The Ramifications Of Panspermia

Alien life lacks even a minor shred of evidence in its favor, even if it is both logically and scientifically possible for extraterrestrial life of various kinds to exist, and yet a link between alien life and the start of life on Earth is sometimes suggested as the most probable origin of terrestrial organisms.  This can be referred to as panspermia even if the word can have a broader application.  While panspermia can make a great narrative addition to science fiction stories and must rationalistically be acknowledged as a genuine possibility, it is unverifiable and does not require some of the ideological ramifications ascribed to it.  Its true ramifications would affect nothing but the specific mechanism by which life on Earth, or at least life on Earth for specific species, first began.

For instance, the idea that extraterrestrial creators of human life (or other life on Earth), if true, would represent some sort of philosophical victory over theism is woefully false.  Even if an uncaused cause could not be proven to exist as is the case, it is not as if it logically follows from aliens starting Earth's life forms that God does not exist or is metaphysically unnecessary for there to be a universe.  God does not have to directly create any life on Earth in order to be vital for life to come into existence.  In fact, there are plenty of philosophical ideas about the theistic creation of the cosmos that are not true by inherent logical necessity even after an uncaused cause is proven.  One is the belief that if God created the cosmos, it must have created life shortly after--or created life directly at all.

The fact of the matter is that there is an uncaused cause that at least started a chain of cause and effect, perhaps even involving other beings, which brought the material world into existence, and the material world could have given rise to life without God specifically intervening.  The existence of an uncaused cause is a logical necessity, but it does not even follow from this that God created the universe on his own, only that he created either the universe or something else that could have created the universe or in turn created other beings first.  The exact sequence of events is unknowable.  What is provable is that infinite regression, self-creation of the universe or anything else, and coming into existence without any prior existence or cause are impossibilities.

The other part of this is that the cosmos that God created is hypothetically possible of creating life on its own.  This would conflict with how the Genesis creation account describes the details of the first human lives, but it remains logically possible.  The Bible has some components that cannot be false (substance dualism of some kind, an uncaused cause, and so on) and other components that boast significant evidences (the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection is a key example), yes, yet logical proof alone is the way to know with absolute certainty if something is true.  Certain scientific theories, historical documentation, and much of the Bible may or may not be true while still having actual evidence in their favor.  All that I have said about the origin of the cosmos and life is consistent with these truths because I am focusing on what must be true no matter what else is.

Panspermia therefore might be true in that life that already existed elsewhere in the universe--or possible multiverse--is responsible for directly bring life on Earth into being.  The extraterrestrial life and matter that could be involved would still have not always existed, as the cosmos and time themselves are logically required to have had fixed beginnings at some point.  Thus, an uncaused cause is still behind the causal chain that led to human life regardless of just how exactly the chain of events unfolded.  Any attempt to avoid the necessity of basic theism with panspermia, a multiverse, emergent naturalism for terrestrial consciousness, or any other similar idea does not even negate the uncaused cause that would have to begin the chain of causality and is doomed for immediate failure.

Subjective Experiences With Entertainment

Anytime a reviewer focuses on how a work of entertainment "filled them with awe" or "crawled into their head," they have sided with logical fallacies unless they strictly intend to just describe their subjective experience rather than the entertainment itself, be it a movie, video game, book, or television or streaming show.  Their experience with consuming the art may have little to nothing to do with the work itself.  Perhaps they enjoy art that is deep, sincere, and well-crafted, but even then their subjective enjoyment is still subjective and secondary to the actual work they enjoyed.  This actually contradicts the core nature of entertainment and denies its true significance.

The thematic and artistic depth that can be present in analyzing entertainment/art is undercut by pretending like all that matters is a random consumer's personal experience even if that experience is rooted in misunderstanding art.  If this was the case, what would the ultimate point of reviewing, critiquing, or praising any work of entertainment at all?  Catharsis?  Connecting with others whose subjective preferences are just as irrelevant left to themselves?  It is logically true that art objectively succeeds or fails in handling certain themes and artistic goals of its creators, but any idea insisting the opposite also trivializes the nature of art as a whole.

I do not mean that subjective experiences with art cannot have any personal significance, as entertainment can stimulate and inspire even in unintentional ways.  What I mean is that the artistic quality and philosophical depth of entertainment is tied to the nature of individual works of art instead of having anything to do with the experience of broad audiences or any individual person.  The objective identity of a work of entertainment, no matter its medium, and the subjective impact it has on a given person are very different things that have a very precise relationship with each other.  Both have importance, just of different kinds.

Entertainment has the capacity to reflect genuine truths, possibilities, and struggles, and consumers have the capacity to relate to what they see or let it lead them to consider certain thoughts that might not otherwise have occurred to them.  This is how the objective nature of art and the personal experience of consuming art can together enrich communities.  Subjective feelings about a work do not determine anything about its quality, the intentions behind it, or its depth, but they can add immense power to the process of using entertainment.  Without the true nature of entertainment, subjective perceptions would be pointless; without subjective experiences, art would not be able to reach people where they are.

A Key To Lifelong Friendships

What is held up as a strong friendship is typically shallow, devoid of any mutual love of abstract truths or any emotional bonding beyond a surface level.  One of modern life's grand ironies is that people, even though they have the technology that could keep them in communication with friends across the world or even just hours away with ease, do not tend to have friendships that holistically engage them or go beyond superficial connections.  Part of this is of course due to philosophical shallowness inherent in non-rationalism, for a person without the light of sheer rationalism will always be adrift in ignorance of themselves and how they want or need to relate to others.

In fact, the primary problem in most relationships is a lack of mutual adherence to rationalism, for the consequences of this extend deep into all aspects of life.  People will not thoroughly understand the difference between truth and assumptions, deep sincerity and indifference, or relational connection and the appearance of relational connection without looking to reason.  Beyond this, there is a common claim that a greater immersion in technology robs people of their ability to form lasting or deep relationships.  This false idea would never be believed by a rationalist, but even non-rationalists can suffer because of its popularity.

For those who actually want lifelong, authentic friendships based on honesty--philosophical honesty and emotional transparency--there is always a way to ensure such a relationship actually lasts wherever one's friends are.  This key is the use of current technology in whatever form is best to keep a relationship thriving.  Now, constant communication is not necessary for a relationship to thrive.  Reason shows that there is nothing conceptually impossible about two people having strong affection for each other, thinking of each other, and longing to reunite technologically or in person even when circumstances make it more difficult for this to be expressed.  One can also personally experience this beyond knowing it is a possibility.

Still, phone calls, text messages, and emails, among other things, provide people with unparalleled communicative ability with every person they care about who also has access to this technology.  There is no real excuse for a relationship standing on intellectual and personal depth to fall apart due to mere lack of communication.  If someone wanted to stay in contact with a friend who has given evidence of their rationality, sincerity, and loyalty, there will be ways to do so as long as contact information is retained.  Technology, rather than discourage closeness, can actually let it flourish when two friends might otherwise literally be incapable of communicating with each other.

While medical and travel technology are rightly praised as enhancing the quality of modern life and making it safer, the way technology has allowed for friendships to be preserved and even strengthened despite massive distances can go unappreciated given that so many people pretend like technology is somehow an enemy of deep relationships.  Without the variety of ways to communicate with people from a distance, the in-person side of relationships could suffer from lack of coordination of physical meetings, and some relationships would not exist at all without technological communication.  Technology is largely a blessing to relationships rather than a restraint, with any relational difficulties tied to technology reducing down to how people handle it instead of technology itself.

Insincerely Acknowledging Poverty

No one is obligated to give what they need to someone else no matter how destitute another person might be.  This much is clear simply from understanding Deuteronomy 4:2 and noticing that the Bible does not demand that everyone forsake their material possessions in part or in full for the sake of specific individuals in poverty.  If it did, this would result in an obvious contradiction: it would mean that the poor who have just received material wealth would suddenly be obligated to give away what they have only just received, which in turn means that no one ends up with any serious level of personal wealth and everyone lives in poverty together.

