Reality bites!

Now this REALITY will definitely BITE --

unless that Texas moron has his Daddy`s money to squander over waging war against -- already broken -- third world countries

while the ECONOMY goes to the dogs:

```` WASHINGTON (Dec. 6) - In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last budget year - nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections.

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9 trillion over a decade.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and nation-building campaign; the higher figure assumes a prolonged war with a disruption of oil markets and a U.S. recession, the authors say in a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.````(AP)

Does this illiterate President know anything better than WARMONGERING ??? –

while his -- ```Treasury Secretary Paul O`Neill and economic adviser Larry Lindsey resigned amid growing concern about the ailing economy.

Bush advisers have been increasingly worried that a lagging economy could hamper the president`s re-election prospects.

The unemployment rate rose to 6 percent on Friday, the highest in nearly nine years.

The resignations came four weeks after Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt resigned under fire. (AP)

can u read the writing on the wall -- dumbo?

it says:

IT IS THE -- ECONOMY -- STUPID – NOT --- IRAQ.

E Wallah - Thanks! Your posts are a pleasure to read - as open as the ocean. Great to know you`re out there. I can appreciate your atheism. As I continue a long and arduous study of quantum mechanics, I`m moving the other way, at least until they disprove Heisenberg. When they come up with the Final Theory (TOE), I`ll be the atheist of all atheists. Or, when any Hindu, Christian, Jew or Muslim can whistle up the Creator for a spot of tea, I`ll convert on the spot. Meanwhlie, I`ll have to remain open. It`s not only better for a scientist, but I think for everyone.
Best Regards, Trillium

[ #9 by Trillium on December 4, 2002 8:54pm PT
...
I`m not sure Freud understood the phenomena as a scientist. His work seemed to become a bit dogmatic like bad religion, perhaps due to overzealous disciples. ]

Early work of Freud had freshness. I think so until he formulated concepts he used in dream interpretation and transference, he was very fresh and his theorizing was simple. Afterwards when he ventured into explaining anything and everything (like religion, mistakes, jokes, literature etc), force of his arguments becomes diluted by speculation rather than real concrete observations. On these however he had no right to be dogmatic.

You are right about disregard of scientific method and it all becoming dogmatic in the end. So what is the meaning of his very many fights? I wonder. A psychoanalyst would go through his own psychoanalysis to qualify for license to practice. And that itself would be a kind of brain washing process much like any religion.

[I`d like to hear a bit about yourself. ]

I am Statistician by education but Computer Programmer by vocation. I was born to Hindu parents but since high school I have distanced myself from any regimented religion of any type. I am an atheist. I am an Indian.

[I`m dying to hear your take on Professor Hoodbuoy and Abdus Salam. When I asked about them in Lahore, academic faces darkened and the subject was quickly changed or dropped. ]

I have not read works of these two gentlemen, so I am not familiar with their writings. If I happen to read anything by (or about) them I will certainly post my comments.

On chowk a search with word ``Hoodbhoy`` yielded a list of writings of at least three Hoodbhoy`s: Faraz, Pervez and Umair. Pervez Hoodbhoy has byline to articles like: ``Why didn`t the Scientific Revolution happen in Islam?`` and ``Salam, Science and Secularism``. These articles must be interesting to read.

Before writing this post I did look up a bio of Abdus Salam in which it was written that he tried unsuccessfully to work in Pakistan but gave up. Lot of verbiage is being spent to show how west is racist in evaluating east`s contribution to science. But when it comes to modern times eastern people of science of quality sometimes feel suffocated by work environments of their countries and become productive in foreign countries only. People sometimes feel this to be sign of lack of patriotism.

In our countries critics work under pressure and are sometimes summarily accused of being traitors. But from all appearances Pakistanis seem to take pride in achievements of Abdus Salam. And with the limited knowledge that I have of Particle Physics, he seems to have done quality work in predicting some physical phenomena which was verified experimentally.

