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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (196308)	2/15/2023 3:19:04 AM
From: sense	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217638

I don't find it frightening in the least... at least, not in the way you suggest must be true... I find it stupid... that its being made necessary... as, obviously, the butchery similarly being imposed in result of Russia's similar miscalculation in Europe... will be massively amplified in any new war in Asia... So, I will disagree re "the inevitable"... both in the sense of your implication re outcomes, and, more usefully, here, perhaps, in denying the suggestion that, whatever happens, it will be a result of anything "inevitable" rather than the result of the CHOICE to make it happen... But, will agree "inevitable" only in the sense that I judge it likely that China will insist on stepping up to the plate, in any case... That, in itself, tells you a lot about the "thinking" inherent in that choice... Like Russia, not content to be "succeeding"... in result of the setting aside of prior conflicts... but, like a mafia lieutenant in too much of a hurry, with prior failures festering, leads into thinking the best path to accelerated success... is to try to take out the boss ? Both Xi and Putin are men "in a hurry"... seeking to immortalize themselves, either by "rebuilding the Russian Empire"... or "re-taking Taiwan"... before they die and thus, not "lose the chance"... but, lose "getting the credit"... as they each, too, assume "it's inevitable"... because they imagine their own glory requires it. It's pathetic, really... Both, obviously, have adopted a similar brand of myopia in proceeding as they are... even if myopia "with Chinese characteristics" in Xi's case... It's spot on, still, in our topical discussions re "science vs politics" in "global warming" or "information control"... the probable impacts of AI... and, necessarily, questions about what it is that ACTUALLY defines advantage in the "quality" of the information one possesses... relative to that another has... or, that one is able to recognize. That part is pretty simple still... to consider in a glaring example... at the interface between philosophy (science, logic) and politics... Rumsfeld's famous quote... ... lays it out simply enough... in directly relevant earlier context. But, politics required those deluded by it into myopic disputation of a simple enough presentation of straightforward logic... which was engaged by political cadres of pseudo-scientists, pseudo-intellectuals, and pseudo-logicians... But, the relevant point, which so tortured the political pretenders, was simple enough... as Scientific American pointed out in " Rumsfeld's Wisdom"... even capturing it almost completely in the sub-title: "Where the known meets the unknown is where science begins"... Lots of post event analysis, since then, too... much of it long... little adding much of value... but, oddly, I do think Rumsfeld's visit with Stephen Colbert is worth a few minutes... You can't be a (need I say "real"?) scientist... if you're blinded by politics... and thus made unable to see... or are made deaf by politics... and thus made unable to hear... or are made dumb by politics... and thus unable to speak. The success of science depends, first, on the ability to observe... but, that includes awareness of and an ability to set aside... those known limits that prevent you from observing properly, completely, without filters and preconceptions, and from every vantage required in order to actually SEE... what most are conditioned to not see. The skill set and experience acquired in studying the process and learning how to do that... isn't limited in its application to only those things you are considering as subject to a need in scientific inquiry ? It also equips you well enough in "seeing more" in others contexts... That, obviously, doesn't come from "being taught how to" in the university... where those responsible for teaching are as often blind themselves, and a part of the problem ?