Mikee

Victor, "MSK is a straight shooter and I respect him for it. I admire that. You see, I’ll take one MSK to a hundred Perigos any day of the week." I agree. Though I'm astonished to see how far I've come in the last two years with respect to Linz. This last bit with Adam Reed is just one more example. Adam's "Lessons learned:.." article if anything was complimentary to Lindsay. And his attempt to enumerate the "lessons learned" was simply trying to create something positive out of a perceived debacle. Seems rational to me. Look what he gets for his trouble. I especially like this part from Adam's article: "The subordination of reason to faith or passion is the primary source of the greatest evils in the world." Maybe THAT's what bugged them so much. Michael, Thanks for explaining the context of your Peron remarks. Makes sense to me. There are no objectivist or libertarian utopia's in the world but people still have to live. Twenty years of a Capone off the streets gives a generation of kids a chance to grow up without bullets flying past them in the context of "crime pays". I think if everyone's context were understood then there would be no need for fireworks. Then again, it's so much fun to choose up sides and let fly...

That's the capital city where all of the statues of Kim Jong-il are being lit up with spotlights. Just feel the love....

Kori, You might like to read Hong Zhang's article: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Zhang/...of_June_4.shtml

"Las Vegas" [gambling man?] Thanks for the anecdote. Barbara, When I had read only Ayn Rands books and articles I was obsessed with her ideas. When I read your book I discovered I liked Ayn Rand the person very much. Thank you for that. "The Passion of Ayn Rand" is a wonderful book. Mike Erickson

I find articles like this endlessly fascinating: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...61003143520.htm As long as there are people who continue to explore nature and are not daunted by the complexities anything is possible.

"My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think – to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction – to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult." Great quote Angie. Thanks for finding it and posting it. "..to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction – to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof." That works for me.

Paul, I missed your post that was just before my last one. I am not a scientist, I am an electronics engineer. I love the sciences and engineering. I'm sorry if I seemed rude with my "because it's a trivial question" reply. You are correct in your later post, it's a matter of different perspectives. I have a very matter of fact point of view about everything and I find discussing semantics tiresome. I like understanding how things work, problem solving, and fixing what's broken. The following post on RoR describes my perspective (which I evidently do not live up to) on philosophical discourse: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0789.shtml#0 Michael, I know that this "emergence" that you speak of is perfectly natural phenomenon. The fact that exactly how it occurs is not completely understood does not concern me. I think the "mystery" will involve an unlikely juxtaposition of many elements in just the right environment. It's possible that this "juxtaposition" is so unlikely that scientists will not be able to reproduce it for a very long time, perhaps never. Then it will seem possible that life in our universe may not be as common as I personally think it is. I don't see how it is important or profound that creating this "emergence" has not been done by scientists up 'til now. But that's my point of view. I don't think I have anything helpful to say, though I did think so a couple of days ago.

Michael, I'm certainly not trying to be clever. I'm simply trying to explain as best I can what I believe to be. You use the word "only". I use the words "mind boggling" when referring to the complexity of living beings. I have been awed by the wonders of life and the universe for as long as I can remember. You're attitude towards science is "Is that all there is?" It is not necessary to know exactly what life on earth evolved from to understand what life is. You insist that this is so, but it is not. Science will create primitive life forms, but it is not necessary that they do. Even a single cell lifeform, if the machinery that sustains it is broken and the chemical reactions go out of control, it is impossible to reverse this. No more than it is possible to reverse the laws of entropy. I have no idea even what you're getting at by your "special" form of existent. Life is. No one denies that life exists. It exists as a part of the physical universe. It is very, very interesting, how it all works. I know that what I don't know about it is far more than what I will ever know. But I know going in the direction that you seem to be going in is the opposite direction of where I want to go. I'm happy knowing what I know and also knowing what I'm ignorant of, rather than thinking I know everything and knowing nothing.

Paul, "In principle, how does something, who's action can only be changed by an external force, change its own action? " By the programmed release of stored energy. "This is the root of the difficulties I have with modern physics. It ignores this problem. The patented modern physics answer to what I have just said is, "What problem?" Because this is a trivial question. It has been asked and answered to the satisfaction of those who have studied it in the most depth, the biological scientistists who are in the process, incidentally, of revolutionizing our world.

Paul, "I was referring to the part where we go from Newton's laws of motion to self-generated action. How do we connect the dots?" We connect the dots by understanding the complex controlled chemical reactions by which the cell produces the energy to perform its functions. And understanding that these reactions must continue in an unbroken chain to maintain the life of the cell. And that they HAVE continued in an unbroken chain of reactions, and cell divisions, since life first began. Perhaps the Newton's law we should be concentrating on is the one that says "an object in motion will remain in motion".

To answer Paul first: "Except for the principle that allows inert matter--matter that only moves when a force acts upon it-- to produce self-generated motion." If you are referring to how the cell generates energy to perform its various functions that is well understood. There is a Wiki website: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology Read the parts under "energy supply" especially "Kreb's cycle" to get an idea of the complexity. How the cell produces energy, both aerobic and anerobically, has been well understood for decades. The cell produces its energy by a series of controlled chemical reactions. The "programming" of the cells is contained in the DNA and RNA. I've read a wonderful book called "Genome" by Matt Ridley within the last year. http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Matt-Ridley/dp/0060932902 That describes some of the characteristics expressed by each individual gene. Some of the most insightful descriptions are when something goes wrong. For instance, an error in one gene produces persons who are normal in every way but are UNABLE to learn and use certain grammatical rules in their speech. They can be quite intelligent, but difficult to understand in their speech. The thing these people had in common was a mutation in a single gene. I wish I had the book to refer to now, but I had checked it out of the local library while doing jury duty late last year and had to give it back. Michael, The problem with science recreating the original lifeform that started the whole process of evolution is that it is not completely understood exactly what that original lifeform was. The origins of life happened billions of years ago. These primitive cells may have been "outcompeted" by later ones and not even exist on earth anymore. One possibility is that they may have come from space. Thus the excitement of studying the organic molecules present in the matter that falls from space and potentially present on other planets in our solar system. Organic molecules are present in large quantities throughout our galaxy and other galaxies. They can be detected by studying the "dark bands" present in light that has come through the dust bands present in nebula. What is true, in life on earth at least, is there is a common denominator. All life on earth, whether animal or vegetable, has a common genetic heritance. Science is in the process of following a trail billions of years old. I believe they are on the right trail. Life is, simply, a very complex series of controlled chemical reactions. Controlled by programs contained in our genes, put there by eons and eons of trial and error called evolution. Disclaimer: I am not a biologist. Someone like Hong Zhang, for instance, could explain all of this MUCH better than I can.

Michael, "I am talking about an element of reality that is so far unaccounted for by science. Science can break life down once it exists. Science can modify it once it exists. Science can alter it genetically once it exists. Science cannot create it from nonliving matter like it can create so many other things. That science cannot do. And once life dies, science cannot revive it. Science needs life to exist already in order to work with it." What is impossible for science to do one day is a routine accomplishment the next. It doesn't mean that that thing was not well understood before it could be done, just that the technology had not been developed sufficiently yet. Even the simplest life forms are extraordinarily complex. Larger life forms, such as ourselves, are composed of billions upon billions of specialized cells living in a symbiotic relationship to each other in this universe unto themselves called our bodies. Each individual cell performs all of the functions of a life form, taking in food and oxygen across the barrier membrane called the cell wall, transferring waste across the cell wall into the intracellular fluids, reproducing by dividing. Each cell also has specialized functions that contribute to survival of the aggregate whole. These cells communicate with each other via complex chemical and electrical signals still not completely understood. Science presently is totally incapable of performing the millions of functions performed every second, naturally, by the cells in even a small life form. But basically, how it all works is understood. There are details that are still a little foggy, but only because it’s all so complicated. There is nothing mysterious going on except a level of complexity that boggles the mind. You cannot think of “carbon molecules” as being “infused with life”. You have to begin understanding life at the cellular level. “What's the deal with the intimidation thing, anyway?” I think Dragonfly is simply saying, “If you’re so interested in life, study the life sciences”. Which means being grounded in physics and chemistry as well. That is reality, and shouldn’t be so intimidating.

Michael, I think Dragonfly has done a very good job of explaining the origins of life "from the bottom up". When you say "infuse those carbon atoms with life" I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds an awful lot like something supernatural. Life began and evolved over millions of years due to perfectly natural physical laws. If conciousness and self awareness were something other than a perfectly natural phenomenon why would life have had to achieve the extraordinary complexity that we see in the human mind? An achievement that took hundreds of millions of years. It is this complexity, trillions upon trillions of cells, each with trillions upon trillons of complex molecules but each and every one following the natural laws of physics that your life and your body is. The laws of evolution orchestrated this. To wish for some other explanation other than purely natural ones I think takes away from the wonder of it all, it certainly doesn't add to it. I am firmly on Dragonfly's side of this issue. Regards, Mike E.