-ew

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

what is reality??...is reality a mirage -- or is mirage a reality??? --contd

one only WISHES -- the eye that sees could talk -- or a tongue that talks could see -- a lot of reality gets LOST in the TRANSLATION:-)

honestly speaking there is no reality per se -- remember what our hindu forefathers said --the universe/WORLD is net weaved of MAYA --

reality is always contexual -- there is a reality what common sense says -- then there is Quantum reality that is entirely anti-common sense --

there is macroscopic reality -- which is different from -- the microscopic reality --

for us mortal -- there is VISUAL reality -- which for the discerning -- IS very different from the VERBAL reality --

there is GENERAl reality -- which abruptly changes when you focus on he LOCAL reality -- so what is really REALITY ??

a mirage????

#8 by einsteinwallah

Well put! Indeed, I`ve read the complete works of Freud, bio`s et al. The danger I`d point out is the one-sidedness of behaviorism. A feeling is a fact, but it`s important to keep sets straight. As you may know mathematically, its possible to avoid these paradoxical traps by careful attention to context, a la Godel. I`m not sure Freud understood the phenomena as a scientist. His work seemed to become a bit dogmatic like bad religion, perhaps due to overzealous disciples. My opinion, of course.
I`d like to hear a bit about yourself. I`m dying to hear your take on Professor Hoodbuoy and Abdus Salam. When I asked about them in Lahore, academic faces darkened and the subject was quickly changed or dropped. Any insight?

[ #7 by Trillium on December 4, 2002 7:47am PT
...
Einsteinwallah - You bring some interesting ideas to the table begging
the usual elephantine ``however...``. Freud is only half the story. It still amazes that he took with him such a large following - all attempting the wordy and Byzantine task of objectifying the unconscious - which is to nail Jello to the wall. Western thought is like that. It foolishly believes that if it can be objectively captured in words - the thing in itself is
captured (It`s probably why the West is in such trouble with the rest
of the world). ]

I will agree that the task of building a theory of Unconcious is hard.

[...
Everything else is Freudian ``word magic`` and B.S. (bad science). Jung knew that Freud was full of B.S. (bad science) and
wisely split, venturing into the new world of Quantum mechanics with
Nobeller and wonderkind, Wolfgang Pauli. ]

It was Freud who split with Jung. If you read biography of Freud you would know that he had difference of opinion with practically every one of his coworkers. Jung was not the only one with whom he fought. You should not let your judgement of Freud be clouded by his very many fights and bickerings. I think so any serious commentator of Freud should read at least one or both of his following works:

(1) A Note on the Unconcious in Psycho-Analysis (1912)
(2) Last chapter of Studies in Hysteria (1895)

Freud deserves a fair hearing. You should read at least some of Freud`s work in original or in translation before passing a judgement on it.

As for other issues (the issue of Godel`s Theorem which I alluded, and Heisenberg Principle that you mentioned), I think so Anish is willing to work within the boundries imposed by them. I think so any complex animal, such as human, is bound to have multiatomic genetic code and so it would have to deal with curse of Quantum Phenomena (because it would be necessarily be multiatomic).

And no animal which cogitates about reality will do so without (at least sometime) flirting with Mathematics. That is why attempt to find ubiquitous definition of reality is bound to fail. There is no such thing as ``real`` real. It is all Maya, delusion. Theists will say Maya is creation of God. Atheists just accept it as part of life.

-ew

#4 by einsteinwallah on December 3, 2002 7:21pm PT
[But can there be a ubiquitous definition of being real? ]

``My answer is partly based on my own reading of works of Sigmund Freud ...there cannot be ubiquitous definition of being real.``

Einsteinwallah - You bring some interesting ideas to the table begging
the usual elephantine ``however...``. Freud is only half the story. It still amazes that he took with him such a large following - all attempting the wordy and Byzantine task of objectifying the unconscious - which is to nail Jello to the wall. Western thought is like that. It foolishly believes that if it can be objectively captured in words - the thing in itself is
captured (It`s probably why the West is in such trouble with the rest
of the world).
