What Will David Lynch Be Like In 2016?

The last David Lynch movie was Inland Empire, made in 2006 (I have my own interpretation partly detailed in a previous blog post for those who are curious).

And now he’s set to finally make something again, in his return to Twin Peaks next year.

Suddenly there’s two things I’ve started thinking about in relation to this exciting development:

  • How David Lynch has changed since he made the series Twin Peaks
  • How the world has changed since then, and also since the last time he really made anything at all (2006)

So, for the first item, even the Twin Peaks movie (which came out shortly after the series stopped) was drastically different from the series to the extent that many fans of the series disliked the movie (I loved it).  And certainly David’s most recent work, Inland Empire, has left nearly everyone simply scratching their heads, unable to comprehend.  Will his new series shock fans of the original?

On the second item, one thing often noted about his movies is the sense of somewhat antique style.  How will this be done in 2016?  His movies have yet to feature a computer (if I recall correctly).  And something huge has changed since 2006, which will make his usual style even more at odds with the current times:  the rise of social media, and non-stop use of handheld devices.  We are now in a world full of Facebook and Youtube and Wikipedia, text messages and Snapchat and Vine videos.  Will any of this feature in his newest work?  Will a computer finally play as significant a role as the tape recorder, the camera, or the television?

So much to wonder about…

[EDIT:  about computers, in actual fact a computer is sometimes visible in a room in the Twin Peaks sheriff’s station.  Also, in an episode where the FBI is investigating Cooper, one person is using a laptop.  In the movie Lost Highway, a computer is briefly used at the prison.]

Advertisements

Abiogenesis Round 1

David said:

You say that, ” science does not say that the first life forms were complex.  Instead, the first life forms were simple, and hardly distinguishable from other kinds of chemical self-replication that we know about.” but where have we ever seen such a thing?
Why is it that every “missing link” is missing? Where in nature do we see these simple forms of life? Life requires vast amounts of complexity to reproduce even in the simplest forms. Not to mention the complexity necessary to gather oxygen and food. The most basic single celled organisms are more complex that the city of San Francisco.
And don’t use viruses as an argument, because we both know they
require complete cells to reproduce. (The RNA of a virus is also very complex).
Point: If a form of life led to the formation of single celled organisms we should see millions of steps of evolutionary life to lead to that “city of San Francisco”. Are you really suggesting that ALL of them have despaired? Name at least 250 forms of life less complex than a virus (that live today) and that show a ladder of evolutionary change from chemical reproduction to single celled life. Then you’ll have evidence in favor of what you’re claiming. Then document one of these forms of life changing to a new form of life and you’ll have proof.
Until then what you are saying is quite unfounded. Please understand I do not write this to insult you. I have seen some of your videos and know that you are an intelligent person.

I responded:

Name at least 250 forms of life less complex than a virus (that live today) and that show a ladder of evolutionary change from chemical reproduction to single celled life […]

This is like demanding that the prosecutor in a court case should have high definition film footage of every inch of the accused person’s body and actions before they can be concluded to be guilty.  Your demands are delusional.  And they are red herrings, so they are a waste of my time (and maybe I should just mute you).

Instead, I recommend you try actually making an argument for why abiogenesis is unlikely to be true.  Bayesian Reasoning shows that you will need to do this by comparing it to an alternative hypothesis which you can show to be more likely to be true.

Your only attempt to make an argument is to claim that life is complex…therefore abiogenesis and/or evolution can’t have made life as we see it?  But this is completely backwards.  Evolution is exactly how such complexity can indeed occur.

[Here is round 2]

[I’ll link to an expanded rebuttal if I write one]

A Creationist Encounter on Youtube

So someone (David B) on Youtube decided to argue with me about evolution and abiogenesis.

I have made one response (which I will re-post here and also maybe expand upon) and just now he finally got around to responding back.

His response is so bad that I think I’ll need to respond in two separate ways:

  1. A line by line response to every single error he made
  2. A response that removes all the red herrings and gets to the very core of the disagreement

[EDIT:  I’ve done the line by line response, and it’s too illogical for me to care about doing any more.  So I guess I won’t bother trying to get to the core of the disagreement, it seems it would be a waste of time]