Well, then the solution is simple: get lost.
-Jon
Agreed. Get lost. You’ve worn out your welcome.
Meaning ? Your beloved physicists had to come up with patches like the “uncertainty principle”, because they can’t figure out how things really work ? Or the so called particle/wave duality ? Those ideas don’t sound very logical, do they ?
Really ? So, what units are you using to measure self-awareness ? What instrument ?
Yeah. Also, when a person’s brain is blown off, the victim usually stops thinking.
I didn’t say my ideas are above objective reality - whatever that means. As to the rest of your post, I can’t make head or tail of it, sorry.
Why should I get lost? I’ve had to put up with a bunch of numbskulls who don’t even know how to think, and I demonstrated every god damn step in the chain of how to reason properly. I’ve endured your fallacious irrational arguments thinking you people were interested in truth and reason, and hence this is exactly why economics remains and is unscientific. Because it’s about peoples values, and if someone could show that your values were fallible or false, then you’re the whole edifice your theory is built on crumbles to nothing… and thats why economics remains the bastard stepchild of science. You people all need a course in science and logic. This is exactly why physicists left you numbskulls to study economic theory, because economics is a physical, empirical discipline, covering many fields, it’s not some personal feral philosophy of some philosophical qausi-intellectual, quasi-rational idealogue.
I will leave you alone because it’s obvious you guys aren’t interested in genuine debate. You’ve already decided what is true, and go looking for facts to fit your theory.
Do you want some cheese to go with your whine? You refuse to educate yourself on the matter with works that have seriously challenged the sort of ideas you are advancing, and gone even further than that. I’m not interested in debating someone who cannot even surpass amateurish comments on the matter, let alone engage in “serious” debate, and whose only argumentative ploy it is to argue how rational he is as opposed to the “numbskulls” this poor victim is confronted with. If anyone has had to endure fallacious nonsense (and concomitant scientistic - not scientific - arrogance), it is the rest of us, so I reiterate politely: get lost. Good riddance.
-Jon
That’s not how you engage someone in argument, if you can’t tell me where I am wrong now then you never knew to begin with, this whole “go educate yourself crap” is a intellectual cop out that only cowards use in debate because they are uncomfortable exposing their cherished values.
All it took any one of you to do is one thing: Show me the error, because by definition you already know where it is and know exactly what it is, you’re using intellectually dishonest tactics that would never be allowed in public debate, because you’d then fear that you’re intellectual fakery would be exposed. I’ll come to the next austrian conference, and if anyone pulls the same bullshit there I’ll know that this is an idealogical organization and not a rational one. You can get away with “winning” on the internet but in a public space you’d get your ass handed to you. Because on the internet it’s easy to be a avoid peoples questions and deflect arguments by avoiding them with intellectual bullshittery, but in public it’s not so easy.
My answer: couldn’t give a damn what you do. Bye now, crank. Go masturbate to your “rationality”.
-Jon
OK. Let’s talk about your wonderful, clear physics: a great mass of academic mental masturbation, a pack of pathetic blowhards who, long ago, adopted flawed theories. As one part of the theory after another was disproved empirically, slowly mathematicians took over from actual scientists, leaving us today with preposterous notions of the universe.
Well, except in terms of well-established studies regarding psychokinetic effects on random electron emitters and such. Alas, it seems that human minds can affect effects at the very quantum level we currently look to to explain the universe, without any known causative chain.
If you come to the next Austrian conference, you will get sonned with this ridiculousness.
Why would you come onto an Austrian forum absolutely ignorant of praxeology, demand people educate you, when you insist upon ignoring the source material.
You really don’t get it. You’re wrong, and frankly, no one here cares if you know it or not at this point. You’ve gone from being ignorant to being annoying.
Go read EOL, then come back here and argue that. Go read Human Action, then come back here and argue that.
We have no positive obligation to discuss your crackpot theories that are based on “physics” and emotionally neurotic crankery.
Have a nice day. [:)]
Of course, because correlation always means causation. Doofus.
Do you exist? yes you do, in order for you to know that you exist, you have to be able to detect you consciousness in some patial or whole way. Let’s put it another way:
Do you detect your own existence? If you’re detecting your own existence, then that only means one thing… you’re able to connect to it and received feedback from it. If you’re receiving feedback from it, does it exist? Yes or no? We all know the answer to that. You people are a bunch of kids.