Cut to the chase. The dilemma has always been subject versus object - oddly enough represented in the differences between Freud and Jung - East and West - like the duality of paricle and wave. The human psyche MUST operate according to the ambiguous subatomic laws of quantum mechanics - best represented in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Everything else is Freudian ``word magic`` and B.S. (bad science). Jung knew that Freud was full of B.S. (bad science) and
wisely split, venturing into the new world of Quantum mechanics with
Nobeller and wonderkind, Wolfgang Pauli. Unfortunately the
collaboration was cut short by Pauli`s untimely death at 51 years old.
His treatment of Einstein`s work still stands as a masterpiece. He was
only in his early twenties at the time.
In short, the dilemma of `reality` is ensconced in ``The
Heisenberg``. It`s why ``The Theory of Everything`` can NEVER be. It`s why
Einstein died believing in (attainable) `hidden variables`. Despite all
the Freudian rants, humankind is still faced with guessing what`s in the
box without opening it. Fortunately we can also define things by not
only what they are, but what they are NOT. Reality is not owned by the
West nor the East. We also know that it`s PROJECTED on an outer world
from an inner source. Projection - projections of evil OR good is not
just an idea - it`s the law. Look around you. In the global political
mayhem - the Devil is always ``over there`` - never in my own house. When the Devils aren`t owned, the psyche divides against itself in illness,
collectively or individually (resulting in Bush`s and bin Laden`s:).
The enemy is non-existent illusion of certainty. What would save us is
a tiny doubt - a blessed seed of culpability... introspection.. the
mirror which religion was to furnish. What the hell happened?


The ``enantodromia`` - The more rational a culture becomes, the more irrational its end.

Anish,

``The raw material of our thoughts and belief comes from experience- sensory and introspective. Our thoughts are without content and our words without any meaning unless they are connected to experience.``

Long long ago Emmanual Kant agreed with this, but what one cannot experience through senses is ``space`` and ``time``. He said that people are born with this, it is an inborn feature of the mind to order experiences spacially and temporally.

May be any crap can be published in india through amitabha publicaions of new delhi.

Welcome K. Anish Pokharel!

Too much realism can be bad too.

Continue to dare to dream of buses in the Frontier with music playing!

Ras

[But can there be a ubiquitous definition of being real? ]

My answer is partly based on my own reading of works of Sigmund Freud. This answer will necessarily differ from answer of others and hence there cannot be ubiquitous definition of being real.

When Sigmund Freud started his career as psychiatrist he had trained in Paris (I think under Charcot) in the art and theory of hypnotism and back home in Vienna he knew Joseph Breur had used hypnotism to resolve hysteric symptoms of one of his patients, which prompted him to co-operate with Breur as apprentice to learn Breur`s technique of therapy. Freud soon discovered that he was not a good hypnotist, so he abondoned the technique of hypnotism and invented a technique of his own. This was the technique of ``free association``. In this technique he asked his patients to think about one isolated aspect of his thought and then to take notice of whatever occurs to his mind without any exception. He called this technique as psychoanalysis. Both his experience of hypnotism and psychoanalysis led him to theorise that a man`s mind is tool for dealing with external reality but also for dealing with internal reality of his unconcious, instincts and erratic (mal-)functioning of brain. There is no such thing as completely rational man. A man may think he can solve all his problems by ``thought experiments`` only but no. Mind is not master in its own house, because mind has to accomodate wishes generated by unconcious, instincts and pathologies of brain.

There are other issues also. Ultimately all reality is expressed in language which is discrete (finitely countable). Any system of axioms which is expressed using a finite number of symbols will have a theorem which cannot be proved or disproved within the system. In reality discovering odeyssey you will end up with doubts which are unresolvable. So forget ubiquity, even you alone will have doubts which are unresolvable.

-einsteinwallah

...for once, i second hydra...it would be interesting to read your experience of living/studying in pakistan...which med school, btw?...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Continue cogitating. You`ll get somewhere.