add its speed through space to its speed through time (which is why time dilates as a starship approaches lightspeed). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity Part of this means that there are several ways in which someone who had enough time, money and technology could actually look into the future. http://www.youtube.com/movie/paycheck But apply this to Quantum Mechanics. . . What future? That's a logical contradiction. One of them must be wrong; it's either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Bear in mind that the latter was founded on the basis of the former. So, while many brilliant minds have made astronomical advances in the field, I think it prudent to take QM with a grain of salt. Call me a throwback to Victorian England; I'm partial to Newton. Yes, the ROLL of the dice is the embodiment of chance. Conceded. Try building a rocket, let alone launching one, with statistical descriptions. "Yes, we're 76% sure that it won't explode and 99.9% sure it actually exists." And I am a naïve materialist. We've established this and agree, here. Actually, I would be proud to be categorized with the minds of the Renaissance. No, sir; I won't predict it with close to 100% accuracy; I'll tell you exactly that 100% correctly. You just tell me the initial conditions for the trajectory of your mind. You tell me your thoughts, your ideas, your memories; you tell me about every moment of every day you've lived since your earliest memories, up to reading this very sentence, and I'll tell you far more than who you'll email tomorrow and what you'll say.

Yes, I know it does. It sounds blatantly absurd because in the realm of politics, "control" immediately brings to mind collectivism, tyranny and angry men with guns. But please hear me out (and, if necessary, refute me afterwards): what if the generally-accepted idea of "control" is actually an anticoncept? Control, as applied to anything else in the entire world (anything metaphysically given), is an absolute necessity for human life. Agriculture, fire, indoor plumbing; the products of reason, knowledge, innovation and, ultimately, the cause of prosperity. In order to build a car you have to understand metallurgy, the idea of internal combustion, et cetera; a vast wealth of knowledge, without which no amount of screams or threats could construct a single piston. It takes a rational human mind. Now control, as applied to other people, suddenly has nothing whatsoever to do with reason and works exclusively by threats? Yes, the political sense of "control" (violence and force) does strangle reason, but how does it benefit the controller? A farmer, by meticulously controlling his crops throughout the season, will reap the benefits at harvest. What does a criminal gain by "control" as the initiation of force? A mugger in the streets could gain some petty cash that way, for a while. Is that truly in his own best interest? "A mind does not function at gunpoint" and if one were to attempt to live off of the minds of others (as criminals do), one would soon find that he will either destroy his victims or himself; he cannot survive on bullets for long. In the very least, if there's no validity to this whatsoever (which is a distinct possibility), I think we should reexamine what "control" means. Now, as for "reason is control, force is freedom, force isn't control." Yes, reason is control. That's the purpose of a rational mind, isn't it; to control and manipulate our own environment? I simply think that, when applied to politics, that same word should refer to the same action (constructing a skyscraper synonymous with an eloquent speech, instead of a bomb). Force is freedom; no. Freedom is the absence of force and an absolute necessity for human survival; violence is the exact opposite and is, quite literally, lethal. But, while force isn't freedom, is force actually control? (By outlawing guns, drugs, prostitution, et cetera, what amount of control is actually accomplished?) May be some finer distinction required between positive-control and negative-control; Idk. Force isn't control- No, I don't think it is. That's the point of this thread. Force is bad for the same reasons that man-eating animals are bad. It prevents reason, it causes nasty things like death; it's just bad for you and so you should avoid it whenever it is humanly possible. I'm not saying that force doesn't destroy reason; it does. I'm saying that by destroying reason, anyone who initiates force destroys the very thing which he seeks to control; thus he can't control other people, no matter how many guns he has. The gist of it is this. Let's say you know a mechanic and you want him to build you a car; the best car ever. So you decide you're going to "control" him; you're going to get him, somehow, to postpone all of his other contracts and do this for you. Do you think you'd be more likely to ever see that car if you reasoned and haggled with him, or tried to hold a gun to his head for several consecutive weeks?

