Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LadyAttis

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 07/14/1980

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
    Bridget P Herbrechtsmeier
  • School or University
    Wichita State
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wichita, KS, EARTH
  • Interests
    Art, Books, History, Physics, Poetry, Get Fuzzy, Editorials, Bashing-Cal-Thomas, [email protected], Being-My-Transgendered-Self, and more!
  1. I don't see the reason for Hegel's dialetics. I mean there are more leaner ways to form argumentations. o_O -- Bridget
  2. Um no. And again, no. You shift base YET AGAIN. You have neer invalidated anything I've said so far. You've only whined about this and that even though I never misused a single term what-so-ever. So again where am I wrong in stating that physicists prior to Max Planck hadn't a clue to handle the 'UV Death' issue with light? And where am I wrong on that Planck devised specific minimum units of measure to which allow for errors in Classical Physics to be rectified? Where? Not a dang single place I'm wrong. You seem to want to manipulate and bully people you don't like for whatever reason.
  3. Any given general behavior happens to be not of cognition. Like salmon swimming up stream to breed, there's been no evidence to my knowledge that they have the capacity to think in the general terms we humans define thinking as. So that's my definition of instinct. But I defined it before you just didn't like it. Are you satistfied? -- Bridget
  4. What I'm saying is that some critters don't have instincts like other critters. Like Salmons have instincts to breed that are pretty over-whelming from what I've read. But a great ape like humans will breed whenever they want to. Dolphins are pretty similar in that regard. and I believe the African Grey Parrot is similar too but don't quote me on that. o_O -- Bridget
  5. Horse hockey! It wasn't until Max Planck that anyone ever attempted to make absolute minimums for energy, matter, space, and time. His scales are the very reason why the 'UV death' was corrected in many equations. You haven't invalidated the Planck measures. Never. So until you do your arguments are F-A-L-S-E. Thankyou, drive thru. -- Bridget
  6. I think the biggest point I'm trying to make is that our current logic sets we use on computers are just the roadblock between true intelligence and AI. But I guess the next conclusion would be is such an intelligence compatible with that of human-like intelligence? I mean even though as I said that I'm proponent of strong-ai in some ways, I think it will still be different but still close enough to resemble an intelligence and etc. o_O Who knows, right now they're all pretty much proto-types officially. But all events are still causal and thus are responses are contigent on causality
  7. Wrong again. Only if you use the current system of logic that is used on computers. Even that logic is imcomplete. There is nothing in Rand's statements that put consciousness equal to reality and identity. Not one damned statement of hers. If you say consciousness is equal to reality and identity, then you're a transcendentalist. Not a supporter of objective reality. The current AI with If-Then-Else statements are incomplete, yes but with quantum computers and the new sets of language we're using on them, an AI can and will eventually be able to develop to handle ideas like context and so
  8. Not neccesarily since most functions of a person are automonic. Think about breathing. Then try to stop breathing. You sure can for a little while but when you pass out then you start breathing again. What causes this? Some mystical free will force? Or that it's beyond complete control of will. Free will is all fine and dandy but to ignore the causal nature of any person and entity is wrong. A does B thus causing C can never been violated unless it's in the context of other causal chains, which can be unrelated to the example chain. There's nothing wrong with this position it doesn't say t
  9. Only in the classic physics models we get the UV death radiation burst. Max Planck normalizes the issue by only allowing light to come in specific frequencies and specific amounts of energy. That's because classical mechanics are not based on few things QM is which is discrete units. In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use, which is absurd. If system A has the same particles as system B they behaviors should follow a similar path. But under Classical Mechanics, their behavi
  10. I'm not trolling, Stephen is the one attacking me. -- Bridget
  11. I have a serious question on this. Why have a Reserve? I'm not well versed in Economics so I really question what uses are there to a Reserve versus letting market forces reach their natural equilibrium. And is there any decent books on this that I should pick up sometime? -- Bridget
  12. The website is grossly biased against Rand in such a way that really doesn't give credit to what the ol'Lass actually did compared to her comtemporaries. She was one of the few that actually delved back to the roots of thought in American culture and revitalized interest in the ideas of Reason, Objective Reality, and so forth. This site smacks of bashdom to me rather than a rational treatise on any particular differences between Jefferson and Rand. Although it could be hypothized that Jefferson would have disagreed on some points of Rand's but the point is really moot, he died well before she
  13. I think the better question is why do humans and a few other critters seem to be able to change their behavior in light of instinct? Humans, Great Apes, Dolphins, African Grey Parrot, and a couple other species seem to be able with various degrees change behavior not just to stimulus but to personal 'preferences.' In a way, I think the position of 'volition' in a given entity has to do with personality development. Humans have the seemingly strongest sense of personality/self of all the animals I cite. To unlock the mechanism that allows us to be this way will be a major step forward in a deep
  14. Um no. You're the one that doesn't have anything on the literature in the field. If GR/SR are wrong, why do we verify it in experiments everyday? The last work on it was with alteration of the constant of C in a given medium. They verified many interesting things such as the issue of communication pass C in a given medium. But you wouldn't know about that would you? Um I actually read Feynman's paper on QED, it's a very commonly printed paper in book form. Most of what he stated dealt with issues of sum of all histories of a given photon to explain the odd nature of a photon[its uncertaint
  15. So I have to define the word objective for you now? Come on, this isn't a definition fight. If you want to make a definitions fight, find someone else. You full well know what the word objective means. If I hit a wall, then I'll bust my knuckles, thats objective. If I shoot a person in the head, they'll die, that's also objective. Introspection cannot be objective because it's an internalized event with no outside frame of reference. For anything to be objective, it must be tied to another series of events besides itself. Basically it must have context. Like a word, by itself it has no meaning
  • Create New...