Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).

“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley...As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, Introduction)

The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).

All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God...” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:

“...matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic.…the dialectical materialist's attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 58)

In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:

“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, p. 28)

Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.

First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.

Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his Autobiography that one who rejects God,

“...can have for his rule of life...those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p.7)

Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,

“...if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, pp. 138-139)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)

With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:

“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (“Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” p. 115)

Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:

Man is “but fish made over...” declared biologist William Etkin (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, p. xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (“Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion Are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)

Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (“Degradation and Shock,” Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Chapter viii)

Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens - by chance of course - that some lucky “species” and “races” of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are - unluckily for them - less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species - or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism - it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:

“At some future period...the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)

In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements - pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism.

Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,

“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (p.230)

It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create - by way of eugenics - a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.

Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,

“...has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (p. 13)

Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s Origin,

“...is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Conway Zirkle, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene)

Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,

“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)

“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p. 9)

Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)

Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:

“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid., p. 751)

Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston, Texas, 8/17/1992)

Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Michael Reagan, In the Words of Ronald Reagan)

As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our governmentcontrolled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as “vegetable,” “non-persons,” and “uterine content.”

Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism, it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.

America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the “animalization of Other,” in tandem with the elevation of the “superior,” for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.

evolutionist B.F. Skinner said: “A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual...is henceforth to be controlled...in large part by other men.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, p. 232)

"It is. Your first clue should be Endless Wiggles appeal to “lost books”; if they are lost, then he certainly can’t know what’s in them any more than you do, and you can’t examine them to keep him honest."

LOL... that was a weak assertion for several reasons.

First, something lost can be found as in the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945 or the Gospel of Judas in 1983.

Second, lost documents have often been preserved in memory by references to them in other surviving texts. An example would be the Gospel of Barnabas (not the fraudulent Muslim text, the one mentioned in the Decretum Gelasianum).

Third, no small number of the early variations of Christianity that did not make the cut into orthodoxy are recorded by the Pauline Christian writers themselves in their responsive attacks.

It is good to note however that you do not pretend that there actually are no "lost books" at all. Good for you.

"Wiggle’s disparagement of Pauline Christianity is another clue that he’s wandering in the fever swamps of terra conspiratoria. Pauline Christianity is the major portion of the NT. His acceptance by the Apostles is documented by Luke, by the first Jerusalem council."

I gotta say... can an argument get any more viciously circular than that? If so, I have never seen an example.

"FF Bruce was one of the preeminent scholars of his time and his books are classics of apologetics. Wiggle’s condescension of Bruce simply marks him as a crank."

Sectarian apologists always adore the books of fellow apologists that agree with them. Calling those who disagree "cranks" or insultingly riffing on their userIDs with nicknames like "Wiggles" is, well, a wonderful example of how intolerance commences. I trust that you will not advance to physical violence from verbal insult?

People wonder why the exclusive monotheisms of Christianity and Islam have earned less than stellar reputations for ecumenicism.

The difference between my measured disagreement and your intense defensiveness could not be much more stark. I merely disagree and you immediately take it as malicious "disparagement." You are projecting.

You are not being threatened here, Pelham. You guys already rule the world. Is that not good enough for you?

No need to answer. It was a rhetorical question.

Why then would you object even the tiniest bit if the premise should then serve for what actually is a rigorously deductive set of subsequent syllogism?

I object to the meaning of a premise being changed. For example consider this deduction:

Premise A) Banks are safe places to keep your money.

Premise B) The place by the side of the creek is a bank.

Conclusion: It is safe to keep your money by the creek.

Obviously this argument is fallacious. The problem is that we use the term "bank" to mean more than one thing. But if we were more objective we may have said:

Premise A-prime) Everything that could be called a bank, whether a financial institution or side of a creek is a safe place to keep your money.

Now in this case, premise A-prime is the one actually used to make the syllogism's conclusion valid. However we would not be able to get many people to accept this premise. Thus if we are devious, we could propose A and than imply A-prime to form our syllogism.

You have made this mistake a couple of times that I have pointed out, and I have spelled out the specifics already. I'm sorry that being wrong about what you are selling is hard to accept. Nobody likes it, including when it happens to me. Which is why I understand that you are resistant to accept this correction.

You have made the bald accusation, but you have demonstrated no actual equivocation whatsoever.

The equivocation was certainly more subtle and harder to see than the bank example. It didn't boil down to two parts of the same word like your former error with "portray". I will try one more time to point it out to you, although I doubt you are in any mood to recognize it:

The law of cause and effect is the most rigorously confirmed induction we have ever been able to make as a species. The confidence is so great that we even have invented a label for those instances when it appears the law might have been violated. We call them "miracles."

This is a premise. You used this premise further down in post 131 in another form:

If we hold the premise that all effects have causes, it cannot lead you to an effect that has no cause. It can only lead you to an eternal chain of causes and effects.

Well both these snippets appear to make sense. However, when did we ever hold this premise as stated in the second snippet? It kinda sounds like the previous one, only stated with more brevity. But it isn't really the same. I hold the first premise, but in a different way than you do that does not support your restatement: that everything in nature has to have a cause, and that exceptions are properly called miracles because they are thus an effect of some super nature.

If you like, you can assert that the non-existence of super nature was an implied additional premise, but that's hardly useful in considering the veracity of naturalism. And it would make the rest of your argument have little utility other than obscuring that you have really just assumed your conclusion.

”The equivocation was certainly more subtle and harder to see than the bank example. It didn't boil down to two parts of the same word like your former error with "portray". I will try one more time to point it out to you, although I doubt you are in any mood to recognize it: “

I’m all ears.

Well both these snippets appear to make sense. However, when did we ever hold this premise as stated in the second snippet? It kinda sounds like the previous one, only stated with more brevity. But it isn't really the same. I hold the first premise, but in a different way than you do that does not support your restatement: that everything in nature has to have a cause, and that exceptions are properly called miracles because they are thus an effect of some super nature.

Wait a minute. I thought you said you were going to show me where I equivocated. Instead, you are not talking about the premise at all, but instead complaining about an irrelevant aside.

So worse than being wrong… your complaint here is irrelevant.

The existence or non-existence of super nature was not a premise at all in my argument. I never asserted it, and it certainly served no role in my chain of reasoning. To do that would be to commit the same viciously circular illogic that I abhor among you guys. I neither included nor concluded the non existence of super nature. I did not even introduce the concept in the reasoning.

I simply pointed out that if every effect must have a cause, the only logical conclusion that would not violate that premise is that the universe is eternal. No consideration of super nature anywhere involved.

"Well I never signed on to the idea that every effect has a cause. It was not a premise we agreed to, it was one you were arguing for. You stated the premise twice. The first time it sounded in line with both our world views. The second it was only in line with yours. You equivocated to get to that "premise"." Actually, you did sign up to that idea. In fact you were the first in this thread to propose that "nothing comes from nothing." Or did you forget?

Now... I am perfectly cool with you abandoning that idea now and deciding, well, okay, things do come from nothing after all, and there are effects with no causes. Is that the premise you are embracing here? Because, if is, then we'll work from there.

But you still are showing zero equivocation on my part. The objection you posed to what you call the second statement of the premise had nothing to do with the resulting logical conclusions. Miracles were neither a major or minor premise, and never presented themselves as a conclusion either.

"But I am more interested in knowing how you think an eternal universe can have nothing infinite in it. Are you thinking of time as a part of the universe, or of something that transcends the universe and need not be considered part of it?"

The universe is a chain of causality. (Well... it's actually a web of causality, but let's keep it simple.) It consists entirely of discrete entities and events, none of which are infinite. All of them are limited in dimension and ephemeral in existence. Without exception.

Time however is not an entity at all. It cannot be reified into a discrete thing as it bears none of the characteristics of either matter or energy. In point of fact, time does not exist at all.