However, the Bible does naturally prescribe the rejection of classist discrimination against the poor and rich alike (Exodus 23:1-7 addresses this in part by condemning all favoritism based on economic standing).  Moreover, it does command people to not overlook the poor as some do even if they distinctly call on others to address poverty with their words.  Of this, many conservative and liberal Christians alike are guilty, just as they are guilty of so many other philosophical and moral hypocrisiescor errors.  They might appeal to the same passages in the Bible about poverty to look benevolent to others or to further an irrelevant political ideology, but they are not doing so for the sake of truth and genuine moral excellence.  James 2 directly calls this kind of insincere or incomplete "benevolence" dead.

Now, what James 2 describes is different from not having the means to give but wanting to, just as it is different from having surplus resources or wealth for personal security, comfort, and pleasure without immediately giving away money one could live without.  It is not even the same as having plenty of money to give and the right moral approach to the poverty of others but not giving money, food, or some other such societal necessity to specific poor people in one's life.  What James 2 describes here is a disconnect between a person's professed attitude towards the poor and a continual lack of action taken on their behalf.  As the text itself says, merely using words in hopes of comforting the poor without caring or acting in any deeper sort of way across a lifetime is as empty as the body without the consciousness that animates it.

This does not mean that someone without the resources to take care of others and themselves must rush to put their own life in economic ruin to help anyone else, nor does it mean that anyone is obligated to care for any specific poor person in their immediate life.  The point is that unwillingness to act on one's professed beliefs--and even then belief is only justified when it is perfectly aligned with rationalism and therefore it can be extremely nuanced--is an indicator of a lifeless intellect and moral standing.  The person who divorces their deeds from their worldview succumbs to their own hypocrisies and lack of philosophical initiative.  This is why James 2 compares such a person to a literal corpse.

Movie Review--Wildling

"Do you want to hear a story?  Do you want me to tell you about the Wildling?  His teeth are long and sharp like this.  And so are his nails."

--Gabriel Hanson, Wildling

Within five minutes, Wildling sets up its central character Anna and the mystery of her identity as a child raised to fear a creature outside the attic she lives in.  Only minutes later, it shifts the story in a completely different direction and lets its originality and acting keep it moving forward.  As a drama first and foremost, the development of the story does crowd out heavy action sequences, but the other aspects, like the cast, are handled wonderfully.  Wildling reunites Liv Tyler and Brad Dourif, both Lord of the Rings cast members, even though they do not appear in any of the same scenes.  Their acting remains top notch, though!

Production Values

Much of Wildling focuses on mystery and interpersonal drama, which leaves only a handful of scenes with obvious practical effects that go beyond basic sets and locations.  There is a creature, and it is shown directly in the later half, but the close-up shots of the makeup and physical adornments mostly fit with the other visuals.  Only near the very end does some obvious CGI stick out.  As for the acting, Brad Dourif has a less malevolent role than he did as Grima Wormtongue and Chucky.  His performance calls for portraying conflicted motivations with sincerity.  As experienced movie viewers might expect, he pulls off what is necessary.  Liv Tyler plays Sheriff Ellen Cooper as a gentle, caring figure with a firmness she can muster when needed.  It is Isobel Powley, the actress behind Anna, who carries most of the story in spite of the two screen giants alongside her, that gets to appear in most scenes, and she carries the mantle with reserved energy that conveys Anna's confusion rather well.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

A young girl named Anna raised in an attic by Gabriel Hanson, so fortified that the door is locked and the knob electrified, hears tales of a "Wildling" from her guardian, who insists that the Wildling has killed all other children.  He begins giving her daily injections after she gets sick, never failing to keep her isolated even from the rest of the house.  Eventually, he kills himself, and Anna wakes up in a hospital without even knowing what her last name is supposed to be.  A local sheriff watches over her while waiting on her DNA results to be finalized.  Anna continues to eat meat to the exclusion of most other food and display curiosity, confusion, and determination in her introduction to modern civilization.

Intellectual Content

The conditions in which Anna is raised spur her to irrationally assume that Gabriel's claims about a Wildling and slaughter of children in the world outside their home are true, even though she can neither directly perceive the world outside or prove that her sensory perceptions reveal the external world as it is.  Once she lives with the sheriff after she is found, Ellen's claim that she has never seen a Wildling surprises Anna, who is still so concerned about the Wildling's existence that she prefers to sleep in a closet with no windows to feel safer.  Since Anna does not talk very often, Wildling does not have her talk about whatever she might think about epistemology, but the entire film is about the unraveling of a mystery foreshadowed early on.

Conclusion

Some of Liv Tyler's and Brad Dourif's work outside of Lord of the Rings and Child's Play goes without as much cultural recognition, and the enormous influence of the two franchises is plainly a factor.  This does not mean their other roles are not successes in their own right.  Among its other triumphs, like its gritty blend of cryptozoology and a modern setting, Wildling shows Liv Tyler and Brad Dourif in contexts very different than those in some of their biggest movies.  For this reason on its own, even someone without a particular interest in urban fantasy could derive plenty of enjoyment from watching a very personal approach to horror, one without jumpscares and a lack of subtlety.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Someone tries to commit suicide with a revolver.  A creature attacks and kills several people.

 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" and "shit" are heard.

 3.  Sexuality:  A character shows Anna videos of people having sex to help her understand how babies come into existence.  Sexual moaning is heard, but the laptop screen faces away from the camera.  A couple has sex without the camera showing most of their bodies.

Philosophy In Television (Part 11): The Boys

". . . at the Q and A, they always asked me what my wish was, and I always said, 'To save the world.'  And the judges just chuckled like it was cute.  But it wasn't a joke to me.  Since when did 'hopeful' and 'naive' become the same thing?  I mean, why would you get into this business if not to save the world?  That's all I have ever wanted.  And that's why I've always wanted to be in The Seven."

--Starlight, The Boys (season one, episode one)

"Fuck this world for confusing nice with good."

--Stormfront, The Boys (season two, episode two)

The Boys takes on quite a wide range of issues across its two current seasons.  Its satire targets the characters of DC's Justice League, the dismissal of the cultural problems megacorporations create or exploit, evangelical Christianity with its utter shallowness and irrationalism, and more.  Season two even specifically alludes to Joss Whedon's Justice League film being inferior to Zack Snyder's originally planned version, so there are plenty of parallels to developments in the world's actual entertainment industry as well as to popular philosophical ideas.  Like Watchmen before it, The Boys is still first and foremost a deconstruction of what is now one of the most popular genres of multimedia entertainment in all of present history, but there is far more depth than this as it points to various issues that even now grip the modern age.

Two main factions are the focus of the show.  On one hand, it follows an organization called Vought that features selfish, abusive "heroes" that include The Seven, a team satirically resembling the Justice League: Homelander is a corrupt Superman figure, Queen Maeve is a somewhat apathetic Wonder Woman figure, and so on.  On the other hand, it also follows a handful of individuals led by William Butcher who are infuriated with Vought for its murders and other abuses of power.  Both groups, ironically, are mostly full of people driven by allegiance either to moral ideas embraced due to the subjectivity of conscience or to utilitarian effectiveness at the expense of moral concerns.  The backgrounds of various characters sometimes connect them with ideas that are often misrepresented or used for personal gain rather than philosophical awareness--but that are not destructive or verifiably false in themselves.