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? It's 1,000 pages long and so it's quite the commitment, but I found that it actually seems far shorter once you're a few chapters into it, and it specifically covers exactly what you're wondering about. "'You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved." Also, I don't remember where it was and so this isn't an exact quote, but I distinctly remember something along the lines of: "'We know that nobody can ever know anything' they chatter, blanking out that they are claiming to have knowledge." One-sentence refutation of every single existentialist (reality isn't real-ist) you'll ever meet. Remember that ideas lead to actions. If you actually believe that poison isn't harmful then you won't mind drinking it, et cetera; your ideas determine what you do. Ideas like "you aren't real", "the world isn't real", "this is all a dream", et cetera, are almost never said sincerely. If the person suggesting such things truly believed that their senses were invalid, they would be in a lovely padded cell somewhere. Remember that. So, let's try that again: A: "How do you know that you can even know anything, at all?" B: "For the same reason you do." A: "We're not discussing my knowledge, here; we're discussing yours." B: "But without knowledge this conversation wouldn't be possible." A: "Oh, whatever! Nobody knows anything for sure!" B: "How do you know that?" A: "What if this was all someone else's crazy dream, and you're not even real?" B: "That's impossible." A: "No, it isn't! We could totally just be illusions, man!" B: "No, we couldn't. Illusions don't have minds and I don't know about you, brother, but I have one." A: "How do you know that you can't fly? What if the only thing keeping you on the ground this whole time was your lack of faith?" B: "Why don't you jump off your rooftop?" A: "Hey, man! There's no need to be like that, about it!" B: "Like what; hostile? I wasn't. You know full well that neither of us can fly; otherwise you'd take my suggestion." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. No existentialist I've ever met, read about or heard about actually takes themselves seriously; if they did they'd be clinically insane. It's just a game to them because you take ideas seriously and they don't, and they like to confuse you about it. The way to win their game is to apply their own ideas to THEM; suggest that they act on their own words.

Thank you. =] I look forward to reading it. And yeah; I don't put much stock in computer models either and it really isn't relevant. I just thought it was cool; thus worth sharing. Yes, 'error' was erroneous because human beings aren't omniscient, which makes probability necessary so long as man is man. But I dispute whether we should consider it an inherent property of nature or simply a property of 'this topic at this moment'. (to not know with certainty isn't error; it's human) I think that if you knew A, B, C, D and E (like the dice toss scenario) you would already know the 'random' element, R. If it's virtually impossible to ever really know ABCDE with any sort of accuracy, well, tough; that doesn't make it actually impossible. (to not know with certainty is human; to assert that there is no way anybody could ever accurately know it strikes me as a mental surrender) The scenario should be considered possible because it wouldn't contradict anything else in the entirety of all I know? (I could successfully integrate it?) I confess; I'm not familiar with Peikoff's position on arbitrary assertions. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me but I don't explicitly know the criteria; I'll respond to that section once I've remedied that. (See? That which I know-that which I will know) Alright, I'm still pretty fuzzy on the official Objectivist definition of volition (something about a choice to focus being similar to the "choice" to wake up. . . which doesn't seem quite right, but I haven't gotten around to researching yet) but this is what I mean: Free will is self-control, which is control of your own mind. Control is a relationship between someone and something, in which someone is able to alter something at will, to suit his desires; control requiring knowledge of the controlled-thing. If your teeth chatter from cold, you can't control it; it's beyond your volition. (mostly; you get the idea) If you once had a traumatic childhood experience involving a heavy metal band, and to this day their songs make you tense and edgy, that's involuntary as well (associative connection; some animals' form of cognition). But if you realize that girls like it when you get edgy (hypothetically) and then decide to start your own heavy-metal band, or something similar, et cetera; that's a conceptual connection, which is within your volitional capacity and which is a direct result of man's introspective capacity (and directly results in the popular ideas about self-control) "Man is a being of self-made soul." Now, as determinism. Input, as sensations, enters your brain where the entire content of your mind filters it into perceptions which then cause a decision (the ones you don't have to think about; pizza or hamburgers for dinner? drive in the correct lane or not?) and then you carry that decision out. The bit you control is the entire content of your own mind, which dictates how you'll perceive reality and which decisions will be "obvious" in the future. And the bit you can control, your own ideas; you alter, revise and rearrange them according to your prior knowledge and current mental mechanism. Ultimately, your mind is a deterministic process. But this isn't an affirmation of fate, destiny or any such thing; your own voluntary decisions, which are deterministic, are yours alone to make. "Volition isn't an escape from causality; it's another form of causality." [i paraphrase] That's my take on it; that's what I meant by that. (teleology is determinism)