There is no past or future. There is only now. The immediate instance of the universe is all that exists. What we conceive of as "past" is simply the artifact of previous "nows" that we retain in memory, but we still retain that artifact now. What we conceive of as the "future" is simply the recognition that now does not stay the same, and the instance we are immediately experiencing is different from other instances that we will eventually experience as "now" but have not yet.

Once an instance of "now" becomes "past," it doesn't go to some other place where it is filed away for reference. It ceases to exist completely. And instances of "future" are not waiting in a vestibule to eventually make their entrance onto the stage. They do not exist until "now" becomes them.

I suspect that you will make the same pointless complaint you made a couple posts ago about how this is not "intuitive." That's merely damning with faint praise. There is a reason why intuition should not be trusted... it is too often wrong. An eternal universe is certainly counter intuitive, but so what? It is still the only logical conclusion that can be reached from a premise of "all effects have causes" or "nothing comes out of nothing."

The intuitive leap that religionists make when confronting the eternal chain of causality is to "call it God," but that requires the contradiction of the premise, and is therefore not justifiable logically.

So... is it intuitive? No. But it is perfectly and unforgivingly logical.

Time is a convention that we use to make sense of change in the universe. But it doesn’t really exist. Matter exists. Energy exists.

Hmmm, well change seems to imply a ratio whose denominator is in terms of time. Perhaps they are using a number of event states as such a denominator and think of it more discreetly?

Perhaps all things if we would like could be abstracted in one way or another and thought of to not really exist, for some special meaning of existence that is useful to some model or another. For example, I believe some world views hold that matter and energy don't really exist.

"Existence" as a technical word causes more confusion than it helps I think. Its usefulness was eroded by too many philosophers putting too many meanings to it. So I favor using it in the most general non-technical way.

To the fictional characters of a book, the author does not exist (unless the author chose to represent his own person in the story). However the author is more real than the characters in the book.

But under the model you seemed to be describing, the author himself is not real. What is real is the state of the matter in the author at the thinnest possible slice of "time" (whatever that is), and the state of the particles close to the author, that might not be considered the author exactly...and perhaps the rest of the universe at that moment I suppose.

In the mind of the author would be a thought of the characters, so perhaps they are real in that way...but thoughts require a much longer chain of tiny causal steps then the thin tiny slice of now that is the only state that currently exists. Since the future and past don't really exist, well I can't see how thoughts exist. Or the mind of the author for that matter. Certainly the particular arrangement of some particles of matter and some energy that do not constitute a single thought do not constitute a mind.

Seems this view implies that minds only exist in our minds...which don't exist anyway...so we should just stop it!

"Hmmm, well change seems to imply a ratio whose denominator is in terms of time. Perhaps they are using a number of event states as such a denominator and think of it more discreetly?"

Who are "they?" I cannot answer the question unless I know who you're speaking of, because different communities use the concepts of change and time differently.

"Perhaps all things if we would like could be abstracted in one way or another and thought of to not really exist, for some special meaning of existence that is useful to some model or another. For example, I believe some world views hold that matter and energy don't really exist."

I'm sure some such world views exist. But they have nothing pragmatic to show for their trouble. When a set of ideas is so completely sterile in its contribution to our lives, I am comfortable paying it no heed. When it actually ends up accomplishing something, then I will grant it closer scrutiny.

I was once, for instance, challenged by a "new age" guru along the Tony Robbins line to point out something that was "real." I volunteered the piano in the corner as an example of something that was real, and he responded, "Oh you think so? You think that if I got Deepak Chopra here he couldn't make a case that that piano was not real at all?"

I looked at him and said, in front of seminar of more than 300 people, "I'll tell you what. First get Deepak Chopra in here. Then let me drop that piano on his head. Then I will be more than willing to let him try and convince me that the piano was not real."

"To the fictional characters of a book, the author does not exist (unless the author chose to represent his own person in the story). However the author is more real than the characters in the book."