Homelander, like season one's newcomer to The Seven Starlight, has ties to conservative Christian circles that outwardly associate him with what amounts to contemporary evangelicalism.  It would be odd for someone like myself to not address the way that evangelicalism is presented--as a philosophy that aims for the most surface level understanding of Biblical morality and appeals to the assumptions its adherents are committed to regardless of validity or verifiability--in a philosophical assessment of the series.  Season one does practically mock evangelical fitheism and conservstism, and as a rationalist and Christian, I want evangelicalism to be mocked to the point of acknowledging how stupid evangelicals and evangelical ideas are.  There is almost nothing at all in evangelicalism that represents Biblical theology and broader and more foundational philosophical concepts accurately.  The more a person understands and cares about logic and the Bible (as well as science, but science has a wholly lesser philosophical status than reason), the less evangelical they will be.  In one sense, it is only fitting that William Butcher's response to the evangelical nonsense of season one is equally emotionalistic, shallow, and irrationalistic.

Of course, as any intelligent viewer realizes, Butcher's atheism is literally just an appeal to emotion based on his subjective dislike of the state of the world and his confusion of the basic concept of a deity for a being that has predestined all events that occur.  In other words, it is just the so-called problem of evil in all of its emotionalistic lack of philosophical glory.  Things have befallen him that he dislikes, and he assumes that God does not or cannot exist without distinguishing between an amoral deity and one with a moral nature--and he also assumes that morality must be as he wants it to be, or else he would never think something is evil just because it harms him or offends his conscience.  Then there is his total selfishness and willingness to brutalize others, which reveal him for the pathetic hypocrite that he is.  He is actually quite similar to Homelander, whom he despises, and yet Homelander has ties to something that could be lived out benevolently, unlike Butcher.

Homelander's ties to a misrepresentation of Christianity are not his only affiliation with distorted ideas, since he appeals to patriotism quite regularly across both seasons (patriotism is philosophically pointless but still morally neutral/amoral on its own even if it is almost never lived out in rational or just ways).  He is not even the only member of the Seven that is affiliated with something neutral or positive.  In fact, Stormfront, of all people, is associated with something philosophically valid in its entirety, pragmatically beneficial, and Biblically just.  Stormfront is (or at least initially pretends to be) a genuine feminist: a gender egalitarian who directly, unhesitatingly denounces an attempt to gain publicity by acting like women are more competent than men.  This is extremely ironic given that she is violently racist against non-whites to the point of assaulting and murdering them for the color of their skin.

Stormfront is a grand example of just how confused or hypocritical almost every main character in the world of The Seven is.  There are no true heroes in the entire show except perhaps Starlight and her eventual boyfriend.  The Boys portrays the typical person with or without great social power or superpowers as they are--slaves to personal desires and arbitrary worldviews which they use to manipulate other people, all as they object to being manipulated by other egoists and irrationalists at the very same time.  No superhuman power will make someone rational and just, and no lack of physical strength makes someone intellectually and morally insignificant.  The Boys stands alongside Game of Thrones as a collective work that portrays the world as it is when individuals let their whims and preferences guide their actions and worldviews.

Philosophical Originality (Part 1): Laying The Groundwork

There are specific philosophical truths that literally any conscious person can grasp not just with indirect, obscure awareness that they can never truly escape from, but that they can directly comprehend at will, as with logical axioms.  The fact that something is true and therefore some ideas are false is one of them.  The fact that some things logically follow from others is another.  In the case of these examples, the utterly basic and self-affirming nature of the truths can be realized by anyone and can never be truly avoided: every idea at all, even self-contradictory ones, will hinge on these and other axioms.  Anyone who sincerely tries can recognize these truths and prove them to their own self with or without aid from others, and the basic epistemological and metaphysical centrality of logical axioms in all things is not shallow or unimportant in any way just because they are the first step, the sole starting point for all things.

I have written at great length about all of this so far, and I will continue to emphasize them in the name of rationalism.  There are other truths that hinge on logical axioms that can also be extremely precise.  The more philosophically specific one is, the less likely it is for non-rationalists to even be able to understand what one is trying to convey to them.  Most people only discuss or seem to think about issues that ultimately fall in the approximate middle of the spectrum of provable philosophical facts, with knowledge of the self-verifying logical axioms that cannot be false at the start of the spectrum and hyper-specific but demonstrable logical truths about a wide variety of concepts and experiences at the other end.  Now, there are logical truths all over this spectrum that any person is capable of discovering completely on their own or evaluating completely on their own even if they happen to be introduced by someone else, and plenty of philosophical issues also stem from experiences that logic alone would not lead someone to despite being what makes facts and knowledge possible in the first place.  Even further, there are things that even not all rationalists might discover.

There are knowable philosophical facts that are specific, paradoxical, or deep enough to go beyond the majority of what holds cultural spotlights in any era while still being significant for far more reasons than mere originality in terms of novelty or autonomy--precise logical facts that not only have historical and contemporary philosophers not given any evidence of even approaching, but that many of them have specifically contradicted, knowingly or unknowingly.  Many genuine, important logical truths about underlying topics and concepts could even be understood perfectly with absolute certainty without someone realizing these things!  That the laws of logic are the only thing that has to metaphysically exist due to its own inherent nature without connection to anything else, that God could cease to exist at any time, that lingerie is objectively nonsexual, and that the Bible does not condemn all kinds and uses of erotic media (visual or otherwise) inside or outside of marriage are just a handful of miscellaneous examples, each of these having grand ramifications that can be further pinpointed and savored.

Someone could realize to himself or herself that logic is inherently true without realizing that this means it must exist regardless of what else does.  Someone could realize that bikinis and male clothing that exposes the upper torso are objectively nonsexual without realizing that lingerie must be nonsexual for the same reasons, no matter how it is perceived, treated, or worn.  Someone could realize that the Biblical condemnation of lust refers to coveting another person's actual spouse, and thus does not refer to sexual attraction to someone other than one's spouse or intentional delight in that attraction, without realizing that it follows from this that erotic media featuring nonsinful sexual acts cannot be an immoral thing to use inside or outside of a marriage.  However, there are even more precise truths than the aforementioned kind that I have discovered, and they are the focus of this series.

I may not publish whatever post comes next in this series at a given point quickly; I am still deciding if I want to fully reveal each of the most precise facts integrated into my worldview, logical facts there is evidence I may be the first to have conceived of.  Still, I want to come forward with them with explicit directness at some time!  The goal of writing this series is not self-satisfaction, although discovering these on my own has been a very empowering side effect of my rationalism and personal experiences, nor is the goal to make even fellow rationalists that might have just scarcely moved past understanding why logical axioms must be true feel inadequate.  No one has to discover the truths focused on in this series after this point in order to be perfectly intelligent, autonomous, and consistent.  Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I want to come forward with these!  They are wholly unheard of in academia and historical records and even the few true rationalists I am close friends with had never thought of them before I mentioned them out of curiosity (and because of their deep importance).

A Personal Desire For Beauty

As a 24 year old man raised in Western culture, I have repeatedly, and from a fairly young age, encountered the bias against appreciation of the male body and the bias against the female capacity for aesthetic and sexual attraction to the male body.  I remember being at least somewhat aware of this for much of my life even as I saw within myself a deep desire to possess physical beauty as a male.  Only six years ago did I become a rationalist and let that transform my commitment to Christianity and my understanding of myself.  Near the beginning of this philosophical evolution, I quickly severed myself from all toleration or acceptance of gender stereotypes and could finally explore my actual personality and desires free of interference from assumptions, distortions of Christian theology, and cultural pressures.

Now, I have the privilege of having a dating relationship with a genuine rationalistic Christian who also, naturally, is a consistent egalitarian.  That my girlfriend is openly sexually attracted to the bodies of multiple other men she has seen or interacted with in person means that she is attracted to the male body because it is explicitly appealing to her, not because she has the random, unpredictable, demisexual kind of attraction to men that so many people falsely stereotype men as having.  Instead of bothering me, this is actually empowering as an example of how gender stereotypes about the minds and bodies of both men and women are logically false.  It frees both of us to bask in our own individualities and affirm our deep intellectual and personal connection.

