<= [431][432][433][434][435][436][437][438][439][440] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
431) Arminius, 16.04.2014, 01:32, 19:11, 19:46 (922-924)
Lizbethrose wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Lizbethrose wrote:
Animal languages are very different to human languages, and this fact has always been clear to scientists or philosophers. Excuse me, but your premise is false because animals use language in a too much diffderent way than humans do. Language is NOT only a physiologic phenomenon, it is a lingiuistic system (cp above: my posts), and this linguistic system is typical for human beings. Human language is so very much different to animal languages, that both became two language systems during the evolution. Human language is primarily a very much single language, a language by itself, a language system on ist own.
Zinnat wrote:
Hello, Zinnat (Sanjay).I have read the post you mentioned. Thank you. Unfortunately I have to repeat some of my words: You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib!). But the question in the title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future! ** **Zinnat wrote:
Why? There is no proof!Zinnat wrote:
Not yet!Zinnat wrote:
The information doesn't have to be inherited biologically (genetically), but can be inherited technically (artificially).Zinnat wrote:
Why is that a must? There is no proof!Zinnat wrote:
Machines don't have to repeat a child's development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.Zinnat wrote:
That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don't think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]).James S. Saint wrote:
Learning implies a will(ingness). So the scientists and technicians (engineers) will change the AI into the AW (cp. above).Zinnat wrote:
No. Because I mentioned it, e.g. here:Arminius wrote:
I said machines-with-»self-will«, and self-will has also to do with willingness. My idea was that human beings create machines with a will, and that includes interests. So willingness may be interpreted little bit differently, but as far as I know - about the English language - is the meaning of "willingness" very much similar to the meaning of will.Zinnat wrote:
No!Zinnat wrote:
That will be changed, Zinnat!Why?Human beings have different interests, and they struggle for interests, this leads them to the interest to fit or equip machines with interests. Once more: The interests of human beeings lead to the interests of machines.In the beginning of that development there is an human interest in copying the own interests in order to strengthen the own interests against the interests of the enemy. In order to prevent that the enemy has already machines with self-interests (although the enemy perhaps doesn't have them) the first machine with self-will will be created.Zinnat wrote:
It is possible!Zinnat wrote:
Humans can!Zinnat wrote:
You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib!). But the question of the title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future!Many things will change in the future! Many people don't want these things to be changed. Maybe I belong to those people but nevertheless: I stay on track, I always try to prevent getting side-tracked, wandering from the subject.What about you, Zinnat? Do you also not want machines to be changed?Learning implies a will(ingness).James S. Saint wrote:
Learning implies a will(ingness). The will of the occident people has been declining. The frequency of occurrence of mistakes, errors, has been increasing.Zinnat (Sanjay), the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%. It is because of the coincidence, the accident caused by human beings. Their trial and error will probably (cp. 80%) lead to the will of machines.
Lizbethrose wrote:
No.Languages started with signs (cp. semiotic), the transition of semiotic signs to the first lingusitic signs was the beginning of the language in that sense we can use the word language very generally. The sound started later. Sound is not necessary for language, but an advantage, as all human languages indicate. Primitive animals do not need any sound for their language, they use a very primitive language, a chemical language.Lizbethrose wrote:
Excuse me, but you did NOT answer my question. All what you said is known!In addition: Whether Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche was in Paraguay or not, whether she or her brother were antisemitic or not, and other whether ... or not ... - all that has nothing to do with my question.Lizbethrose wrote:
That's all known.So you can NOT answer my question.Okay. It doesn't matter. |
432) Arminius, 17.04.2014, 01:20, 14:43, 21:14, 23:18 (925-928)
Here comes the 1st interim balance sheet:
Remember: the history of knowledge and science shows that in the beginnig the majority was wrong and the minority was right, and in the end when the majority adapted itself to the minority it didn't matter anymore who was right or wrong because the knowledge or science had already become normalcy.