I've been thinking a lot about rights lately as I try to figure out this question of government or no government. The main challenge was that my concept of "rights" could only be applied to what a society should do; "if men are to live together they cannot harm each other." This was a major obstacle because societies are figments of the imagination; a society is only a group of individuals and I couldn't express why an individual should respect another individual's rights. (there was the obvious "fear of revenge" but that's only applicable if the other person would and could exact revenge, and using that as the basis seemed. . . unwise) But I think I've got it and I'd like feedback. Is this accurate? Could you elaborate on this? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. . . 1. For man to live qua man, he must alter and control his surroundings. -Control being a relationship between someone and something, in which at any time someone may intentionally alter something to suit his desires. The mechanism for this is knowledge; someone understands something, hence they understand its requirements and possibilities. 2. To control anything, man must first understand it (nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed). 3. Therefor, A MAN survives and thrives by exploring, learning about, understanding, and manipulating his environment. This line of reasoning, of course, is entirely consonant with and derived from rational self-interest 4. Therefor, to survive and thrive in a society, a man must control other men??? I had been stuck there for quite some time, because it would seem to logically follow and yet lead to collectivism and other contradictions. (!) But: 4. Therefor, to survive and thrive in society, a man must control other men. -Control requiring knowledge and reason in order to realize the necessary actions and then pursue them (or not). Knowledge of man's nature is required to control men, which would be based on the recognition of his mind. 5. For one man to control another he must understand him, in the same way and for the same reasons as understanding nature. This, contrary to the traditional connotations of "control" WOULD BE TO REASON WITH HIM. 6. An act of force or fraud, therefor, is NOT an act of control, but an illogical and irrational act of mutual destruction. A murderer gains nothing by murder that he couldn't gain by production, nor does a thief, and both lose an incalculable amount in the act. When individual rights are violated it is not an act of selfishness (nor logic, for by definition it ignores man's nature); it is the Cold War concept of Mutually-Assured Destruction. 7. Since force and fraud are by their very nature harmful to man, for a man to thrive with another neither of them may harm the other. Therefor, the peaceful coexistence of any two or more men must be based on the rationality and love of life of both. From this they must each recognize the nature of all others, which is the nature of man's mind, and also recognize all others' desire to live. This recognition of man's mind is necessary for all rights of any sort (individual rights, counterintuitively, being synonymous with "control other men") as it serves as the basis for any and all contracts, agreements and collaborations; the bare minimum which absolutely cannot be removed. So, for any two coexisting men, the violence or irrationality of a third (the lack of a concept such as "mind") is a direct threat to both. Therefor, out of rational self-interest, whenever individual rights are successfully violated (self-defense failed) the nonvictim/noncriminal members of the society must remove the criminal from their midst (prison, exile, death), for the same reasons that they would throw water on a burning building. Still haven't answered the question of a government, but I think this is a valid, sound and very sturdy foundation. Yes? No? Irrelevant? How did I do?

Actually, Infantile Egoist would probably be accurate on more levels than that. It may have something to do with Nietzsche. (seemingly unrelated, but fundamentally similar mode of thinking) http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25327&page=2#entry309790 Most Americans these days (the majority, who are moochers), if told to live for someone else's sake, would laugh the idea off without a second thought. They have this in common with the producers. But it occurs to me (actually, at this very moment) that such might not actually be another facet of altruism; it might simply be the blatant hedonism that they claim it is. Or maybe not. I just thought of it now so I haven't analyzed it at all, but I think it's a distinct possibility.

I think I may see the trouble here. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you're talking about sounds very close to hero-worship and "man qua man" which are an indisputable part of Objectivism. But it also sounds very close to LaVey and his Church of Satan. I don't know if you've heard of LaVey before but some of the ideas here sound strikingly close to his, and after reading some Nietzsche recently it occurred to me how similar their ideas are. (I suspect one might've based the vast majority of his work on the other) "The noble soul has reverence for itself." Absolutely true. And you're thinking compatible with Rand, right? (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.) But stop and analyze this for a bit. Disgust for the majority of the human race. Understandable (these days, at least) but not in and of itself; only as disgust for those predominant traits, ideas and behaviors which are truly despicable. Not a flaw here, but something to notice and evaluate later. Someone shouldn't be judged by his actions or his work, as neither can show who he really is; that's James Taggart speaking. He scorns any attempt to actually achieve greatness, in reality, on Earth. He scorns it on the basis that it's a need and that a truly great man needs nothing. This, to someone who has only recently been introduced to Rand, may sound similar to Objectivism at first glance. But it truly isn't. What would cause this sort of feeling? And, if this were accepted as the accurate and just depiction of artists and scholars, what effects would it have on someone's mind? And there it is. "The noble soul has reverence for itself" alone and out-of-context would be fully consistent with Objectivism and entirely true. But that last bit amounts to: "A great man is great because he thinks so." Stop and seriously consider that, for a while. ********************************************************************************* I'd like to mention that I'm actually rather impressed with what progress Nietzsche did make at the time in which he lived. He accurately identified religion as worthless and altruism as harmful, which in and of themselves are monumental tributes to his independence and intelligence. (And it's always fun to read some good, old-fashioned Kant-bashing, from back when he was alive) But he wasn't consistent and, having realized what's wrong with the whole of philosophy at that point, he wasn't brave enough to take the next logical step into Objectivism. There is a difference between slavery and freedom, but still another difference between freedom and slave-driving. (which Nietzsche seems to be getting at) It's a very easy mistake; once you figure out that altruism is evil, hedonism seems like the logical alternative. But it isn't. The third option is Rational Selfishness; neither slave nor slave-driver. And there is no possible reason why a rationally selfish person would voluntarily accept mysticism as true; nothing is worth that. Irrationality is always bad for you, no matter why you do it or how justified you feel. It's not so much a matter of good or evil (it does transcend the altruist anticoncept of morality) as a matter of survival, which is what Nietzsche needed to realize before he could become a Rand. That's why a "Church of Objectivism" is an oxymoron.