This, in turn, fulfills a desire I have had from a much younger age onward: despite being a male, as if gender has anything to do with personality and desires, I have wanted to be admired platonically and otherwise for my physical appearance by various women.  Life before my egalitarianism in a family, secular culture, and church culture drenched in the fallacies of complementarianism did not dull this impulse in me, as has likely been the case with many other men conditioned into silence and incomplete self-awareness.  It was only after my self-driven dive into rationalism and my recognition of true Christianity that I had the pleasure of understanding how these desires of mine were not abnormal or Biblically flawed.

I write this not just as a form of grateful self-expression, but as a way to encourage fellow people, men and women, to embrace their individuality without regard for the constructs of irrationalistic societies.  It is my hope that other men and women will find philosophical freedom from the shackles of lies and assumptions as I have.  As a rationalist, a Christian, and an introspective individual, I have tasted true clarity when it comes to the deceptions of gender role ideologies.  My girlfriend is just one of the women who has shared details about their general attractions to the male body in many specific cases, and I am just one of multiple men who has hoped to be perceived as physically beautiful.  The truth can set one free in numerous ways indeed.

The Epistemological Stupidity Of Panpsychism

Panpsychism is one of several attempts for some people to try to potentially deny substance dualism or the metaphysical uniqueness of consciousness by believing that literally every particle or unified body of matter (each individual object) is conscious, as if this would mean that consciousness is matter even if all matter is occupied by trillions of minds or more.  Depending on what someone means by panpsychism, the concept can be logically possible, but it is epistemological stupidity to actually believe it is true even if one distinguishes between the different types of panpsychism and only acknowledges that very specific versions are even possible in light of provable metaphysical facts.

No matter if panpsychism is true, not only is consciousness still metaphysically distinct from matter even though all matter would be conscious, but it would be impossible to ever even amount evidence for it with ordinary human experiences.  Matter other than that which constitutes the body of another person or non-human animal does not even have the same appearance of being animated by its own respective consciousness, and other human minds cannot even be known to exist no matter what fallacies are popular.  If the closest thing in human perception to one's own mind and body--other people--cannot be proven to truly have their own minds, what would the mere, limited evidence for all matter from miniscule particles to planets themselves being conscious in any way?

Very few people even understand how to prove that there is such a thing as an external universe of matter beyond their consciousness [1].  They take it for granted on the lunacy of unexamined philosophical faith, or assumptions, and then pretend like they are rational for just assuming it exists.  For those who at least try to reflect on the nature of consciousness and matter, there is hope that they can understand the truths from which it follows that a certain form of panpsychism is not even possible given the nature of immediate experience with one's mind.  Since I know my mind exists with absolute certainty because I do perceive, the kind of panpsychism that would entail there being one mind that imbues all matter contradicts my immediate, self-knowable introspective experiences.  My consciousness is confined to my body and my body is confined to one spatial location at a time.  My perceptions do not span the entire universe unless the universe only exists within my narrow range of sensory perceptions, and even then the external world is not permeated by my mind but is distinct from it.

This refutes one manifestation of panspychism, but what about one that does not pretend like pansychism involves a universal consciousness that inhabits all matter at once?  Then the epistemology of other minds becomes relevant.  Regarding other minds, appearances do not always have to match the reality they seem to latch onto.  The seeming presence of other minds never amounts to anything more than potentially misleading evidence that there are other conscious beings other than myself, and my own consciousness does not indwell all of the cosmos.  While at least the possible existence of other human and non-human animal minds has some evidence, in the case of this latter kind of panpsychism, there is not even any evidence of this being true!

There is no logical or scientific reason for anyone to treat panpsychism as anything more than an inherently unprovable possibility that even if true would not be true because it was impossible for anything else to be the case.  Logic and introspection reveal only that my own mind exists, and even the uncaused cause that exists by logical necessity cannot be proven to be a separate mind from mine--but there is much evidence that it is distinct from me and no evidence to the contrary!  The point is that when even other people might not have their own minds and the uncaused cause itself might be my own self, there is neither logical necessity nor experiential evidence in favor of panpsychism.  Substance dualism and one's own existence are true either way and cannot be rejected except out of stupidity.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html

A Fallacy Of Composition In The Evangelical Understanding Of Hell

Matthew 18:8's reference to eternal fires of hell tells us nothing about how long any particular beings inside it will last.  At first, this might seem odd, but it might then become very obvious why this has to be the case.  Hellfire is not synonymous with any person or spiritual entity damned to it, after all, or else the two could not be distinguished.  Therefore, a Biblical description of the fire having no end does not demonstrate that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be tormented in hell eternally.  Other verses do address what the Bible predicts will happen to the unsaved as a whole.  Here, my focus is instead on why seeing references to eternal fire alone cannot establish that the Bible teaches eternal conscious torment.  For those who might struggle to understand how this logical distinction could not be any other way, an example involving a room might illuminate the matter.

As I have emphasized before, hypothetical or even practical examples are not even necessary to understand or communicate philosophical points like this.  All it should take for someone to realize that the phrase "eternal fire" does not mean everything thrown into the fire is eternal or will be preserved eternally is simply reading Matthew 18 and thinking about it without making assumptions.  No input from others or analogies are needed to comprehend the logical fact that the latter does not follow from the former.  Nevertheless, examples can be helpful for both individual thinkers and those they might communicate with, and they can be especially helpful when dealing with people who are so accustomed to thinking of practical examples that they have difficulty reasoning out abstract truths apart from specific examples.

Suppose a room will stand for 20 more years, and an item is thrown inside while both decades remain.  Then another object is tossed inside, and another.  After five years, there is no macroscopic physical trace of the first item because it is degradable.  The room itself still stands, but the physical objects it contains have started disintegrating because they have such a nature that they naturally break down independent of their larger environment.  This is ultimately how the Bible describes hell--compare Matthew 18:8 with 2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28, and Ezekiel 18:4, to list just some verses clearly teaching general annihilationism.  Even if the Bible only called the fires of hell eternal without specifically addressing the fate of anyone who goes there, it still would not follow that every unsaved person must automatically exist forever in the fire.

The example of the room can illustrate how this concept without invoking even a single Biblical passage.  Science is irrelevant to the nature of this example as well, as the exact kind of item thrown into the room is not important in any way; the point is merely to show that just because a physical area lasts a certain amount of time (including an infinite amount of time) does not mean whatever is placed inside that area will last just as long.  Even Biblical support is irrelevant to this example.  The issue at hand is the pathetic assumption on the part of anyone who truly thinks it follows from a realm existing for a finite time or forever that everything inside it will exist for that same time.

Again, no one needs this example of a room and its physical contents to read the Bible and realize that eternal fire, eternal bodies, and eternal souls/minds are all distinct.  It does not logically follow from any of these things existing eternally that the other two must as well.  Those who cannot easily distinguish pure logic from Scriptural or scientific examples, as pitiful as this state can be, might need the light of an analogy to clarify just how this does not follow.  There might be other analogies that work very well, and none of them are theological necessities, but a room and the objects inside it does relate to the exact reason why a realm and the beings inside it are not logically required to share the same fate.

Rationalistic Sociology

A rationalist can easily see that a non-rationalist is a slave to chance beliefs, unexamined concepts, personal assumptions, and cultural pressures to at least a large extent.  After all, any belief held without rationalistic awareness and logical proof is a mere assumption even if the belief is both true and provable.  When non-rationalists are the majority members of a society, no matter what other worldviews they might have, their society is built on a foundation of mud instead of a philosophical foundation of necessary truths and absolute certainty.  Its members are delusional, hypocritical (even if only on the level of inconsistent beliefs), and intellectually helpless on their own by choice.