@ DiethertFirst of all I would like to thank you for this interesting topic!Diethert wrote:
Globalism is the Synthesis of liberalism/nationalism (Thesis) and egalitarianism/communism (Antithesis). (Cp. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Dialektik). According to Hegel the Synthesis will be set - after its success - as a new Thesis and will be attacked by a new Antithesis, and the latter is what McKibben has probably done (although I haven't read his book!).Diethert wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately the devolopment of the globalism will end for 99% of the people in local economies anyway - very poor ones. So there will be no autarky, but very poor local economies - stemmed from exploited ex-nations - and very rich global economies. You can call this goal feudalism.So the probability that local economies
will not work is high. Let's take the little chance?Diethert wrote:
Durability is very important when it comes to local economies because the enemy is not sleeping during that time.Diethert wrote:
This argument supports the idea of local econmies - b.t.w.: this idea is not new -, but this argument is not really needed because there can be a real energy crisis or a artificial energy crisis.Diethert wrote:
My thoughts on local communities are confident and unconfident ones. As idealist I want this idea to be realised, at first more partially, at last globally - without any globalic or globalistic rulers! But as realist I don't want this idea to be realised, because the probability that local economies don't work is high!Diethert wrote:
What do you exactly mean with the word they? The local communities? What do you exactly mean with too deal in theory?Diethert wrote:
Human beings are very greedy, but perhaps not greedy enough, so that local communities have a chance.This reminds
me of the question of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines
completely replace all human beings? (**|**).
I asked this question because I am not sure and have to calculate with probability.
80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance. |
927 |
Are you assuming I know something about Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche ...? **
As for unanswered questions, you haven't answered mine, either. **
As a matter of fact, we don't seem to even be on the same page! **
When I say language is sound, it's because, to me, that's how it began. **
I imagine a small group of hominids .... **
My questions hint at this when I ask, »Will Nietzsche's philosophy, assuming it can be defined, endure for 500 or more years? Will it have changed the way the world thinks in that time?«
Can you answer my questions? **
928 |
In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy. **
There is certainly a proof, not mere argument. **
First of all, this a priori status of the child is the proof that you asked above. **
Secondly, unlike machines, no matter how hard we programme/train/teach a human child, he will never become the same as his programmers expect him to be. **
Otherwise, there all humans in the world will be the same but that is not the case. **
AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI. **
Firstly, taking the strict sense of the question of the thread, there is a possibility that human race will be eliminated form this planet. But, that will be done by humans themselves by using machines. So, it cannot be called as machines replacing humans. **
Secondly, you missed the issue of the difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines that i pointed out in that second post. **
Computers or robots do not take things as they are. They do not understand things in totality but have to deduct everything up to the level of 0 and 1 to understand anything because these are the only two terms in the world they can really recognize. Everything else is just the induction of this duo, thus does not have any real meaning for them. . **
This is the real hurdle. **
433) Arminius, 18.04.2014, 03:30, 04:10, 15:15, 15:33, 16:19, 18:09, 23:30 (929-935)
James S. Saint wrote:
Thank you, James.One should also not forget what that means in conclusion:Arminius wrote:
Both proof and disproof should not be given away from the responsibility of philosophy or Geisteswissenschaft (that is the science of the Geist (**|**) which means something like mind, conscience, consciousness, awareness, esprit, spirit, génie, intelligence, intellect, apprehension, brain, sense etc.). If proof is only under the jurisdiction of the science, as Zinnat believes, it would be one-sided, too easy to use wrongly, to misuse, to abuse, and so on.The science which means Naturwissenschaft (natural science) is responsible for falsification and the Geisteswissenschaft (especially mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, jurisprudence, and others) is responsible for verification. I know there is no word for Geisteswissenschaft in the English language, so you may call it philosophy, but it is not only philosophy what the word Geisteswissenschaft means (cp.above). If you subtract natural science and the most of social science from science, then you get Geisteswissenschaft.I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism science versus philosophy or, as I do, Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft. And between both there is Sozialwissenschaft (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of intermediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control because science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.
