Topic: Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand. - page 2. (Read 5976 times)

Feels a little weird to have you on my side.

Ok, so explain how memory works without holograms and I'll concede.

Why you didn't do the complete research? GEO600 noise was gone.....

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-geo-600-mystery-noise.html
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/hoganmeter.html

She would consider me an irrational mystic. She would hate me. However, I still enjoy parts of her thoughts.

You're making Ayn Rand look bad if that's the best you can do in terms of epistemology.

But you said:

So is it testable, or not? And if it's testable, why has it not been tested?

Just DL this an watch it. http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7425675/The_Holographic_Universe_-_Part_One

In reference to no post in particular...

Baudrillard has some comments that pertain to Rand's "objective" metaphysics, notably that to analyze something one must first be able to step outside of it, and so that therefore questioning the existence of reality is impossible. But that's really the extent of Rand's "objectivism", where her big "O" Objectivism incorporated views from metaphysics thru ethics and politics. Her epistemology, in particular, advocates a contextualism that I think may satisfy some of the objective/subjective bickering on this thread.

In any case, she and her ideals are far from any proper ideal. Nietzsche once said he would "only worship a god that could dance". And while Nietzsche's Dionysus is at a Eurorave tripping on ecstasy, dancing with beautiful girls, and generally having the time of his life, little Miss Rand is fantasizing about this vague ideal of "productivity" and 60 hour work weeks and steady wealth accumulation that can only result in a consumerist, personality-less, prematurely aged tycoon of a wholly stoic and vapid demeanor (Atlas Shrugged the movie anyone...?)

I saw firsthand from my experiences in the Objectivist crowd how Rand's adamant literalism amid vague idealism resulted in a movement that loves to chant her mantras but rarely if ever practice as they preach, that is, DOING something productive if that is the so exalted ideal (..donate to ARI! Exchange dollars for rational virtue!). But then again, I don't see how someone could follow through on such an artificial ideology, in the same way true productivity was impossible in a Soviet bureaucratic, in its systemic rigidity.

Ultimately, I think Rand failed in providing a coherent philosophy because she was too left-brained to realize that neither coherence nor philosophy is the ideal. Living holistically demands paradigmatically more than a step by a step decision-making "guide" read detached from the real world. I don't believe her formulaic criticisms are necessary to dissuade an impressionable person from the "unethical dangers" she warns of: joining a nunnery, statist politics, living a life of mindless hedonism --- but merely an intuitive appreciation for interesting experiences and self-understanding.

I will just say reality is interpreted and defined far beyond life and death; cliffs and gravity.

The first one is a wikipedia article that "needs attention from an expert", and the second is a dead link.
I'll ask again. Could you link me to some studies which have tested it? (Note that "have" is past tense. I want to see results.)

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

Ayn Rand was a sociopath and I've noticed that it's mainly sociopaths who like her.

Appeal to authority

...



I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then test it. Let us know how it goes.

Who said anything about not using science? Like I said in my original post, its a scientific theory backed in both leaders in neuroscience and astrophysics. These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

Says who?

I don't devote a lot of time to debunking "subjective reality" claims any more for the same reason that I don't investigate the precise technical details of every so-called free energy (perpetual motion) machine.

All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective, and every claim to the contrary I'm aware of is either untestable or simply false. So at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the subjectivists.

Empericism works reliably and consistently so I'm going to assume it to be a vaild approach until proven otherwise.

It's a massive oversimplification on my part. This is a Rand thread. Like I said, I didn't want to push it so far off topic, so if you want to find out more, the link is there for you to torrent it for free.