I honestly believed.

[canndo]

This whole idea that progressive equates to being progressive and forward thinking, is ridiculous. There is nothing new about collectivism/socialism/communism. These are ghosts from our past, recent and ancient. Freedom is the NEW and therefore the truly progressive philosophy. That's why America is called "The Grand Experiment". It was working fine until progressives started to mesmerize the populace and promise to cure the ills of society.
It's not bad enough that they have infected the only two political parties that have a shot at winning power but they think that those of us who do not agree must be suffering from some sort of mental defect. I don't care how fair you think any form of governance is in the beginning, any system that takes from some to give to others is tyrannical.
Your buyer's remorse falls on deaf ears, here. You think you are for fairness, equality and justice but your political philosophy produces the opposite results.

The problem here is that many, including yourself actually believe that "it was working fine". It was working fine when we were living in a primarily agrarian, 19th century society. We don't live there anymore and the problems we encounter in society are quite a bit different than they were back then.


I saw an interesting documentary about the dust bowl. I reflected on the fact that a primary reason for the destruction of the country's agricultural heartland was farmer's practices when tilling their land. the department of Agriculture found a better way, and after 10 or 20 years the land was reclaimed. Today, the right would have protested that the Feds interfered with our freedom to destroy the land.

 

[abandonconflict]

It seems to take only moments to forget what the alternative would have looked like. You voted for Obama because you didn't want Romney to be the guy at the helm, you didn't want a guy who had no clue of international situations, no true concern for the majority and no actual respect for reality and truth. Don't forget that you voted against as much as you voted for.

I actually voted for Jill Stein but your argument doesn't lose its purpose because I did have supporting words for Obama. I am grateful that Romney is not president but I'm not going to go easy on this guy. We put faith in him, hold him to it.

 

[abandonconflict]

I also disagree with objectivist philosophy. Ayn was just one of a myriad utopians imo.

However the business about the observer effect is so: it has indeed been observed for processes where the uncertainty principle holds. The math of Heisenberg's uncertainty shows it to be an atomically tiny effect. So we cannot discern it in the macro world except under highly special circumstances, such as those of the double slit experiment. But the usual flights of fancy such as the quantum mind/body problem along with the multiverse are metaphysical at this time and until a test can be devised. cn

Atomically tiny is enough to disprove objectivism.

 

[cannabineer]

Atomically tiny is enough to disprove objectivism.

I might be misunderstanding you. Imo Objectivism is Rand's sociopolitical philosophy. Do you mean something like materialism (in philosophy, not greed) or mechanistic determinism? cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I might be misunderstanding you. Imo Objectivism is Rand's sociopolitical philosophy. Do you mean something like materialism (in philosophy, not greed) or mechanistic determinism? cn

Like I said, slightly out of context but not enough to completely lose sense of it. Objectivism is based on the belief that reality is independent of consciousness. To literally and physically disprove this and put perception back into the equation is also a shift from Aristotelian philosophy to that of Plato which was my real aim.

However, I believe that the two can be united, that indeed, the theory of forms is compatible with the idea that all can be conceived in the human mind. That all is within grasp as Aristotle posited, and that our perceptions gather from within a small sector of the entire range are indeed compatible is what I consider to be thinking outside of the box audaciously.

 

[abandonconflict]

Doesnt syphillis contracted via mustachioed hookers cause mental defects?

It also causes a fatal condition known as "trickle down".

 

[Dr Kynes]

Like I said, slightly out of context but not enough to completely lose sense of it. Objectivism is based on the belief that reality is independent of consciousness. To literally and physically disprove this and put perception back into the equation is also a shift from Aristotelian philosophy to that of Plato which was my real aim.

However, I believe that the two can be united, that indeed, the theory of forms is compatible with the idea that all can be conceived in the human mind. That all is within grasp as Aristotle posited, and that our perceptions gather from within a small sector of the entire range are indeed compatible is what I consider to be thinking outside of the box audaciously.

objectivism is the philosophy described by ayn rand and here posse of conservative thinkers (which offended the fuck out of the leftist thinkers since conservatives are presumed incapable of thought) and has NOTHING to do with physics.

the word is used nowhere else as far as i know.

 

[abandonconflict]

So Kynes, you still just skimming over shit, not really reading it, then assuming you get the jist of what it is there to convey huh?

I was positing that it does and I gave an argument as to why.

Your claim is just a claim.

So when a philosophy uses phrases such as "the nature of reality" and I seek evidence from within the science of physics to disprove it's claims about "the nature of reality", your retort is simply, philosophy and physics are unrelated. Fine, then this selfish bitch was just making shit up, she was talking about the "nature of reality" with absolutely no basis in the scientific study of the nature of reality. Works for me.