James S. Saint wrote:
Unfortunately science has been becoming a religion. The reason is control, thus power. And I don't know whether science will ever recover from its dependency, awake from its sleep (sleep is currently perhaps the wrong word, because the current scientists know about their cowardly situation). Probably science will remain as religion until all human beings are eliminated or probably replaced by machines.
@ Eric the PipeFirst of all I want to compliment you on your signature.Eric the Pipe wrote:
This sentence makes shortly clear what exploitation is and especially who the greatest exploiter is.Eric the Pipe wrote:
You don't see any chance, even any little like I do?Eric the Pipe wrote:
If a critical point has passed, distribution leads to poverty. That's known. There is no exception in history.Eric the Pipe wrote:
That's known. Nobody can deny that an overacted redistribution leads to poverty.Eric the Pipe wrote:
Social justice is merely a rhetoric term.Eric the Pipe wrote:
The third party is always the ruler.
A little correction:1900. Planck found the energy of electron: E=h*f.Not Planck and Einstein, but only Planck.Einstein found E=mc².
James S. Saint wrote:
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
So Nietzsche was a panpsychotic, wasn't he?
I nominate Historyboy - because he is more religious than all other members together.
@
James S. Saint |
434) Arminius, 19.04.2014, 01:36, 02:18, 02:38, 03:42, 03:51, 11:43, 12:42, 13:41, 15:41, 21:59, 22:29 (936-946)
James S. Saint wrote:
Thank you for your answers. I can agree to the most answers you gave, but one answer you gave I can not agree to:James S. Saint wrote:
Machines need stones because they are made of stones, and if they want to create more machnines, they need more stones. Merely the crust of the earth and some parts of the mantle of the earth are usable for the physico-chemical needs of the production and - of course - reproduction of machines. So if the machines want to become more, they have to use the crust of the earth and at last even parts of the mantle of the earth.I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?
James S. Saint wrote:
But androids are machines - more than less.My definition of cyborg is: more human being than machine; and my definition of android is: more machine than human being.
James S. Saint wrote:
If we take the word android as seriously as the fact that machines are made by human beings, then we have to include that the machines have some human interests - not as much as the human beings, but probably as much as ... to become more.
James S. Saint wrote:
Whereto does the word this refer in your text or context?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, that are MY words!
James S. Saint wrote:
With anything? You think that machines with human interests don't need anything?James S. Saint wrote:
Existing things or beings have to do with other existing things or beings in their surrounding area or in even more areas. Machines with partial human interests - with a partial human will (!) - will have to do with more other existing things or beings in more areas.All machines need physico-chemical food, after an accident they need a repair, and in the case of replication they need even more of that material they are made of.Is it this relevance you don't understand?
James S. Saint wrote:
That is a question I can only answer without any guaranty.
Topic: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the Enlightenment (Aufklärung) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.
There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).My questions:What do you think?
Phyllo wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history
There is a difference between the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the end of humanity's evolution. The difference is namely the culture!James S. Saint wrote:
Maybe as a pre-stage of (the idea of) the end of history, but not really.James S. Saint wrote:
The end of history means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all historical existence (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.James S. Saint wrote:
Some people may say that the time after the end of history is haeven on earth, some other people may say that the time after the end of history is hell on earth. There is no real historical develoment, nothing to do that really counts, boredom, happiness, perhaps it is the (last) age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (you remember! **) - this all depends upon the people's evaluation.
Phyllo wrote:
That has not being prooved, not being disprooved, not being falsified. We just don't know certainly. Therefore the questions of my OP (**).Phyllo wrote:
This is what you don't know, if you understand change as historical or cultural change.If the history really ends, there is no change in sense of historical change because that is just the definition of the end of history - that is logical, even tautological.If the history does not end, there is change in sense of historical change because that is just the definition of the history - that is logical, even tautological.
