Heideggar Figured it out First

Or I guess his Jewish buddy figured it out first: Jews have gotten there first on many occasions in History-but I guess we got a head start.

Here's Hawking and his buddy waxing philosophical on "what is real" from http://www.toequest.com/forum/vbcms-comments/5441-hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-everything.html (toequest is a great site)

In a quantum world, particles don't have definite locations or even definite velocities until they've been observed. This is a far cry from Newton's world, and Hawking/Mlodinow argue that - in light of quantummechanics - it doesn't matter what is actually real and what isn't, all that matters is what we experience as reality.

Heideggar saying pretty much the same thing:

....

well, couldn't find it; instead i went on a harrowing search through heideggar and nazism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger_and_Nazism

this site SORT of says the same thing

http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?s=BP

here's a quote, they it also went on about philosophical numonism and realism and mediated reality and doxology and kant and...well, my mind is so unorganized these days. it could be my sleep patter (i seem to stay up for 24-48 hour increments) or it could just be habit or it could be that i don't have anything to ground me. whatever. here's a quote i might find interesting someday:

Along with Dasein as being-in-the-world, entities within-the-world have in each case already been disclosed. This existential-ontological assertion seems to accord with the thesis ofrealism that the external world is really present-at-hand. In so far as this existential assertion does not deny that entities within-the-world are present-at-hand, it agrees – doxographically, as it were – with the thesis of realism in its result. But it differs in principle from every kind of realism; for realism holds that the Reality of the ‘world’ not only needs to be proved but also is capable of proof. (BT 251)

So yeah. Take it as you will.

P.S. I've did say not too long ago (within the past year) that what Genes you have is about as important as your astrological chart:

The relationship between genes and visible traits is very different from the way in which it is usually presented to the public. The idea that a gene is a sequence of DNA that codes for a product, and variations in the DNA sequence can cause a difference in the product and hence in the phenotype, is just too simplistic. Coding sequences are only a small part of DNA, and DNA is just a part of the cellular network that determines which products are produced. When and where these products are produced depends on what goes on in other cells and what the environmental conditions are like. Cellular and development networks are so complicated that there is really no chance of predicting what a person will be like merely by looking at their DNA. Although it has considerable rhetorical and marketing power, the dream of genetic astrology is just that – a dream.

~Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life, p. 67