Q.E.D.

This true statement carries a lot of misconceptions. 1. While uncertainty is inherent in our new Quantum theories, even under a "deterministic" world ruled by classical physics, it would be impossible to predict the future with certainty. Why? The math is far too complex for supercomputers! This is why we never know with certainty what the weather will be until it arrives, because chaotic systems cannot be predicted with certainty. 2. As physicists we can make accurate predictions, even considering quantum randomness. The nice thing about quantum fluctuations is they cancel each other out on a large scale. This means that quantum uncertainty doesn't have significance at the macroscopic (our) scale and can be ignored in macroscopic calculations. 3. Given 1 & 2, there is only what I'll call "classical indeterminacy" within the human brain. That is to say, the human brain is only indeterministic in so far as your information of its present macrostate is limited. 4. Given 3, free will is not a magical intrinsic property of human minds alone, because there is nothing magical about human minds. We simply happen to have the most powerful ones on earth. I hope that helps. The major interpretations currently competing with the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation, and the Hidden Variables interpretation suggest that quantum indeterminacy may not exist, but if you refer to my other post, you can see that classical indeterminacy is still alive and kicking even without quantum fluctuations.

You just said, even humans do not have a sense of morality, so monkeys must not be considered able to hold rights? By the argument that monkeys cannot then hold rights, man cannot hold rights. Here we find our contradiction. Rights afforded a sub-intelligent being may not be equivalent to the rights we grant each other, but surely we must see the immorality in affording them no rights. As an example, killing has always been a sometimes necessary immorality. Sometimes we must kill other people and sometimes we must kill animals. That doesn't mean always killing animals is okay and always killing people is okay. Animals have the right to attempt to exist just as much as we do. They have a right to life the same as we do, but sometimes our rights conflict, and we need to take their lives for food and safety.

The source of ape’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and ape is ape. Rights are conditions of existence required by ape’s nature for his proper survival. If ape is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. The logic applies just as much to any other living entity that exists, what would distinguish another intelligent volitional entity from a human that gives a human rights? You jabber on about things Ayn Rand and other people have written without thinking a single original thought, and that is completely against the principles of Objectivism.

Exactly how can I be sure that YOU have any kind of consciousness, self-awareness, and empathy. I simply have to see what we have in common and to make an education guess. The same process applies with animals of limited consciousness and limited morality. Also, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you're reading second hand articles written by journalists, not scientific reports. You know as well as I do, it's completely asinine to criticized the scientific validity of the true scientific paper by reading the dumbed down news article.

John Galt didn't speak outside of his knowledge.

Would Howard Rourk have joined the military to invade another country, putting his architecture career on hold? I think not. Military is necessary and moral in the case of direct self-defense alone, not in the case of preemptive self defense. For example, George Bush doesn't have the right to spend my tax money, because he thinks there's a good chance that invading another country will make the world a safer place. America is not great because of the authority or security of its state, its great because of the freedom of the men who live in America. I think a lot of "objectivists" will support the war effort in order to feel as if their republican-objectivist ideas are in agreement. If you can't PROVE a war is necessary, you have no right to insist that others support that war.

Perhaps a logical argument so he can stand on his own mind rather than accepting things on faith?

You say that our computers cannot exceed the human mind? What happens when build computers OUT of human minds or out of biological neurons or what happens when we construct brains out of synthetic neurons with the same properties. To say that there is something magical about human consciousness is to speak in terms of mysticism and faith. I'm not sure if anyone here's grasped the real issue concerning artificial intelligence, we're OUTSIDE THE SYSTEMS which we're discussing. From inside our minds, we feel profoundly influenced by emotions, but those emotions are only electro-chemical signals being broadcast by different parts of our brains seeking positive feedback. On paper, we look just as 'non-real' as any sophisticated machine. The difference between our brains and the computer technology most of us are acquainted with is that our brains are both the hardware AND the software of human consciousness. No one opens us up to move around transistors <=> our brains aren't solid state devices. However, if you're interested in studying the human brain from a computer scientists perspective you might want to look into evolutionary programming algorithms. AI is only a matter of time.

Time and Space are relative to the observer, however spacetime isn't. One observer's space is another observer's time. A spaceship traveling towards the earth close to the speed of light will see the distance as less than the observers on earth. However, clocks and other processes (such as breathing and thinking) will run faster on earth where time is perceived to be longer. The Theory of Relativity allows us to calculate the distance and duration experienced by other observers despite this counter-intuitive effect. Special Relativity has been verified by measuring the doppler shift of light, the change in the lifetime of unstable particles, and the effect of electron spin in hydrogen atoms. The Special Theory of Relativity has never failed a prediction.