Unfortunately, there is not a single truly rationalistic culture evidenced by the historical record or modern experiences.  There might be or have been cultures that believed they were rationalistic without truly making no assumptions at least as a collective group and without even being consistent in rather basic issues of epistemology or ethics.  There are cultures that conflate reason with an individual's subjective comprehension of a given issue or with the assumption-riddled framework of science divorced from rationalistic skepticism that the external world is even as it appears; the kind of person who would be a typical part of a society like this is easy to find.

One of the most important and foundational truths about rational sociology--that is, rationalistic sociology, for the two can only be the same thing--is that most people are examples of philosophical superficiality, slaves to personal preferences or societal ones, and dismissive of the only truths that are self-verifying (which means them not being true would result in contradiction because they would still have to be true) as they believe in impossibilities or unprovable ideas.  In spite of this, they might actually misperceive true rationalists to be the insane ones and think that their arbitrary assumptions are validated by their emotional experiences and subjective hopes.  All of this is the case even though they will likely condemn other non-rationalists for doing the same with different assumptions!

Approaching "sociology" with any assumptions at all is irrational by definition, but any approach to sociology that does not acknowledge the sheer stupidity or apathy or non-rationalists is doomed to be untrue at its very start.  People are not consistently intelligent, self-aware, or deep just because there is always the hypothetical potential for them to be such a thing.  Cultures formed by people of different ideologies cannot all have the same level of philosophical validity.  It is therefore irrational to believe or pretend otherwise, and this is one of the most significant truths about sociological developments and interactions.  The rationalistic minority has every reason to forcefully make this fact known.

Movie Review--Black Widow

"He takes more every day.  Children who have no one to protect them.  Just like us when we were small.  Maybe one in twenty survives the training, becomes a Widow.  The rest, he kills.  To him, we are just things.  Weapons with no face that he can just throw away."

--Yelena Belona, Black Widow

"We stole the key to free will."

--Melina Vostokoff, Black Widow

Black Widow opens with everything the MCU needs: gravity, personal stakes, and the promise of a deeper plot that wrestles with genuine problems of the world.  By the end, it does have more in common with the typical MCU story than it needed to, but its best aspects throughout care similar to those of one of the MCU's greatest efforts: Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  There are plenty of similarities, ranging from the more spy-oriented story to the parallels between Taskmaster and Bucky as assassins associated with people using mind control.  Black Widow simultaneously tackles a far more sinister topic than the MCU has ever addressed before and sometimes falls back on the more intrusive style of comedy that is exactly what a film confronting a truly dark issue does not need showing up in scene after scene.  Thankfully, the humor is mostly left out of the first half.

Production Values

For a movie about spies, Black Widow eventually has a lot of non-practical effects onscreen for quite some time.  There are plenty of quieter, more personal scenes where the focus is just on two characters talking in the first two thirds.  However, the third act is by far the most CGI-heavy, some of which was seen in a trailer released last year (there is still plenty about the scene the trailers do not spoil).  While not even the physical fights in the third act last very long, Taskmaster's physical performance all throughout the movie, including near the end, is an accomplishment, likely the best part of the non-digital effects.  An early scene where Taskmaster shows Black Widow their ability to imitate fighting styles is one of the best scenes with the villain.  Speaking of Black Widow herself, she is acted well by Scarlett Johansson, but she is not the focus of the entire movie.  Her pseudo-family plays a major role.

Scarlett Johansson, Florence Pugh, David Harbour, and Rachel Weisz are excellent as a dysfunctional, hurting family living in the aftermath of deceptions and decades-long separation.  Florence Pugh, despite starring as a new character in Scarlett Johansson's movie, is clearly poised to be the future character to take on the mantle of Black Widow, and she deserves such a future; she is perhaps the best performer in the entire film, offering solemn dialogue and strong physical acting that is never overshadowed by her handful of comedic lines.  Less excellently realized (other than the physicality of the performance) is Taskmaster.  Like the majority of the other MCU villains, this newcomer has very little screen time and almost no lines at all.  A revelation about Taskmaster does tie into the darker themes of the plot, but Black Widow is unfortunately another Marvel movie with a villain that needed far more development (though there is a second villain that gets to explain themselves to a much greater extent).

Story

Some spoilers are below.

Natasha Romanoff's troubled past starts when she was taken from her adopted family as a young girl when S.H.I.E.L.D. uncovers the covert operations her "parents," agents of the Russian government, were involved in.  Both had worked towards the use of mind control technology that would reduce living human subjects to puppets.  Following the implementation of the Sokovia Accords many years later, she becomes tangled in the efforts of a man named Dreykov to use other Black Widows to stop her sister Yelena from liberating them.  Yelena and Natasha reunite with their parents, their father reclaiming his identity as the Red Guardian (Russia's version of a Captain America super soldier), while their mother informing them about the nature of Dreykov's breakthrough as they prepare to kill him.

Intellectual Content

Never before has an MCU story opened with credits that so boldly bring up parallels to events that could doom the lives of many children.  Human trafficking of all things is a major part of Black Widow, paired with genuine mind control--not just a strong social influence that convinces a person to voluntarily submit to someone else, as Florence Pugh's Yelena points out, but actual involuntary overriding of the mind itself through chemical and technological means.  Neither the technology used in the mind control nor the metaphysical and epistemological ramifications of such an invasive grip on someone else's consciousness are explained, though they could have elevated the inclusion of these subjects to a far greater extent.  At least Black Widow acknowledges that there is no such thing as true autonomy apart from free will.  Even this fact has become controversial in an era where some people claim to have or want intellectual and existential autonomy while assuming that free will does not exist.

Conclusion

Black Widow could have been far more of an introspective look at Natasha herself and a story that had more effort put into making it distinct from other MCU entries.  In spite of a third act with almost astonishingly low stakes given the subject matter and some uneeded comedy from David Harbour's Red Guardian, it manages to expand the lore associated with Natasha Romanoff, foreshadow where part of Phase Four will head (specifically the Hawkeye Disney+ show), and somewhat explore an issue darker than mere murder.  Sharing similarities to Captain America: The Winter Soldier just helps it point back to what is at least close to the best of the MCU while establishing its own identity.  That it is not quite The Winter Soldier or Doctor Strange does not mean it is Iron Man 2 or Thor: Ragnarok--thank God not every MCU film is like the latter examples!

Content:

 1.  Violence:  People are stabbed, struck, or shot at, just never in a graphic way.

 2.  Profanity:  "Shit," "damnit," and "bitch" are said either in English or in Russian.

Artificial Intelligence: The Joining Of Two Artificial Imitations

Scientific advancement has allowed humans to create artificial versions of everything from chemicals to food to electricity.  One of the benefits of science is precisely this kind of replication or modification of certain things that already occur in nature.  What of things that are not a part of the material world even though they have a very intimate relationship with it?  More specifically, what about something like consciousness?  The attempt to create artificial minds, as opposed to just a scripted response in a robot or computer with no actual thought and awareness behind it, is the most philosophically significant purpose of investigating the behavior and possible mental states behind artificial intelligences.

There are two components to a truly conscious machine that are imitations of something directly experienced in everyday life no matter someone's era and location and something more familiar to moderners.  Artificial intelligence relies on artificially generated electricity to power a simulated consciousness.  It is the combination of these two imitations, one of natural phenomena and the other of the phenomenological reality correlated with other natural phenomena.  The former is electricity and the latter is consciousness.  Whether an AI possesses genuine consciousness is irrelevant to this point, of course, because either seeming or true sentience on its part would still be a simulation of actual human consciousness.