Jody, Great to see you! Look, I'M a curmudgeon. Phil is a much more complicated sort of beast. I sort of like Phil correcting my grammer if he's so inclined. I sort of, uh, 'missed' most of grades 1 through 12 due to lack of interest so I'm a little vague on those pesky grammer rules. Shit, now's he's going to start charging me. I agree with Dragonfly. I use the "View new posts" exclusively these days. I click a new post and scroll back to see if there are more I haven't read in that thread if the thread interests me.

Mr. Simmons, We are in agreement with regards to the incompatibility of religious "experience" with objectivism. I have not regarded Mr. Engle's exposition of these views as either benign or convincing. With regards to David Kelly and his lack of honesty. Is this the David Kelley speech you are referring to?: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1540-T..._Terrorism.aspx You will have to be more explicit about what in this speech offends you. I'm guessing it's the part where he states "..but I am not a believer, I have not absorbed its traditions and practices, I do not know it from the inside. So it is not for me to say what is and is not part of Islam." I believe he is telling the truth here, he is not a Muslim, he cannot read their minds, so the truth of whether violent Jihad is an integral part of Islam CANNOT BE KNOWN by him. I admire those who do not claim knowledge of what cannot be known. That does not mean, however, that we are inhibited from ACTING appropriately in response to others actions.

William! Good to see a post of yours. Agree about the "nil content", though I don't share your appreciation for Victor's "need" to chide and bicker without a point. I'd trade ten Victor Pross for one Robert Campbell any day. William Scherk: priceless. Mikee

Michael and Kat, It looks great. So nice to have you back. I like the layout so far. Very nice blue on my monitor. Crisp, clear, clean. Ahhhhhhhh...[that's me relaxing] Mikee

Rich, I enjoyed your post. Great idea. I don't dance at all, my wife Karen likes to dance sometimes. At the occasional get togethers we go to she dances with her girlfriends! I told her I'd be happy to go out and take dance lessons with her if we could do it together but she's turned me down. Now I know why! Have fun. Mike E.

I scored a 39......whoa.. WSS is normal???? I feel the ground shifting... More info please.

Paul, "I do not make this equation. Individualism is more about actualizing one's potential and discovering the route to fullfilment while maintaining one's authentic perspective, not about pulling away from the group." I recommend the trader principle to fulfill your desires in this regard. Several books come to mind: "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal", "Human Action", and others. Religion has been historically a major enemy of this principle. "Being an individual in social contexts takes many forms. I think learning to be an individualist in social contexts is a challenge to our personal evolution." I recommend a quote from "Anthem" which I have incidentally been carrying on my person for the last forty years which begins with "I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born."

Paul, I've had all the finger wagging I can stand in one lifetime. My understanding of objectivism is not only atheism, but individualism. Rich is decidely not an individualist if he needs to find "spirituality" in a "church". My opinion. I believe I share a contempt for religion and the idea of "god" with Ayn Rand and I don't apologize for it. Perhaps Rich can have his say without the finger wagging?

Rich, You really want to do finger wagging about religion on yet another objectivist website? How about this: ALL superstitious belief is...."unfortunate and suboptimal". Specifically, whatever crap you're into, I don't want to hear it.

Mr. Hardin, I also spotted this on another website. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of it's value. There are several things I am in disagreement with: 1. "The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens' lives. . . " No. The American government consists of individuals with jobs they are hired and mandated to do. It is up to you to recognize the value of your own life as you see fit. 2. "What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened..." If our military were only be used in only the most dire of emergencies they would never be prepared and trained to be able to overcome those dire emergencies. There are perfectly legitimate situations far short of the impending annihilation of the United States for using our military. 3. "crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers are not allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency--" It is unconscionable to advocate the wholesale slaughter of civilians. This is an argument by a pacifist which tries to make any military action seem untenable and unreasonable to whatever audience is persuaded by it. Pacifism itself flies against reason and nature and only serves to cripple the motivation needed to take any action at all when action is most needed. 4. "make every effort to protect their lives during war--by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible. Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. . ." This is an opinion which most of the world disagrees with. The American military is the best equiped, best trained military in the history of the world. Except, perhaps in retrospect, military tactics of any kind are open to dispute and interpretation. I believe the elements that began this excursion into Afghanistan and Iraq are very real, have been somewhat ameliorated but still exist. Pacifism is the worst possible strategy to adopt at this point.

Michael, Thanks again, very much. I like this one a lot. Cheers, Mike E

Jody, Nice to see you back. I happen to agree with you about gw. The majority of his posts translate to a self absorbed "Wah! Wah! Wah!" The temper tantrums of a two year old. Yawn. Mike Erickson