Please don't confuse the end of history with the end of evolution - both are different. The end of history doesn't also not mean the end of human beings, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that history, human evolution, and even evolution simultaneously end.Any of the questions of my OP (**) includes the term end of history, not the term end of human beings, and not the term end of evolution. The questions of the "end of human beings" and the end of evolution are very interesting too, but here in this thread they are not the primary or even the secondary questions, except in the case of a simultaneous endings because then they immediately belong to the primary and secondary questions.
@ All members, and all readers!If we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 0% (!), which affects will that have for our future development, for our future evolution and perhaps for our history (perhaps because of the high probability that history will end (**|**) in that case too) and for the future development of our machines?I think that human beings will very much more depend upon machines than human beings have been depending upon machines since the last third of the 18th century. |
435) Arminius, 20.04.2014, 01:53, 02:01, 10:58, 11:41, 13:55, 14:06, 22:09, 22:53 (947-954)
|
948 |
How many billions of dollars do you figure they spent finding this one (that they could never go visit)?
»This planet orbits its star every 130 days, says ... the SETI Institute .... It's called Kepler-186f, and it's just 10 percent bigger than Earth. .... And because this planet orbits a dim, red dwarf star, he notes that midday on this planet wouldn't be bright it would look more like an hour before sunset on Earth. .... Even though this planet is too distant for follow-up work with other telescopes, it suggests similar worlds might be out there orbiting other red dwarf stars, which are very common. ....«
.... With only a 130 day orbit, that has to be a pretty cold Sun. **
949 |
Everything depends on the programming. And what that means is that in order to do one thing well, other things get their programming free.
One need not program emotion into an android. One merely has need to install in the android the heuristic ability to seek out efficient ways of accomplishing its tasks. Emotions will soon emerge quite automatically. Lizards, spiders, and bees can do it. It doesn't take sophisticated programming.
That is not to say that emotions really are the most efficient way to accomplish things. Emotions are merely a phase of figuring out the most efficient way. It takes wisdom to see past the apparent, a wisdom that is not installed into the android, because the programmers don't have it themselves. **
Zinnat wrote:
»After the every gap of some years, some scientist in the some corner or the world tends to come forth and claims that all is solved now but nothing happens on the ground. It looks to me it is more related to continue with the incoming huge funding than the actual research. The scientific community just do not want the idea of AI to die because it is the question of the bread and butter to the related persons.« **
That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don't think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]). ** **
Zinnat wrote:
»AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI.« **
No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident. ** **
950 |
Well, I can tell you that it is a »Heaven« scenario, not a »Hell«.
And the reason is simply that a part of the activity going on involves inspiring the joy of attending to things that are of actual need. By that means, not only does the person (or whatever) maintain eternal existence, but also enjoys doing so; ie. "Heaven". The only problem in the past was understanding what really is of actual need. But that isn't an issue anymore.So the Eternal Hell scenario is out.
The other option is the Abyss, wherein everything gets totally lost, as in perhaps that »Black-hole« scenario. **
951 |
I consider those to be the hell on Earth that preceded the final anentropic stage. It is similar to now, but worse, wherein lives are just wasted needlessly because some idiot on top arranged it to be that way and idiots beneath him thought it was necessary to arrange a holy city surrounded by a human trash bin (separating heaven and Earth). The final era is completely different, with or without humans.
The Eloi and the Morlocks are a temporary stage. **
952 |
Machines are blank on their own so you have to feed then from a to z. But, on the other hand, a child is born with some a priori knowledge. Then, he evaluate and evolve his knowledge. Machines cannot do either of those. **
953 |
Well, I don't know which things that Zinnat thinks have to be fed into the machines that don't have to be fed (via DNA) into a human. As one of those films showed, machines can learn on their own without being simply »fed information«.
The fundamental needs for an AI are pretty simple. And as Zinnat said, the AI and the AW are pretty much the same thing. **
954 |
Arminius wrote:
»Did you see the film Time Machine in the 1959 version?« ** **
Sure, and also the more recent version.
