Dragonfly

No, perception implies an interpretation of what you see, otherwise it would be only a sensation, so the perception of a mirage as water is wrong. You perceive water, but it is hot air.

I think I've found the bug: the number of the post should now no longer be enclosed between ' ', but the automatic post link option (in 'other styles') still puts those ' ' there. When you remove them afterwards, you get a correct working link, like this one, in code: [post=95334]this one[/post]

It seems you use a different method to link to the post, as your code is much longer. I use the [other styles] -> [Post link] method, which has always worked fine (and still works fine in my previous posts). I'll link to that same post now here. Still wrong! The code is: [post='95329']here[/post] Until now it has always worked (it's a very easy and convenient method and the code is quite simple), but today it suddenly gives the wrong output.

The linking to posts on OL suddenly no longer works here. Instead of a link to for example post [12345], I get something like 39;12345] in the preview, which of course doesn't work... An actual example: let's try to link to this post. No, again not a valid code...

Of course natural selection is still the major creative agency in evolution, biological self-organization is merely a very useful toolbox that increases the number of possible solutions, but in itself it would be powerless, as the probability that it would spontaneously generate a useful solution for surviving is virtually zero - as every creationist will be quick to point out (thereby committing the deadly sin of ignoring the power of natural selection). Not at all. Determinism (at a biological scale) is quite compatible with life and with the mind. Moreover, Edelman's self-organization is no less deterministic than the classical darwinian mechanism.

I didn't say that, I said it implies that mechanism, meaning that it is not just some random changes.

Hsieh? Isn't that that health and diet nut? Someone should tell her that continuously kissing Peikoff's ass is very unhealthy.

In fact every cause can be seen as a series of changes. What biological evolution of course implies is the mechanism that drives these changes (in general random variation in the genes with natural selection). One can study the details of this process for specific cases, but there is nothing wrong in considering the general principle of that process as the cause of the existence of all living beings on Earth (and not for example the divine creation of each species nor generatio spontanea).

That is the proximate cause. The distal cause is evolution.

Yes, also. But it is also obvious that Bob did mean the process, and not the theory. Yes, it did. To create isn't necessarily a human or an "intelligent" process. Collins English Dictionary: create: 1 (tr) to cause to come into existence. 2 (tr) to invest with a new honour, office or title 3 (tr) to be the cause of: these circumstances created the revolution 4 (tr) to act (a role) in the first production of a play. The Free Dictionary: 1. To cause to exist; bring into being. 2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir. 3. To invest with an office or title; appoint. 4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

How can a theory, including a good theory like evolution, create anything? Bob wrote "Evolution created our bodies", not "The theory of evolution created our bodies". Evolution is a process.

Huh? Are you telling us who is or is not part of a discussion? I didn't know that you'd taken over this site. Do you really think that we're interested in your stupid and uninformed claptrap?

That is not my definition. I suggest you read first my previous posts on that subject, for example the links I gave earlier. Then I don't have to repeat it all here for the n-th time.

These are not scientific definitions. See my previous references or lookup determinism in Wikipedia.

Nonsense.

Indeed. See for example here and here.

"Based on rules" is not the same as deterministic.

Barbara is one of the few Objectivists who doesn't try to fake reality.

Another fucking long post that nobody will read.

Quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant.

Rand's "man qua man" trick has already been discussed extensively on this forum. See for example here, here and here.

How do you know?

The New York (and other places, including America in general) in AS is not the same as the New York that we know. Yet she does use existing names in those cases.

You deliberately ignore what all the dictionaries say. So for example the first meaning of "sacrifice" in Collins English Dictionary: "A surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable" The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "The surrender of something valued or desired, esp. one's life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy" In The Free Dictionary: "Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim" The sacrifice in chess is perfectly in agreement with these definitions, so there isn't any contradiction in terms.