How much mental rigour went into that last post? I'm inclined to suggest the "conversation of energy" is nearer gibberish than it is not.

Conservation. Simple typo.

I know doctors and dentists.

Why would a philosopher miss that any idea of which a person finds meaning can't be gibberish by a meaning of gibberish that is like 'having no meaning'?

I'm seeing a doctor this Thursday. Don't think it has any relevance to this discussion. But, I could be wrong. Also, I don't know how wrong I could be. Or, I could be right. But how right. Right as Rain? Right as beer and pizza? Right as blue skies and sunshine?

A real one, and not some doctor of whereof one cannot speak gibberish philosophy, I trust.

Yes, a real Doctor that demands payment in real money. Bastard. I have this gibberish money that I made in the basement. They never take it.

Demand that they give you the proper vapors to correct the imbalance of your humors.

Ummm. Einstein was a socialist.

Also, anecdotal, and a biased sample, but the philosophy grad students I met from Eastern Europe tended to be pretty anti-communist, more so than the American ones.

It is actually pretty hard to imagine a great mathematician or physicist not being a communist (whether they would self-describe themselves as such or not). They rarely work outside of what are essentially communistic organizations.

I think that most are sort of socialists because they assume, incorrectly, that most people are like them. Namely thinking that getting good at stuff is its own reward. Or that getting good at stuff is a worthy goal because it will help others. They should move to Vegas and they will quickly start thinking more like Cardano, Abba Dabba Berman, and me.

Toothsayer complimented me on my copmposition but i had to make it clear that what I offered was and is from a series of lectures called "Human and Cosmic Thought" by you know who.

I have always tried to make clear any "REFERENCES" so as to not have any mistaken identity.

You've got my goat while using pejoratives like "vomit" and other epithets in previous threads not because you're a poster for I can well manage you and what you stand for but because of your position as the beer frolicker of science I am dispossesed.

I sought refuge from Mat in the past when you actually decided that "philosophy" was not germane to this forum. I've done it again this time but I do wish that you would give up your seat; you can still do what you do and hurl disparaging remarks to wit's end.

No, I do not proselytize, but the nature of the thought processes can be difficult but totally understandable even without background.

Its about honest referencing which I believe is one of the hallmarks of reasonable presenting of thoughts.

There is no issue with "gibberish" but your tone is one of an abject humanity to fellow and friends and I feel for you. You're offering a destructive slander which is not even seen in politics for at least they say something.

"As an explicitly spiritual movement, anthroposophy has sometimes been called a religious philosophy.[98] In 2005, a California federal court ruled that a group alleging that anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes did not provide any legally admissible evidence in support of this view; the case is under appeal. In 2000, a French court ruled that a government minister's description of anthroposophy as a cult was defamatory."[99]

As a finish, this is a wikipedia reference to you know what which can offer some light; this is in your reference to words like 'cult", "pseudoscience', et al... by the way, all that i have written in this thread is to present the various philosophical outlooks which are not 'cultus" but can be found in the evolution of the human "soul" of thoughts and thinking. Please read the entire wiki reference whether you like it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

Do you think socialism/communism or other ideas like anarchocapitalism would work if all people were as smart and selfless and inward-looking as most physicists?

lol? But yes, he was fairly socialist.

Do you think Einstein would be a communist today? We have the benefit of access to vast amount of real-world experimental data on the success of communism. In the 20s-40s it was as yet an untested theory.

I contend that to support communism today, given the data we now have, you have to be a pretty stupid person.

Anyway, delete that line if you like. The point in my anecdote is that philosophers seem to believe stupid or wrong things at a much higher rate than physicists, from my personal experience.

Well, that post was not an exact position, it's a satire of the competition proposed- which is why I guessed. My actual position is independent of any particular professional role and is reflected in the part about accurate, discernible identification.

He wasn't "fairly" socialist:

The anecdote only demonstrates that those with strong idealistic positions have a strong tendency to believe that others who don't share those positions are stupid.

I would think that mental rigour also includes some understanding of the importance of sample size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

Einstein was also a commented Pacifist. Although WWII I think made him modify the firmness of that stance. A quick google on "Einstein the Pacifist " brings up interesting links.

Do you think selflessness is actually a virtue? Can you explain this scientifically? Perhaps try biology/psychology this time, not physics. Have you heard of psychological egoism?

You're massively overreaching there my friend. Anecdotes are a starting point for discussion, not logical arguments. Their weakness is part of what enables discussion when you're discussing with people in good faith, and not people who feel inferior. I remain the only person who's posted any kind of hard data for discussion.

I missed the hard data you presented. What was that hard data?

Of course it is. Looking at the group level, a certain degree or prevalence of selflessness is needed for group success and hence individual success. This is both true and widespread in families, for example.

People who want to shoehorn the world into "selfish good, selfless bad" get around this by labeling it a "selfish gene", or claiming that all things we do are ultimately to make us feel good, which is ultimately selfish. But that's just assuming the premise. And demonstrably false.
If biology/psychology could tell us anything useful about human psychology, they wouldn't be equivalent to placebo (after correcting for publishing biases) at helping people.
Is that a fancy word for question-begging solipsism as applied to seeing the motivation for all actions as ultimately selfish? I guess I have now.

The traits needed are to want to get good at stuff even if it doesn't make you a lot of money and to not have the desire to have a lot of material things. You can still be proud that you are a lot smarter than everybody else.

I get the basic idea but I don't think the average physicist would land in the top 5% of quality strippers no matter how hard they tried. OTOH The average elementary education major would do fine.