Seriously? What would you suggest? I mean we could begin worshipping the titan Atlas (it's already been done, so we'll really only be renewing what's tried-and-true) but what would our commandments be? We could forbid irrationality, altruism of any kind, antihumanism; we could even round up suspected altruists and torture them until they accept Galt into their lives. You know what? If such a religion existed I would have no part of it, Rand or no Rand; I'd oppose it any way I could. If you take something good, fun, pleasant, et cetera, and you make it into an obligation, it will cease to be good. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25536 And I agree emphatically with the evaluation. I really can't overemphasize this: whatever benefits you think mysticism can give people, they are NEVER worth it. You are part of reality. When you reject reality, you reject yourself. This leads to altruism and self-sacrifice. Now that you've inverted your desires as evil and your unhappiness as good you have, in any situation, two choices: sneaky, oily, guilty pleasure or self-righteous pain. There is only one real benefit that mysticism provides: at the end of their miserable existences it still allows its followers to die, as promised all along. We could build an altar and a temple to the great Galt, the man who wouldn't fake existence, and pretend to indulge in cannibalism once a week. I like this idea. The only thing it's missing is a Knight who says "Ni!"

I've used up all of my likes for the day and I just wanted to voice my approval.

True enough. However, I disagree with your conclusion. I would categorize mental illness as not only being disconnected from reality (a thoroughly apt and elegant definition, alone) but also as an involuntary disconnect. Let's say that someone has depression and they think that everything and everyone around them is tormented by their existence. No matter how many times they're told otherwise or shown otherwise they will not be able to believe it, not because it's illogical but because the neurochemicals in their brain are distorting their psycho-epistemology. The sad fact about Christians is that, no matter how much evidence they evade and how much of reality they must ignore, each of them at all times has the ability to think otherwise. Mysticism is a distortion in someone's psycho-epistemology (I think there's an underlying premise there which transcends all faiths, sects and denominations, and even affects someone's secular ideas) but it's a deliberately self-trained and self-maintained distortion which, if neglected for long enough, will vanish. So it isn't a disease, any more than smoking, obesity or compulsive gambling are diseases, because it's an entirely voluntary condition. However, it may interest you that some people have suggested a similarity between Christianity and disease, in its contagious aspects. The cause of mysticism is that someone accepts as true the primacy of consciousness; reality can be altered by "magick" or the proper thoughts and feelings. (Believe in Jesus and you won't die, et cetera) As a result, their intensely personal and selfish interest in the functioning of their own mind is inverted; instead of struggling towards objective accuracy, they struggle away from it. With enough practice this can become nearly automatized and, for the same reasons that they initially accepted mysticism (a perverse form of self-interest), they become eagerly, enthusiastically interested in converting the people around them (after all, if you could protect your best friend from death merely by convincing them of something, whom except the honest would hesitate to?). So it's been pointed out that religious ideas are mentally analogous to a viral epidemic. This is a link to a definition of Memetic Theory; the idea that ideas evolve, compete and go extinct, replicating from one mind to another as if they were organisms. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html I just realized that, if that's true, then Memetic Theory would itself be a meme. And here's one to the Christianity meme, in particular: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html *DISCLAIMER* I'm not actually advocating the truth or falseness of Memetic Theory, I'm just saying it's something interesting and not-so-relevant but interesting.

