I've been reading some of the older posts I missed. I haven't seen the vid mentoned in the original post, due to my crappy dialup connection. What Roger Campbell has written is quite interesting. What are linguists and psychologists resisting about evolution? That their academic realm will be engulfed by evolutionary psychology? Even if knowledge is qualitatively different from the rest of the universe, it would not mean it is exempt from evolutionary principles. After all, the first bacterium would be qualitatively different from the preceding non-bacteria-filled environment, yet it is subject to evolution. The evidence is very strong that intelligence and behaviour are evolved. There is an increasing synergy between the neurosciences and computer science. It's very possible that research on say, learning rules of neural nets, will have a lot to say on the nature of knowledge in the epistemology of the future (if it would still be called epistemology then). But perhaps this is better suited in the epistemology forum. Where is the other thread? An interesting take on this would be that the universe itself is evolved from mathematical randomness (Process Physics). That is, information theory, sufficiently advanced, would be sufficient to be a basis for a 'Theory of Everything', from which all the rest of physics follows... then chemistry... biology... Of course, Process Physics is very speculative at best right now. If true, however, this would be the ultimate proof that there is no God, or at the very least, disprove that an intelligence is necessary to account for existence. Regarding the immediate post above, by James Heaps-Nelson, I seem to remember that there was an experiment where stimulation of certain brain areas led to people having a "God" experience. Just imagine an EMP device that targets that particular part. BOOM! A weapon of mass conversion! :devil: