Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (47907)	3/2/2014 12:41:02 PM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Recommended By Greg or e Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<<Quantum physics has proven for 100 years that everything is subjective, relative and a probability." So? Is that reality? Then reality is STILL a fact. Check your premises. BUT If nothing is real then you cannot formulate a meaningful reality. Because your weltanschauung must start with "nothing is real". But that is ridiculous, isn't it?? You don't rely on that CRAP THINKING in a poker game, do you?? So from the pragmatic sense, your philosophy of meaninglessness would put an end to all progress.>> Let us take them one at a time: When I say real, I mean real as we see it. Which is how Rand was using the idea of objectivism. Of course there is a reality, but we don't know what it is? We do not understand quantum physics. All we know is part of what it is and that the equations work have worked for 100 years and it has been tested and tested for flaws. The largest debate of the last century was between Einstein and the quantum boys: Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Wheeler, etc. The debate had to do with if one could ever know anything for sure. Einstein said yes (god down not play dice with the universe) and the quantum folks said no (Bohr to Einstein: "don't tell god what he can do." The debate was followed on the front pages of the New York times. Einstein finally conceded he was wrong and the quantum folks were correct. How about that: i.e. you can never know anything for sure.

To: Solon who wrote (47907)	3/2/2014 12:46:21 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

<< "2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.> koan: the problem with the above is that she is saying all we have is our brain (faculty). But we use artificial things like computers and math to extend the brain. And when we do that we find out our brains are only telling us part of the story and the story/reality is much larger and different. The question should be not if we remove the brain, but what do we see when we enhance the brain. Science has sure disproven that one." OH? If I remove your senses you can still perceive reality?? Or if I remove your brain you can still integrate the input of your senses? You're talking to me, Koan--not some dimwitted car salesman or wood chopper.

To: Solon who wrote (47907)	3/2/2014 12:53:05 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

<< "A male baboon will attack a leopard defending the troop knowing he will die. So will a human." If the baboon thinks (and we do have evidence on this thread that some can), then some reasoning is occurring (this leopard can hurt the baboons I love...etc.). This is either rational self interest (protecting what you love and value)...or it is one of your random acts in a random universe? Your choice, my existentialist friend! I am raising your pair of 3's. you want to re-raise??>> With regard to baboons it is simple instinct. We also have that instinct. It is neither thought or randomness. But more importantly regarding Rand is she had a loveless upbringing and was a sad example of a person. So what does she have to teach us if her entire life was miserable. She was a pseed freak and a cigarette smoker who denied it caused cancer. Whereas I created a beautiful life for my children. So it can be done. And I only pushed a couple of things on my kids: be kind, and develop your mind. And it seems to be a system that works very well. So who was the wiser one. The person who hated the world and said greed is good; or my world where people are happy and good and generous? I am going with happy and healthy. You can go with miserable and hateful if you want :>).