Where did I come up with it? I just don't know. Your own words: "I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore it behooves me to believe that it does not in fact exist." "I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore I'll keep an open mind about it until I'm in a context that requires that I consider the matter further. Until such time, my conclusions about such an assertion shall be 'I just don't know.'" Are Vulcans real? Does the planet Krypton exist? (bear in mind you've never been there) Does the stock market fluctuate according to the orbit of the Jovan moon, Europa? (do you know the specifics of Europa's orbit?) Is Johnny Depp a member of the Illuminati? There must be many things you just don't know. (hence the universe is unknowable) At this very moment, is there a Dragon slumbering beneath your home? Are your internal organs arranged properly? Do you have a tumor? Taken to its logical conclusion, "I just don't know if Oxygen will still be necessary tomorrow." Have you been to tomorrow, yet? No? Then don't bother taking Oxygen into space with you; we don't actually know if you'll need it. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is a death sentence. Which is how I know you don't actually believe it, yourself; you're still alive and talking on this forum. (And after all, how do you know we're not aliens who eat Christians for fun? Wouldn't that prevent you from typing here? Aren't you making an arbitrary assumption?) And that's the kicker, there. When you deny any form of objective knowledge, you are demanding that we live on assumptions. "I don't know if all of the food in the world is poison, but I'll assume not." "I don't know if Vulcans exist or not, but I'll assume not." "I just don't know if God exists or not, but I'll assume He does." That's your underlying premise and that's your agenda. You don't want actual scrutiny of anything (or else you would feel perfectly comfortable examining your own beliefs); what you want is the moral justification to be irrational. This idea is the means you use to achieve it; every child's mind which it destroys is simply collateral damage. I urge you, for your own selfish sake, to stop and consider this before you reply.

Red Wanderer, I would like to define some epistemology. If you can find a biblical reference to DNA, or a section of DNA which references the bible, I'll grant you some small measure of plausibility. What conceivable pattern could anyone ever find in nature which you would consider to be a code but not created by a mind? I could give you codes upon codes upon codes if you would define the criteria for me. But I suspect that any code I present to you will be interpreted as the signature of some grand design, no matter what I say, which would make rational discourse impossible. So please, if you would like to continue this discussion as adults (myself included) define what a non-intelligent code would look like.

We've already been over this. A tornado in a junkyard could assemble a Dell computer; it's vanishingly improbable but it's not impossible. Teleology and design are synonymous, aren't they? And chance isn't a form of causality; it's an error of knowledge. Imagine a pair of dice; the embodiment of chance. If you know their weight, center of gravity (distribution of mass), initial positions and initial velocities then you already know where they'll land. That's not prescience; it's science. And teleology is a form of determinism. Let's imagine that Dell computer, again. Why is it there? Let's say you made it. Why? Because you decided to. How did you decide? Synapses fired in your brain, which is a physical mechanism. Teleology is determinism. Don't get me wrong, your self-aware mind exists; but existence is physics. So you provide four, or perhaps three forms of causality, and demand that science recognize one. I, the naïve materialist, would provide two forms of causality, corresponding to determinism and chance: that which I know already and that which I'll find out. Who on Earth (pun intended) would dispute that an embryo changes towards a purposeful goal? That's nearly self-evident. And if one were to treat different stages of the same organism as distinct entities then fine; evolution only applies to one of them: during the act of sex. The deterministic and random elements, which are identical, apply to only one question: who is having sex? Specifically: who is alive to do so, who is their mate and why? If evolution is a purpose-driven pursuit (which is inaccurate but close enough) then the goal is sex and the reason for the goal is that reproduction isn't automatic (randomness) but those who reproduce create offspring who also reproduce, while those who do not do not (determinism). This process produces self-replicating mechanisms (biology) which 'desire' to reproduce as a logically necessary consequence of that. I place 'desire' in quotes because, while certain animals certainly do desire sex, I very much doubt that sea-sponges and pollenated flowers are capable of orgasm. Desire is possible only to brains and goals are possible only to conscious brains, such as ourselves. New species develop when the members of two subspecies (breeds of animal, strains of plant or race of human) stop interbreeding long enough for their independent mutations accumulate to PREVENT them from ever interbreeding again. This is why a donkey, while it so closely resembles a horse, is part of a different species; they give birth to mules which are automatically sterile from birth.

Could you elaborate? Red Wanderer said that materialists were asserting that life can arise from nonlife (correctly) and demanded proof. I know I had read about such a thing, somewhere; someone had taken soap (because it has one hydrophilic end and one hydrophobic one, just like organic lipids) and created artificial cells from them, or at least they were trying to. But I read this years ago and couldn't find anything about it online, so I didn't mention it and ended up just throwing out the Ventner article. (slightly off-topic but not worth fixing) But there is a great article about the concept, itself: http://www.livescience.com/10531-life-began-research-suggests-simple-approach.html And as it so happens, while life from nonlife might seem counterintuitive, in 1953 a pair of scientists named Miller and Urey successfully synthesized amino acids from inorganic protein by applying an electric shock. (It's ALIVE!!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment And this is just really cool. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/science/in-a-first-an-entire-organism-is-simulated-by-software.html?_r=0