They are actually telling of the present, very slightly exaggerated.
The Morlocks are the social engineers.
The Eloi are pretty much everyone else.It is actually pretty similar to The Matrix wherein the Eloi are those trapped in the machine dream world. The Architect and the »programs« are the Morlock. On the Zionist side in the film, they also have their version of Eloi and Morlock (their own programmers) but don't show that part much. **
436) Arminius, 21.04.2014, 21:37, 21:42, 21:43, 21:44, 21:58, 23:38 (955-960)
Lizbethrose wrote:
I translate:The poster, who lives in US, maintains - in order to hide her nationalsim - that a foreign person is nationalistic. She implies there are taboos that keep foreigners, especially male foreigners, from admitting the dominance of US nationalism, feminism, and imperialism over one age named US-Dollar-Empire. I believe that's her US Nationalism showing - and also her try to hide it.I believe that Lizbethrose is nationalistic and tries to hide her nationalism behind a presumpted nationalism of anyone and everyone - except herself. (Cp. Uccisore's post [**|**] and Bob's posts [**|**|**|**]).The poster she mentioned is not guilty for Lizbethrose's ignorance of nation, of nationalism, of history, of language, of speech (and it is very ridiculous, that she with English as her mother tongue doesn't know the difference between language and speech), of Nietzsche, of Nietzsche's sister, of anything and everything.Lizbethrose can not accept truth and facts. According to her one would have to call anyone and everyone a nationalistic, if they try to say that the USA won the World War II. According to her truth and facts are taboos.Lizbethrose wrote:
According to Lizbethrose there are currently still three nations / states / countries with nationalistic, imperialistic, fascistic names:
1) Have you ever been to school? Or is there no school in your country? Have you never heard what America means? America is NOT a nation, NOT a state, but merely TWO CONTINENTS. According to Lizbethrose the claim of being United States of America is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!2) What does Great in the name Great Britain really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being Great Britain is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!3) What does the name Israel really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being Israel is a fascistic nationalism because the ancient Israel was eliminated in the year 133. So according to Lizbethrose that claim is fascism and nationalism. Two isms. I am agaist any ism!Many names of nations / states / countries were not given by themselves, but by their neighbours, though the names of the three nations I mentioned were given by themselves. In the most cases names of nations / states / countries were given by their neighbours. For example: The Germans do not call themselves Germans and their nation / state / country Germany - they call themselves Deutsche and their nation / state / country Deutschland, but the neighbours call them Germans, Allemands, or Saxons, but not Deutsche, and their nation / state / country Germany, Allemagne, or Sachsa, but not Deutschland (exceptions are younger small neighbours, e.g. the Dutch, who became independent from Germany as the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - cp. Deutscher, thus not German Nation) in the year 1648 by the Peace of Westphalia. Arminius, who lived when Augustus (Octavian) as the follower of Caesar ruled in Rome, and other Germans didn't call themselves Germans.Arminius did NOT defend a nation, or even a nationalistic idea, Arminius defended culture and fighted civilisation, Arminius defended freedom and fighted slavery.If you want to know what nationalism really is, Germany is not the most typical example; all other nations / states / countries in Europe have being been more nationalistic than Germany. I don't say that primarily in order to defend my nation / state / country, but I say it primarily as historian.Even Lizbethrose has to accept the truth and the facts.It is the truth, a fact that German scientists and philosophers have dominated in the past, and the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy has always been about 1%, and the Jewsih population in Germany has always been about 0.5% (= ½%).All this can be checked in books of libraries and in other sources.According to Hegels Dialektik nationalism as Thesis leads to anti-nationalism as Antithesis, and both lead to globalism as Synthesis. Thus globalism doesn't mean there is no more nationalism in it, but globalism even lifts nationalism on a higher level by denying anti-nationalism. So nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism are civilised barbarisms, and currently the danger comes mostly from globalism - of course in global dimensions!I am against all isms at all because I am against ideologies at all. Thus I am also against civilised barbarism. Civilised barbarisms are for example nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism. I am a...istic, defendig a-...ism, fighting all isms. That is because of my strongly pronounced sense of freedom, especially the freedom of thinking and speaking. I defend freedom and fight slavery, as Arminius did in ancient times.