What silliness. Fictional characters in a book do not exist. Authors of fictional characters do exist. The author is not "more real" than the fictional characters. The author is real, and the characters are not.

Existence is a binary state. Ones and zeroes. There is no fractional existence, or fractional reality.

"But under the model you seemed to be describing, the author himself is not real. What is real is the state of the matter in the author at the thinnest possible slice of "time" (whatever that is), and the state of the particles close to the author, that might not be considered the author exactly...and perhaps the rest of the universe at that moment I suppose.

Nonsense. The author is absolutely real regardless of the existence of time. Like all other entities that exist in the universe, the author is a discrete being that can be described as a particular conformation of matter and energy. All three spacial dimensions exist, and no "slice" of time of any thickness need be considered.

That author exists only within now. There are not an infinite number of authors occupying different "slices" of time like pages in a flip book. There is no author in "the past." There is no author in "the future." The author will change as each subsequent instance of now replaces the prior. But the author that exists now is the only author that exists... period.

"In the mind of the author would be a thought of the characters, so perhaps they are real in that way...but thoughts require a much longer chain of tiny causal steps then the thin tiny slice of now that is the only state that currently exists."

Not so. A thought is a physio-chemical process, a sub-component of the discrete conformation of matter and energy that is the author. In one instance of now thought will be commencing. In another instance of now, the thought will be concluding. In all instances of now in between, the thought will be in progress. But the thought obeys the same rules as all other entities composed of matter and energy. It is not an exception to the rule.

"Since the future and past don't really exist, well I can't see how thoughts exist. Or the mind of the author for that matter. Certainly the particular arrangement of some particles of matter and some energy that do not constitute a single thought do not constitute a mind.

Sure they do. You seem to have again assumed your desired conclusion and are arguing in a circle. You are presuming that a thought is an immaterial thing, that the mind is something different from the body. Oceans of ink have been wasted on "the mind body problem" when the obvious solution has always been that they are the same thing.

"A thought" is merely the arbitrary demarcation into granules of the ongoing seamless process we call "thought." Where one thought ends and another begins is merely convention... but we do not stop thinking in between.

And mind is more than just the sum total of our thoughts. The components of mind include cognition, perception, memory, consciousness, self awareness... the list is a long one. But ultimately... mind is what brain does. It is not a separate thing that exists independently of the material organ that produces it. Livers produce chemicals. Kidneys produce urine. Brains produce mind.

And we can confirm this by showing that no component of mind, no matter how subtle or definitive of "humanness," cannot be affected or destroyed by affecting or destroying the brain that produces it.

"Seems this view implies that minds only exist in our minds...which don't exist anyway...so we should just stop it!"

Nothing in that conclusion makes sense, fist and foremost because mind does not only exist in our minds. As evidence, it is my hope that you (through empathy alone) grant that I probably have one, even though you are not experiencing it in your own. You cannot think my thoughts, feel my feelings, or experience my experiences... so they clearly exist independently from your own. They are a different instance of mind from yours.

The intuitive turmoil is generated by the simple fact that your first person experience of your mind cannot be shared. It is an experience entirely unique to you. If I were to put you under a PET Scanner and look for your mind I would have no trouble describing the electro-chemical signals that cross your synapses, the firing of your neurons, the regions of your brain that are active and those that are not, the rewiring of synapses that constitute learning and memory... I might even be able to make some rough assessmenets of your emotional state or what you are doing.

But my third person experience of your mind can never be the same as your first person experience. It is the same mind... but our experiences of that mind will always be so different that I can only suspect and never know that our separate first person experiences are at least similar.

No... don't stop it. Embrace the unique and unrepeatable first person experience of your own mind, even if it ultimately is only the chemical reactions you are able to witness in mine.

But please, do not fritter away the singular experience of your mental universe by imagining it is merely a dress rehearsal. This is your one moment on the cosmic stage, and then into dust thou shall return.

Don't waste it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.