I didn't know anything about smoking then, wasn't even aware that MJ or any other drugs existed. I guess I can attribute that to the crowd and great friends I hung around with.

Hello Timelord,
I wish I had more time right now to discuss this with you. Rand did have answers. A is A, Existence exists. I do not know your level of inquiry into Objectivism epistemology or metaphysics. Have you examined the following page? http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...

If the sources for these excerpts are unfamiliar, this is a good place to get the "cliffs notes."
I would start at the top and work down the list.

Respectfully,
O.A.

In all honesty, at that specific time of my life, I was still doing it by myself. :) And it was a great memory, the star gazing that is.. I'm having a lot more great memories as I'm starting to age a little more.

I know one of my problems, is that I endeavor to use the English language in all its sublet nuances to capture the exact sentiment I am attempting to express. Unfortunately, many people take only the 1st of the definitions and apply them. I also failed to articulate properly when I indicated that I was called "stupid" when in fact,, I should said the implication that those who believe in God are stupid, silly, or whatever adjective one would ascribe.

For my part as long as a person can clearly indicating a set of logical reasonable arguments, I personally think anyone can believe whatever they want, and be just as valid, especially when looking from their viewpoint.

Much like the discussions that Science has where, as pointed out in the main point of the topic, "..Science is never settled..." and consensus does not mean fact or right either.

Thank you so much!

The only source of answers to my questions that I trust is reality and my reason.

I disagree with your characterization of Esceptico's quote as "implying unassailability". Objectivist philosophy has been assailed from its inception and is also as we speak. Perhaps Esceptico will notice this little exchange and say explicitly what he meant. I think he just gave a source of more elaborate and more carefully articulated answers.

agreed

1. I did not call you stupid.
2. Your definition of the term "propaganda" apparently differs significantly from mine.
3. Perhaps the physicists who disparage philosophy have too narrow scope of knowledge because of a total focus on their love for physics.

I can do nothing to express my views better, so there is no benefit for me from further discussion along these lines.

http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?tit... , for example...

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...

... for the Google search on "<ctrl> codes" that produced that result, among others...

Enjoy!
Things to know when you're not holding onto your mouse...

:) But maybe just one of you was 'observing the stars...'
:)
The ones in the sky, at least... ?
Sounds like a great memory, one way or any other...

:)... actually, just bigger challenges for the topographers... :)

First the definition of Sacred IN context specifically 5a and b. Esceptico in his post implied the unassailability of "Basic Principals of Objectivism" as "the ANSWERS to everything raised here. "Basic Principals of Objectivism" are NOT the answers but only ONE set of explanations, of which many parts I do indeed find value in and others I do not.

So what source(s) are you calming as Sacred and having all the answers we need?

SACRED
1a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods>
b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4archaic : accursed
5a : unassailable, inviolable
b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility

Posted by Esceptico 22 hours ago
"... Basic Principles of Objectivism? It is also now in print. Specifically, check Lecture 4 for the answers to everything you have raised here. "

It is all propaganda in one form or another. The only thing we can do is try to discern for ourselves what value WE individually place in any particular aspect of said thoughts and reasoning's.
As a side note, your statement. "The propaganda for a religious basis of knowledge..." is promoting the opposite. so yes you do promote "your" version. We all do without exception. The only real question is how "tolerant" are you of opposing views and opinions. The Objectivist is exceptionally tolerant.

The real thing in my opinion is to keep an open mind and entertain all thoughts, THEN decide what is for you or not.

If a man saw you flick a lighter in the 1600's you would have been burned as a witch for MAGIC and SUPERNATURAL acts.

The thought of God to me is no different. I accept that you have a different view and to be quite honest. more power to you. But, when you call me "stupid" that is where you cross the line of "reason" and a leaping directly into the very chasm of dogma you criticize.

Many of the most brilliant physicists and scientists declare philosophy as worthless.
Philosophers, many of them, have the same view of science in their quest for "truth."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...
Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Sean Carroll
The last few years have seen a number of prominent scientists step up to microphones and belittle the value of philosophy. Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are well-known examples. To redress the balance a bit, philosopher of physics Wayne Myrvold has asked some physicists to explain why talking to philosophers has actually been useful to them. I was one of the respondents, and you can read my entry at the Rotman Institute blog. I was going to cross-post my response here, but instead let me try to say the same thing in different words.

Roughly speaking, physicists tend to have three different kinds of lazy critiques of philosophy: one that is totally dopey, one that is frustratingly annoying, and one that is deeply depressing.

Where can I learn what those commands do? A victim of several <esc> episodes asks.
With grateful expectations.

It seems to me that a major contributing factor to the problems with science today is the way it is funded and corruption that follows.

Please point me to a quote where any Objectivist claimed that "Principles of Objectivism" is a "sacred text".

No, I don't. You can say it, but that does not make it true.

Instead, I try to learn about details in Objectivist philosophy from "co-producers" and others on this blog. The propaganda for a religious basis of knowledge and for supernatural source of reality is an unnecessary distraction and impediment to learning philosophical truths.

Thank you, but you don't know who I was with or what else we might have been doing.

Agreed, but I think the Big Bang still has a number of problems. Problems big enough to say it is probably an incorrect description of how the cosmos evolved.

All knowledge is contextual and within its context is can be settled.. What happens in science is that we ask deeper questions (how does gravity act at a distance) and find new contexts (very small distances for instance) and there we find these theories are incomplete, not incorrect.

Assuming the Earth is flat is not wrong if you are building a small house, Assuming that the Earth is a sphere is fine and correct for seaman, but a disaster for topographer.

Excellent points

I am very interested in this. I think physics got off track with the advent of QM. -Copenhagen Interpretation I think a number of the fundamental experiments meant to show QM have been misinterpreted. As Carver Mead has pointed out much of the probabilistic nature of QM comes about because we do not know the QM state of our detectors nor the initial QM state of our experiment (sources). He points out that with coherent sources and detectors we can know the initial state, but none were available at the time and only a few even today.

Yes, but it can be shown that christian definition of god cannnot exist.

Actually that is not true, but is a common statement about science. Newtonian gravity is not wrong, it is just not correct in all circumstances. Knowledge is contextual and within a context it can be proven to be true.