If a conscious robot was created by arranging the hardware so that an actual mind sprung into existence from it, it would be impossible to know.  Consciousness is intangible and therefore only provable by direct experience with it; scientific observation could only pertain to outwardly visible behaviors of matter instead of the immaterial thoughts and perceptions of a mind.  Only some kind of telepathy would let an ordinary human consciousness even start to truly see if other minds exist at all.  This prevents me from knowing if either other people, animals, a robot, or a computer program have their own mind no matter how much they might seem to be conscious.

This does not mean that conceptual truths about artificial intelligence cannot be known, for they can indeed be proven by assessing the issue rationalistically.  The epistemological unverifiability of other minds is itself something about the subject that can be known with absolute certainty!  The fact that current approaches to creating a sentient kind of artificial intelligence (however successful or unsuccessful they are) conceptually involve artificial electricity to produce artificial consciousness, as opposed to a mind that animates a biological, organic body of living tissue, is another such thing.  It is logically possible for one kind of imitation to help bring the other into existence--we just could never know if it will or has already happened.

The Freedom Of Bikinis

Men and women are more free to publicly show their bodies in nonsexual and sexual ways in American society than historical evidence suggests was the case even 100 years ago.  This is reason for Christians who actually understand Biblical morality in a thorough sense to celebrate!  In the current cultural context of the West, wearing bikinis can express certain forms of liberation from prudery, sexism against women, and the idea that swimwear is sexual as opposed to just being subjectively perceived in sexual ways in some cases.  For Christian women specifically, wearing them can signify all of this and more.  It can physically reflect an inner opposition to legalistic ideas about Christian morality.

Bikinis, for the women who would like to wear them, can offer freedom for Christians from fear of sensuality and the forms of sexism leveled against men and women alike by evangelical traditions.  Simply wanting to express a rejection of fallacious modesty teachings is a valid enough reason to wear this kind of swimwear, as well as any other kind!  Freedom to do whichever nonsinful things one likes is an inherent part of Christian theology.  Since the true ramifications of this would shock people who are either theologically conservative or theologically liberal, it is no surprise that they dislike various ways Christians might live out this truth.

The freedom of the rationalistic Christian stance on bikinis entails that women see their bodies as something that cannot make men objectify them, that men see the female body as something beautiful without overreacting to its sensuality as they experience the desire for their own bodies to be seen and appreciated as beautiful, and that both genders understand that God wants the human body to not be shunned (Genesis 1:31).  There is far more to the nature and ramifications of bikinis than just rejecting the prudish legalism that adds to God's actual commands!  A deeper philosophical comprehension of what does and does not follow from Biblical commands can lead to immense relief and excitement for all.

For those who are comfortable with acting on recognition of the human body's (not just the female body's) sensual charm, this time of year is an especially convenient one to display a willingness to show one has set prudery and legalism aside.  For women, this might mean wearing bikinis--with or without the intention of specifically enjoying the admiring platonic or sexual glances of the opposite gender.  There is nothing wrong with a Christian woman, or younger girl as well, preferring not to wear bikinis for reasons unrelated to sexist ideas about male psychologies and female bodies.  It is just that the freedom of bikinis can be savored by Christian men and women alike as they turn away from asceticism, sexism, and legalism.

Everything Is Controversial

Philosophical topics and all the subcategories they break down to, including epistemology, religion, logic, and politics, are not divided into controversial issues and issues that are not or could not be controversial.  Everything at all is or at least could be a matter of intense controversy--even the fact that logical axioms must be true because they cannot possibly be false is something that irrational people not only could reject or deny, but it is something that many people have attacked in my presence, even as they go on to spout more contradictory bullshit and unverifiable possibilities instead of just affirming that which could never be false.

It is folly to act as if it is just the historical evidence for the life of Jesus, the safety of vaccines, the motives behind the American Civil War, the nature of morality, or the public attitudes towards sexuality are the only controversial things, much less the most controversial topics a person could think about or discuss!  Each of these is actually quite philosophically tame in some ways compared to the more foundational matters of logical axioms and base epistemology.  This is where the greatest controversies arise, for this is what nothing at all could be true without; logical axioms like the inherent truth of sound deductive reasoning and the existence of truth itself hold up all other aspects of reality.

Somehow, controversy is more commonly perceived to be associated with often random contemporary issues that are rarely as foundational or important in other ways as the masses appear to think.  For instance, whether humanity is dooming itself by exploring artificial intelligence is a subject that has some important ramifications for human life, but neither those who foolishly assume that artificial intelligence will lead to the downfall of humankind or those who foolishly assume that artificial intelligence could never backfire on human wellbeing could be correct without the inescapable axiom that truth exists.  This fact is more abstract than the basic concept of artificial intelligence, yes, yet it is more vital than the latter could ever be.

Bring up the inherent truth of logical axioms, though, and people who truly believe things which have to stand on these axioms if they are correct will dismiss or trivialize the necessary truths at the very core of epistemology and metaphysics.  Everything is or can be highly controversial when only some people are genuine rationalists.  In such a community, that which cannot be false could be attacked or doubted the moment popularity calls for it and that which cannot be true (logical contradictions) could be put in the spotlight of belief at any time.  The kind of controversy common in mainstream subjects of debate is frequently just there because of mistaken understanding of the issue or an exaggeration of its importance.

Seeing past mere perceptions and fallacies is how to get to the heart of an issue.  It just is not likely that many others will join you.  There are things that cannot be false, and there are things that cannot be true or even possible, and any rational person would not dispute these truths.  Unfortunately, there is nothing that an unwilling, irrationalistic mind cannot distort, disbelieve, or fight.  Controversy is not a true indicator of how epistemologically up in the air an issue is, for anyone who is not a rationalist could ignore or manipulate logically provable facts as long as they have the desire to.  What controversy reveals is how diverse worldviews are and how everything that does not align with rationalism is at worst inherently false and at best hopelessly unverifiable.

Know Thyself

To know oneself is to know an integral part of reality: it is to know the interior of the only mind a non-telepath could gaze into.  It is actually the only mind a non-telepath can prove the existence of to begin with!  This alone makes introspection philosophically significant despite how often it gets overlooked beyond the bare minimum acknowledgment (seemingly in part because of the current Western obsession with epistemologically inferior issues like science), but it also gives one the ability to prove far more to oneself about one's own consciousness than the fact that it simply exists.  After all, there is much more to rationalistic introspection and to the human mind than realizing in an explicitly philosophical manner that one exists as a consciousness.

All of one's mental states, from rationalistic awareness to layered emotions, are immediately accessible to each person.  Each of them can be recognized and understood.  This, just like knowledge about logic itself or about sensory perceptions, is still a subject of knowledge, and I mean knowledge in the only true sense of the concept--absolute certainty that a particular thing is true.  Just as the existence of one's consciousness cannot be a matter of mistaken perception, the contents of one's consciousness (the presence of individual thoughts, feelings, and desires) cannot be an illusion metaphysically or epistemologically speaking.  They must also exist and be directly knowable with absolute clarity.

One's own personality, memories, perceptions, feelings, desires and degree of philosophical awareness are all things that are themselves parts of reality in that it is true that each person has their own mental states that at least reflect their own consciousness.  This is more than something that everyone knows, or else no one would mistake the subjective experience behind these components of human consciousness for things that have nothing to do with any part of reality--and if no adult had yet to distinguish between basic experiences and the realization that the subjective mental states behind those experiences objectively tell someone about their own self, why would people talk as if they have never realized this?

Knowing oneself is not irrelevant to understanding reality.  This is because a person's preferences, subjective experiences, and other aspects of their mind, which is itself something that objectively exists, are real parts of their consciousness.  They just do not shape parts of reality beyond them, such as logical truths, the behavior of the external world, and the thoughts of any other minds that might exist.  Just because preferences and personalities do not ground reality does not mean that it is not true that preferences and other subjective mental states or characteristics of minds exist.  They most certainly do, and it is ironically introspective truths that stand alongside logical truths as being more foundational than the external world itself.