No if I came to the next austrian conference I’d come up in with papers in logic, physics and information theory and hand these thinkers their ass. All we need to do is ask them questions and expose the flaws in their own reasoning… you can bet they’d howl and get uncomfortable because men are unconsciously wedded to ideas they have already decided are true, because they identify with them I expect to see you there if you are going, what I expect: Is men are not rational, there will be some sympathizers in the audience with what I would demonstrate but most would be too shocked to accept it. Cognitive dissonance. I’ve done this before with many economists and you can be sure I’d be both loved and hated at the conference, their would be fierce division.
You didn’t answer how you ‘measure’ consciousness. Numbers ? Units ? Do you use a slide rule ? a scope ? A dishwasher ? What ?
You don’t need any other device other then your own mind, any tool we use is merely a prosthetic device of our minds. So yes we already measure our consciousness otherwise we couldn’t think i.e. self-feedback, we wouldn’t be self aware. Denying this statement leads to contradiction.
I’m not denying the existence of consciousness. I’m asking exactly how you measure it. A physical measurement is composed of a quantity and a unit. For instance, the voltage between points A and B is 2 volts. Now, what units do you use for ‘consciousness’ ?
You know you exist, the only way you could know that is if you measured it through self-feedback. So you already have your answer: Your own mind already is naturally capable of measuring that it exists. To deny this leads to contradiction. You don’t need any further explanation because it is self-evident. The universe is holistic and reductionism is complementary to holism. The part is of the whole, and the whole is of the part.
I’m with Liberty Student. You’d have your troll ass handed to you. You are making so many implicit assumptions, many of them on very tenable ground within philosophical circles, that you’d be eviscerated. If you insist on making a fool yourself, go ahead. Your papers won’t serve you. They’ll just fuel your burning on a pyre. That is all you are. A verbose crank. Too bad you cannot deal with it.
BTW, out of pure curiosity, what’s your opinion on Descartes? What, oh genius, have you done to counter the propositions he made? You merely assert “you exist, therefore you can measure your consciousness (because you can detect it)”. Unproven assertion. Note that you didn’t answer Juan’s question. You just evaded it.
-Jon
That is unlikely. From my perspective, The Austrian School has a lot going for it.
-
Theoretically, it’s able to withstand rigorous challenge.
-
Practically, it has shown itself to be highly accurate at predicting historical and current micro/macro events.
The irony of your statement, is that it applies to you. You have evaded direct questions in this discussion, you have howled and became uncomfortable when challenged, and you are unconciously wedded to ideas that are not only irrational, they seem to be exclusively based upon your own intellectual flights of fancy. There does not seem to be any progressive chain of thought within your own philosophy that applies in a consistent manner with the rational world.
You really don’t want to hear this, but you are a crank. When you started trying to write about money as energy, not understanding what the origin or purpose of money really is, can be used as an example why people here don’t even know where to start with you, but to expose you to the texts most recommended to people fresh to the Austrian school.
As you are devising an entirely new way of thinking, the onus is on you to refute the Austrian school, not to shout louder that your ideas have merit if unchallenged. That is absolutely shameless demagoguery.
Your problem, Sir, is that humans don’t act according to fixed natural laws. Humans act within a world shaped by natural laws, however these same humans make a living by trying to accomodate nature and its laws to man’s desires. A particle can’t do that. Human minds can.
Now you may claim our brains consist of particles, and these particles work one way or another, and finally we are all determined without noticing, and good ol’ Schopenhauer was right all along. Unfortunately, even if your assertions were true, humans are not utterly pre-determined but their minds are configured by learning, by observing and analyzing reality. We may both be sitting in the same room, but just the corner each of us sits in might determine us in a different way.
So, in order to restore “rationality” to human behavior, some exceptionally smart dude had to “read” all human “harddrives” and judge accordingly for all to live in a better world. Apart from the difficulties of “reading human harddrives”, isn’t the reader of the drive also determined by his individual imprinting and cannot act rationally therefore?
Furthermore, doesn’t an individual imprinting imply individualism, even if are not free to decide, but determined?
Your physics are stuck in the 20th century buddy. Praxeology, not mathematics, has become the foundation for physics in the 21st century.