Bob wrote:
Not often Jewish because that is very relative: In Germany the Jewish population was only 0.5%, that is merely ½%, but the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy was 1%.Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.
Uccisore wrote:
Thus: When she does it, she calls it patriotism or feminism; when they do it, she calls it nationalism (incl. nationalsocialism / anti-semitism) or anti-feminism.
Bob wrote:
Perhaps she can not tolerate that because of her nationalism and xenophobism.
James S. Saint wrote:
That's the point, yeah.James S. Saint wrote:
Even those people who currently do not accept the truth, the facts, will have to practise accepting, because they soon will have to accept the truth, the facts.
One can cynically say that the Enlightenment (Aufklärung) was a process of murder because this process disenchanted the Western World, and when the Western World was finally disenchanted, which means that finally in the Western world God was dead, the next process started: Bringing the Dead God to the Rest of the World.We have to wait on the re-enchantment. But maybe this re-enchantment will never come, but merely the last human age: the age without history - an as boring as cruel age, which is again like the age of the nomadic humans, homonids, and prehominids.Some or many modern people have been appreciating this age. What do you think about that? |
437) Arminius, 22.04.2014, 01:05, 01:16, 02:51 (961-963)
Uccisore wrote:
That is at least the first impression. But people are also overestimated when it comes to power. Not the people, but their rulers (with their social-engineers) are primarily those who made, make, and will make people unimportant in history (and b.t.w.: probably in evoilution too). The impression is often that people themselves cause their behaviour, but often the behaviour of the people is caused by their rulers, and that should be always the first impression.
And why are you so sure?History began about 6000 years ago and will perhaps end in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century (I refer to one of my questions in my OP (**|**): => 2.3). But remember that all historical existencials (alle historische Existenziale), how Ernst Nolte called them, have to be eliminated, before one can say that the end of history is really reached. The process which leads to the end of history has to have the same dimension as the so called neolithic revolution had. And Nolte said that all historical existencials have changed very much, but have not been elimanted yet. (Cp. Ernst Nolte, Historische Existenz, 1998, p. 682). I think, the post-historical age will be the the very last age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**), so in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century history as we have been knowing it for about 6000 years will have reached its end because all historical existencials will probably be eliminated then.
James S. Saint wrote:
That's a good question, and I have expected that question. But would you mind answering before I answer in a more detailed way?
James S. Saint wrote:
Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: Historische Existenz (Historical Existence). |
438) Arminius, 23.04.2014, 11:37, 15:01, 16:04 (964-966)
James S. Saint wrote:
Therefore it was my intention to connect this topic (Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]) with another topic (Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**]). One of the reasons for that is my firm conviction that you will not win very much knowledge about the human future, if you aways separate questions of technique / technology , science, and economy from questions of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history.Perhaps it would have been better, if I had opened this threads in the subforum Science, Technology, and Math or in the subforum Society, Government, and Economics, but probably it would have been not better, if I had done so.James S. Saint wrote:
Therefore this question (amongst others): Can cyborgs have history?And I remind you again: Don't confuse history with evolution!Please don't confuse the end of history with the end of evolution - both are different. The end of history doesn't also not mean the end of human beings, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that history, human evolution, and even evolution simultaneously end.Evolution is more than history. History is merely a little part of evolution. Evolution is merely a part of cosmic devolopment.Here in this thread we are primarily talking about history!James S. Saint wrote:
Or eventually fight them?James S. Saint wrote:
You or them?