The Hypocrisy Of Hating The Hateful

Hatred has been demonized by so many in contemporary Western society that it is not uncommon to find people who seemingly hate the idea of hatred and who despise those who hate others.  The cognitive dissonance of anyone who fits this description should be obvious at all who spend more than a moment thinking about it.  To unilaterally hate hatred or those who hate others is hypocritical, and thus it is logically impossible for someone to have a position of high intellectual or moral standing as they embrace such inconsistency.

If someone who truly but mistakenly thinks they can demonstrate that hatred is inherently evil does not hate hatred, they are at best insincere.  However, if they hate hatred, not only have they failed to adhere to their own ideas, but they have also failed to even take their hatred to its logical conclusion if they think there is a moral difference between hating hatred and hating the people who harbor that hatred.  They either lack sincerity by trivializing that which is supposedly evil or lack the intelligence and resolve necessary to remain consistent on such a basic matter.

The person who despises hatred itself shares ideological similarities with the person who is intolerant of intolerance.  Both have disdain for something that is not inherently destructive, irrational, or immoral, but they also contradict themselves by failing to think or live in accordance with their own asinine stances.  It is particularly easy to show how contrary to reason the worldview and motivations of a person like this are, as they must tread lightly or betray their own ideas.  In either case, they stand on philosophical fire that scorched them even if they do not feel it or look down at their feet.

A fierce disposition towards stupidity and injustice cannot be rationally objected to even if those who oppose all hatred by default, no matter what it is directed towards or what the motives behind it are, are consistent.  Consistency of ideas and behavior does not make a worldview correct!  On its own, consistently living out opposition to all hatred would prove nothing more than that a particular individual did not deviate from their own espoused philosophy.  Even aside from the issue of hypocrisy in hating hatred or the hateful, hatred, because it is distinct from the desire for someone to be unjustly harmed, is never addressed by attacking malice or slander.

There is no refuge in reason for those who oppose hatred either consistently or hypocritically, therefore.  At most, one can rationally object to hatred rooted in contradictory or baseless criteria; to go beyond this is to leap from non sequitur to non sequitur.  Insincerity, stupidity, or self-aware hypocrisy lurks within someone who genuinely hates all hatred for its own sake.  The moment someone expresses hatred for those who hate others without distinguishing between different forms of and reasons for the latter's hatred, they have forsaken reason.

Game Review--X-Morph: Defense (Switch)

"Beginning the next phase of planetary assimilation.  This area is populated by another aggressive tribe called the Americans."
--X-Morph representative, X-Morph: Defense


X-Morph: Defense is an indie tower defense game that lets players control an extraterrestrial faction which uses machines to harvest resources in hopes of terraforming Earth.  While it is deficient on the level of storytelling and replay incentives, the gameplay cleverly combines strategic use of resources with diverse weaponry.  It succeeds as a science fiction real-time strategy game (with aspects of other genres or subgenres appearing as well), but it unfortunately accomplishes little else.  Moreover, even the DLC only adds a few hours of single player content to the already brief campaign.

Production Values

The strongest aspect of the production values is certainly the clear graphics that practically never hinder the framerate.  Whether one enemy is onscreen or the screen is dominated by dozens of attacking units, the game, in my experience, runs smoothly.  The voice acting behind the human characters is mediocre compared to the visuals, and, although the voice of the alien leader sounds appropriately foreign, the best of the sound is the noise generated by the technological weapons.  Unfortunately, the potential of the premise is squandered, as players are informed of the story almost entirely by in-mission lines from either faction.

Gameplay

The extremely simplistic story may be the weakest part of the game, but the gameplay mechanics are quite strong, blending RTS and shooter elements without either gameplay style displacing the other.  Players control a single alien spacecraft that can cycle between a total of four primary weapons and alternate fire modes, also having the ability to place various offensive towers to protect the map's harvester.  Some of the more unique weapons include gravitational singularities and "Dark Matter bombs."

Some enemy units, such as shielded tanks, are only vulnerable to certain weapon types.  One weapon cannot even be used to target enemies on the ground!  Occasionally, a level will involve a climactic boss fight with enormous human machines that can easily destroy towers with their footsteps or launch missiles at the harvester from another side of the map.  These opponents can take numerous towers and several minutes to kill, and the best way of ensuring they are defeated is to only let them out of one's sight unless it is necessary to remove a tower that is no longer in range to get resources back--or destroy devastating missiles before they reach the harvester.

Story

Spoilers are below, but there is little of a plot to spoil.

An unnamed alien species, which seems to be a "transhumanist"-like race in that their consciousnesses are integrated with harvester devices, begins planting resource harvesters at key points on the planet's surface, hoping to completely assimilate the human homeworld into their dominion.  As the invaders drive the human presence out of one location after another, the defenders become desperate enough to use experimental weapons unprecedented in the known history of warfare--and to eventually stage an evacuation to the moon.


Intellectual Content

The story scarcely begins to tackle any of the existential, epistemological, or moral issues that could be associated with the discovery of a hostile extraterrestrial race, but the gameplay itself requires players to be observant, strategic, and quick.  This is the nature of a real-time strategy game, so anyone familiar with the concept should easily see the intellectual challenge that can be offered at higher difficulty levels.  The DLC levels are particularly difficult and require even greater attentiveness.


Conclusion

X-Morph: Defense is far from the worst indie game on the Switch, but it is also not the best.  Its excellent aspects are matched by its lackluster ones.  A potential sequel could easily expand upon the core mechanics while situating them in the context of a deeper, more thorough story.  However, the heart of the gameplay is a triumph for the developers: the mixture of tower defense, real-time strategy, and shooter elements is the one thing that is utilized well on a consistent basis.  For Switch owners looking for a game in the tower defense genre, X-Morph: Defense is not the weakest option.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Alien and human vehicles fight each other with various projectile weapons.
 2.  Profanity:  Human military leaders use variants of "damn" on some occasions.

The Neglect Of Primary Sources

No consistent rationalist believes that historical documentation actually proves that the events referenced therein happened.  This is as true of the most widely reported events as much as it is true of those with only one account, as truth is not revealed or proven by agreement of any sort.  There are still stronger and weaker types of historical documents.  If a person living through or shortly after something writes information about the occurrence down, their testimony qualifies as a primary source.  It is by all appearances written directly about a historical person or circumstance.  Historians of centuries that follow will never be able to write primary sources about what happened long before their birth.  At most, they can write secondary sources that react to other historical writings, stories, and claims.

Miscellaneous historical claims go unchallenged in part because people tend to take it for granted (or just assume, in other words) that secondary sources and hearsay from their social lives accurately represent the claims of primary sources as they simultaneously assume that primary sources must be accurate.  These dual assumptions are not only irrational just because they are assumptions even aside from the unprovability of everything about past except logical necessities (like the fact that nothing logically impossible has ever happened), but they also leave people ripe for only accepting historical documents that are consistent with some presupposed belief about history.  In other words, assumptions beget assumptions!

How often do people--including supposed giants of historical "knowledge" (as if events like wars and expeditions can be proven to have happened just because a document or person says so) like professors and "regular" people who regularly read about history for the sake of pleasure and curiosity--actually even reference primary sources, the original documents about which later historians and interested parties read, reflect on, write about, and discuss?  Many times, people talk about later documentation of the initial documentation as if it was just as strong a piece of evidence in favor of an event having happened as the writings of the first author.