 

[mccumcumber]

Voting for the sake of voting against someone blows. A slightly softer kick in the nuts is still a kick in the nads.

 

[ChesusRice]

I might be misunderstanding you. Imo Objectivism is Rand's sociopolitical philosophy. Do you mean something like materialism (in philosophy, not greed) or mechanistic determinism? cn

It is easy to sum up Ayn Rand
Egotistical self centered hypocritical bitch

 

[abandonconflict]

Voting for the sake of voting against someone blows. A slightly softer kick in the nuts is still a kick in the nads.

You kidding me? The only thing Romney had going for him was that he isn't Obama.

That's why he even won the nomination for the GOP ticket, because he had a chance of beating Obama, not because anyone actually supported him or his retarded fucking policies. It was because he could get the rich vote and therefore had the donors to pay for a campaign that huge and expensive.

 

[UncleBuck]

You kidding me? The only thing Romney had going for him was that he isn't Obama.

That's why he even won the nomination for the GOP ticket, because he had a chance of beating Obama, not because anyone actually supported him or his retarded fucking policies. It was because he could get the rich vote and therefore had the donors to pay for a campaign that huge and expensive.

it is amusing to watch how quickly the GOP has gone from telling us how we need to make romney leader of the free world to telling us how deeply flawed romney is.

 

[cannabineer]

So Kynes, you still just skimming over shit, not really reading it, then assuming you get the jist of what it is there to convey huh?

I was positing that it does and I gave an argument as to why.

Your claim is just a claim.

So when a philosophy uses phrases such as "the nature of reality" and I seek evidence from within the science of physics to disprove it's claims about "the nature of reality", your retort is simply, philosophy and physics are unrelated. Fine, then this selfish bitch was just making shit up, she was talking about the "nature of reality" with absolutely no basis in the scientific study of the nature of reality. Works for me.

I think part of the problem there is that science operates by a closed set of rules that limits it to the measurable andor consistently observable. It is the supreme and sovereign tool for that, but philosophers from Plato to Hume have shown that the true nature of reality is (so far) quite elusive. Lest I turn this into an SS&P post, I'll simply observe that true objectivity is, paradoxically enough, unattainable. We are the hostages of our perceptive and cognitive natures. Philosophy and physics are necessarily related, but not tightly. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I think part of the problem there is that science operates by a closed set of rules that limits it to the measurable andor consistently observable. It is the supreme and sovereign tool for that, but philosophers from Plato to Hume have shown that the true nature of reality is (so far) quite elusive. Lest I turn this into an SS&P post, I'll simply observe that true objectivity is, paradoxically enough, unattainable. We are the hostages of our perceptive and cognitive natures. Philosophy and physics are necessarily related, but not tightly. cn

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy.

 

[cannabineer]

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy.

It is however a peculiar, constrained and utterly practical philosophy and cannot aspire to ideology. There is an ideology built on the primacy of methodological naturalism as a way to truth, and it is scientism. Although it is currently popular, i do not subscribe to it because it is as much a faith as any other ideology, and imo a rather impoverished one. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

It is however a peculiar, constrained and utterly practical philosophy and cannot aspire to ideology. There is an ideology built on the primacy of methodological naturalism as a way to truth, and it is scientism. Although it is currently popular, i do not subscribe to it because it is as much a faith as any other ideology, and imo a rather impoverished one. cn

I think it just needs to be a bit progressive. The empirical approach only measures what can be measured, but now apparently, more can be measured than before. This literally equates to broader horizons for mankind and I celebrate it.

 

[abandonconflict]

Although clearly, many are still moving in the opposite direction.

 

[cannabineer]

I think it just needs to be a bit progressive. The empirical approach only measures what can be measured, but now apparently, more can be measured than before. This literally equates to broader horizons for mankind and I celebrate it.

Afaik the "more that can be measured" is a matter of scale but not of kind. I see neither threat nor opportunity for the scientific method at this time. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Afaik the "more that can be measured" is a matter of scale but not of kind. I see neither threat nor opportunity for the scientific method at this time. cn

A matter of scale, by that do you mean perception of what is being measured?

 

[cannabineer]

A matter of scale, by that do you mean perception of what is being measured?

Bigger instruments, deeper looks into nature's fabric, cleverer ways to use computation for thought-experiments ... but nothing to upset the foundations of science. And if you believe that Gödel's theorem (a bit of pure math) applies to the physical, philosophical situation ... science is ill-equipped to inspect its foundations or expand them. No closed system can fully describe itself from within itself. cn