I guess we found the limits of where the "intellectual worth" of your Ph.D can get you... I'm here - you are not. ...and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferiority_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_man_syndrome I have no trouble with ladies, thank you. Thanks for worrying though... You few Objectivists in this thread have an uncanny affinity for playing and talking about "dicks", while I try and stick to intellect. I guess the fact that the brain represents the largest human sexual organ has something to do with your arousals. However, as I stated a few posts back - I AM NOT INTO homoerotic games. Why - it's fun to play social Darwinism on discussion forums! Can you blame me for setting the record straight in a world full of fanatic, radical, authoritarian twisted minds? Understand this - I am fighting against you lot as a single individual - and I'm doing pretty frikkin' good... You guys aren't getting anywhere near my ass! I guess I could run circles around you and you still couldn't grab me. You could at least have tried to stick this one on me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex
I did. Evolution is absolutely a logic model. There is no argument against this statement. Evolution is not "the transient nature". It is quite simply a profound tautology. The channel exists between present and future. To pass through it, a pattern must fit. This is my last response to your mystic crap.
Evolution is part of reality - an evolutionary THEORY is a limited model or systems view. To be a logic - see model theory and "soundness". And just because you can't find any flaw - and regress like I explained a few posts ago ... it doesn't exactly make you look like a genius. Remember Bernoulli numbers - if you take it further - there is the next step waiting for you... Push any of my buttons - and you can wait for a push back.
His epistemology doesn't contain evolution at all. If you want to visualize what he confuses with evolution and calls "transient nature" you should imagine a shifting set of random variables within the confinements of two asymptotes. You'll never get anywhere. The implication of such a worldview would be that no reality exists. What we would perceive as reality is merely the breakdown of our own conceptualization. No real principles can be identified or known. There's a word for such a worldview: nihilism.
Yep, nail on head. One cannot have a productive argument with a person who has taken himself so far down a mental rabbit hole. Total waste of one's timeâ¦but not theirs. When you wrestle with pigs you get dirty...and they like it. How can one argue with a person so deluded that he believes A = A and A = not A at the same time? The Brazilian Pretzel has an overpowering desire âto always be right", as he says in this thread. His desire to feel right overpowers the reality of whether he is actually right. This leads to cognitive dissonance and self-fulfilling prophecy. He has created an elaborate, bizarre personal philosophy to contain otherwise untenable views. My assessment is that his father fucked with his head a bit. All the signs are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/my_father_f'd_with_my_head Just wikiâd his ass. I crack myself up. Anyway, poor guy, prancing around in kung fu pajamas and spending 20 years on message boards debating all manner of utter nonsense. Normally if a person says he accomplished a number of items, my initial reaction is to believe the person. The people in my circle do what they say, so I tend to react a certain way. However, this time my bullshit detector is going off. I am calling Bullshit! on The Brazilian Pretzel's claimed accomplishments. I believe that he has spent "two decades" debating arcana on message boards and I believe he probably earned an MS, albeit from some crap university. But that's it. There is no way someone with such fantastic views can have much success. If I'm proven wrong, I will readily and forthrightly say 'kudos.' Well, I'll probably say 'kudos, you wacky mofo.' Letâs itemize The Brazilian Pretzelâs claimed accomplishments: 1) Fluent in 8 languages and 'ok' in 4 languages and numerous programming languages. Bullshit detector: Red alert. 2) #1 in his university class. Bullshit detector: Red alert. 3) #1 in his military conscription class. Bullshit detector: Red alert. 4) Founded and sold 5 companies in 3 years. Bullshit detector: Red alert. 5) Instructor/chairman of several martial arts clubs: Bullshit detector: Red alert. 6) Able to delude himself into thinking that A=A and at the same time A=not A. Bullshit detector: Red alert. No one really believes this. 7) Claims he is not ghey. Bullshit detector: Yellow. If you say so, but methinks thou dost protest too much. 8) Spent "two decades" debating arcana on message boards. Bullshit detector: Green.
Actually, no. It is not nihilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_stance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism And "epistemology containing evolution"... epistemology is about how knowledge is formed. Knowledge is not contained to one generation, or one being, but it is not easily transferable in its entirety. If you would like me to explain how knowledge changes, then that is something else... But how about going back to what I was claiming - that Objectivism forces a type of authoritarian view onto its surroundings?
ScottD, you remember how I said a few posts ago, that what happens with people when they no longer are able to continue debating on the intellectual level they regress to a primate-like level and only resort to personal attacks, because they are not able to make intellectual contributions in the discussion... I guess it was kind of self-fulfilling, wasn't it. You know, if you want to prove me wrong on my claim that Objectivism is in fact authoritarian - then go ahead. I laid out my views, and all you could come up with was how you stick to your universally absolute true axiom. And if you think so low of my intelligence, por que não levanta teu cú da chão e pará colocar o dedo dentro - vá digitar sua resposta, sua bosta vagabundo. You started early with your personal attacks, and the only thing you are going to accomplish is that the thread will get deleted - for which I don't give a flying * either way. You just show that you are unable to contribute with any intellect. I answered some of your attacks with some facts about me, you could look back to posts from 2004 here on ET - I remember mentioning some things when talking about moving to Brazil. Too bad the threads on homebrew software are gone, since there was a lot on artificial intelligence there - and you could need the help... While I've at least accomplished something in my life, and therefore thought I was entitling myself to a more "relaxed living", it seems you don't even want to mention anything about yourself. Don't worry, I wouldn't attack any of that - I have my hands full with your "intelligent contributions". I am never apologetic for what I've done in life - because I know how to motivate a lot of people. Your probable lack of accomplishments in life is what we can see the results of here, I guess.
Ferdinand, you should see how "freedom of thought" has been received in the US during history. The US is a strongly factional and religious society. You guys are very accustomed to entrench yourselves into your beliefs - fanaticism. I would adopt new knowledge and change my system of thinking as fast as I was able to, if there was something that I learned and that would be useful to my thinking. My line of thinking is not getting weaker or attacked by learning more, it gets stronger. Objectivism on the other hand is a contained and static system of thinking.
Ayn Rand described this type of person as a Second Hander. Seems to fit the bill. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/secondhanders.html I used to run across a lot of these people over the last three decades in the markets who were fringe players. Their common denominator.......none of them were net winners.
Don't worry everbody...Listen to Mr. Thompson. Bush to do address to nation at 9 pm ET Wed on economy