This is true of numerous historical events other than more major ones like the death of Jesus.  Name almost any historical figure or event, and almost no one will even be able to allude to any primary sources that mention the subject.  Assertions without any sort of rationalistic epistemological analysis are the norm.  At most, it would be common for people to appeal to some contemporary teacher or author they subjectively respect and leave primary sources out of the conversation completely.  It is not that everyone needs to read every primary source about major world events, but that many people are comfortable exaggerating the importance of historical information without even looking to the most central documents about an issue.

History is largely of very little abstract or practical significance one way or another.  Core logical truths are unaffected by what events led to the present era, and the nature of daily life is hardly changed by the broad points of history, much less by becoming familiar with unverifiable historical information.  This is because logical axioms, what follows from a basic concept, and the general needs of daily life do not hinge on what may or may not have happened centuries ago.  Yes, some events can have a greater societal impact than others; yes, an event like the resurrection of Jesus has far more significance than history as a whole.  However, one's life unfolds no matter what things came before it.  None of this changes how primary sources are more relevant to historical epistemology than later summaries in compilations.

A Misunderstanding Of Matthew 5:28

The most common and hurtful misrepresentations of Matthew 5:28 are the denial of women's visual nature (and therefore women's potential to lust), the endorsement of stereotypes that treat men as hypersexual beings, and the conflation of sexual attraction for the sinful state of lust.  Another possible misinterpretation appeals to the verse as grounds for guilt over physiological arousal of the genitals.  The verse cannot be legitimately used to demonize bodily reactions to either sexual or nonsexual stimuli, as it is not even addressing a physical action.

Matthew 5:28 does not condemn physiological arousal because its reference to the heart clearly refers to a disposition of the mind, not a potentially involuntary reaction of the genitals of men and women.  This would still be true whether or not the verse condemned extramarital sexual attraction--something that it does not actually condemn at all.  The Greek wording reveals that it condemns coveting someone else's spouse, meaning it has no application outside of that limited context.  Even so, any sort of genital arousal would not be the focus of the verse.

There is nothing shameful about the human body functioning as it is supposed to.  Likewise, there is nothing shameful about allowing oneself to welcome the pleasure that may be experienced during physiological arousal--or acting on it and sexually pleasuring oneself, even while thinking about a particular member of the opposite gender whom one is not and will not be in a romantic relationship with.  To do so is merely to take advantage of the way God fashioned the human body to function.

God made the male and female bodies to, generally speaking, react sexually to the sight or thought of at least some members of the opposite gender.  It would be contradictory of God to create the human body with such a capacity only to morally oppose people when their bodies experience arousal their minds may not even want in the first place.  Of course, since God was satisfied with his creation as he made it (Genesis 1:31), there is nothing morally negative about human physiology within Christian theology.

One of the best ways to live out the Biblically positive nature of nonsinful sexual expression is to simply enjoy the pleasure it brings.  For some people, this might entail regular self-pleasuring and sexual introspection.  For some, this might mean verbalizing their attraction to the opposite gender to share their excitement with others.  No matter its manifestation, in expressing sexuality in any nonsinful way, one can celebrate a fundamental aspect of human nature that God himself engineered.  There is no reason other than personal preference to refrain from savoring whatever Biblically permissible expressions of sexuality are subjectively appealing!

The Material World Is Not The Uncaused Cause

Even an atheist who believes the false idea that the physical cosmos has always existed and never had a beginning (which would at best be unprovable even if there were not logically falsifiable aspects of it) still believes in an uncaused cause whether or not they realize it or would want this to be recognized.  To be clear, they do not believe in a theistic uncaused cause, nor are they likely to believe that they believe in an uncaused cause.  Almost no one who identifies as an atheist would probably say they accept an uncaused cause.  They might find the very thought offensive and feel misrepresented.  Of course, none of these things change the truth.

The uncaused cause that they hold to is not an immaterial entity that created the universe, but it is the universe itself, which according to them created all contingent things in existence (things that depend on something else to exist).  Those philosophically inept enough to believe in a past-eternal universe do think that matter, which has always existed, produced human and animal consciousness, certain kinds of energy, and potentially other things, depending on the rest of their worldview.  This is exactly what someone who does not acknowledge an uncaused cause that at least set in motion events that led to the creation of the universe (perhaps by creating some immensely powerful but lesser being that created the universe) would believe if they still realize the impossibilities of infinite regress, self-causation, and beginning without a cause [1].

The issue then reduces down to whether it is logically possible for the universe to be the uncaused cause and, if so, if it could ever be proven to be past-eternal--or even if the idea could just be supported with fallible, limited sensory information.  Just like an infinite number of past moments would make it impossible for the present moment to be reached, so too would an infinite past number of events in the physical world make it impossible for the current part of the causal chain to arrive.  There must be an uncaused cause, but the cosmos cannot have always existed.  This means that something not comprised of the physical matter unique to the universe must be the uncaused cause.

The material world is not and cannot be uncaused or past-eternal.  It is logically possible for a material world to bring objects of matter and even some immaterial things (like consciousness or the internet) into existence, yes.  It is logically possible for matter to have existed for eons longer than humankind has existed as a species.  Indeed, there is evidence both that immaterial things like consciousness are brought into existence by the cosmos and that the universe has existed for far longer than the 6,000-7,000 years posited by evangelicals.  There is also scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, but the aforementioned logical impossibility of a universe that has always existed renders mere scientific evidence secondary and unnecessary.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

Practical Reasoning

Reasoning out what seems to be the best way to arrange items in a small space, how to fit one object into another, or how to most inexpensively pass time on a trip are all examples of practical reasoning.  That is, someone must use reason in each case, as there is no knowledge apart from the grasp and use of reason, but the goal is not obtaining infallible certainty about ultimate truths or even seeking out abstract facts about reality on to even a much lesser extent.  The goal is to simply solve a problem that reduces down to a matter of convenience rather than thoroughly philosophical knowledge.  This makes practical reasoning a useful skill in life but a red herring to matters of deeper importance most of the time.  For this reason, even more basic truths about the laws of logic and the facts they reveal have an intrinsically higher significance.

Still, practicality does not have to be avoided and shunned in order to embrace or celebrate more abstract logical truths.  The more practical applications of reason do not need to be ignored in order to understand its grander qualities and revelations.  Instead of refusing to understand the usefulness of practicality, albeit a usefulness with a very limited scope, a consistently rational person will recognize the true place of practical matters: they are never as foundational or important as the purely abstract side of reason, consciousness, and even the external world that houses the practical problems which sometimes need a resolution.  There is a sense in which intentionally recognizing the inherent veracity of logical axioms is clearly the most basic step someone could take towards knowing truths, but even this knowledge, which is required to even understand practicality as a rationalist, is deeper than the whole of practical affairs.

The highest use of reason and therefore intelligence, though, is looking to the laws of logic to reveal abstract necessary truths about all of reality rather than resolving practical problems, even if they have a global scale and affect the lives of billions of people.  After all, philosophy encompasses everything, and a mostly practical kind of problem inherently has less philosophical significance than even the most foundational (as in basic) truth about logic and broad metaphysics.  Practicality is about nothing more than sheer convenience left to itself.  Yes, practicality falls under the domain of logic because it is impossible for anything at all not to, but the laws of logic have far more important ramifications than the fact that they can be consulted for everyday problems of an explicitly practical nature.

Practical reasoning can be both very helpful and philosophically trivial on its own.  Indeed, it is both of these things at once.  To dismiss it entirely and to exalt it above issues of more foundational or precise truth is to misunderstand even the most pragmatic side of reason that non-rationalists themselves are often likely to grasp to some small extent.  A person has to be a slave to ignorance or assumptions to truly confuse the practical for the abstract or the convenient for the important.  Yes, every abstract logical/philosophical truth has practical ramifications for at least how a person might feel, and every practical truth could not be true without relying on the abstract logical axioms that govern all things.  The relationship being intertwined does not mean practicality ever outweighs core metaphysical and epistemological facts.