Mithus wrote:
We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The human reason by itself and the human emotion by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.I would not encourage all young people to get children at all, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.Concerning to the topic of this thread (**|**) I once made the following interim balance sheet (**|**):
I don't know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don't want to be completely replaced by machines and that their arguments are merely self-protecting reactions and also reactions because of the fact that they are operated by remote control.
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
No. I don't advocate, but I try to find out, what can or will be done in order to prevent such developments. But before I can find it out, I have to know or - unfortunately (!) - to accept the facts.My actual goal is: No Borg!I defend freedom and fight slavery, as the Cheruscan Arminius did in ancient times.Becoming machines does not mean freedom, but slavery.Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
1) My emphasis on technology is because of the fact that nearly all people don't care that technology changes them. They are almost like the Eloi or the Last Men. That's dangerous and terrible! Technology should never be underestimatied. If you know that - for example - Nietzsche did not mention any single word about technology a.s.o., then you may probably also know how much important it is to advocate technology in that sense I mentioned.2) Psyche as defined in modern times is - unfortunately - dangerous and terrible too. In the German languuage there is - still (!) - a difference (possible) between Psyche and Geist (mind, conscience, consciousness, awareness, knowledge, esprit, spirit, génie, intelligence, intellect, apprehension, brain, sense, a.s.o. [**|**|**]), but in the English language and all other languages that difference is no longer possible (in former times it was!). What does that mean? I think, the danger is, that, if there is no difference between them, it is very much easier to enslave people.If the psyche gets under control, then you have to have another mechanism in order to defend your freedom. Currently the psyche becomes a controlled instance, which it has never been before. So there is no instance left for freedom. If you have another and even a very much more powerful instance of freedom, you have another and even a very much more powerful chance to defend your freedom. Geist is this other instance of freedom, and it's very much more powerful than psyche. But if you have no word for this instance of freedom, then it is only a question of time when you will get totally under control. If there is no instance of freedom in language and in thinking, there soon will be no freedom at all.Most people really don't want freedom, but idols, ideology / religion, thus slavery (which they always confuse with freedom). For example idiots like Cezar and his buddies belong to those people. If you know that Cezar and his buddies make Nietzsche the more unalluring the more they call themselves Nietzscheans and believe in him as their God, then you may probably also know that Nietzsche didn't need such people as much as they need Nietzsche and misuse his words, e.g. for their envy and resentment, for their racism and sexism, and so on. |
439) Arminius, 24.04.2014, 09:33, 09:36, 13:18, 13:30 (967-970)
Mithus wrote:
Do you have any suggestions?Replacing humans by machines has two sides, and the good side covers the bad side.
Moreno wrote:
You want to keep out of the evaluation, right?
Do you like it this way?
James S. Saint wrote:
James, what do you think about that?referring to: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
James, what do you think about that? |
440) Arminius, 25.04.2014, 11:39, 12:12, 13:03, 20:26, 20:45, 23:44 (971-976)
James S. Saint wrote:
That's right, but I mean the 105-minutes-film and especially its content, what it is talking about. Interesting is that there - in the second part - is for example pantheism mentioned.
Moreno wrote:
So you are saying that you probably agree most with what I and James are saying and nevertheless that you do not agree with what I and James are saying because you are saying that you belong in the middle column. That is a contradiction (e.g. it's raining and it's not raining).Moreno wrote:
That is approximately what I have been saying since the 1990s.So there can not be a great difference between your statement and my statement.Or do you want to belong in the middle column because you love the people of the middle column more than the people of the left and right column?
Cassie wrote:
Memetic! Meme! .... Are you a Dawkinsian or even a Dawkinsist?Capitalism and its antagonist communism have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the globalism - they have been lifted, not eliminated.
James S. Saint wrote:
The second part is at least the more meaningful part because there is a lot of apology, exculpation, thus much rhetoric in it.James S. Saint wrote:
Agreement - generally speaking.So Moreno is put back:
Excude me, Moreno.
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
And what do you exactly mean in that text and context by saying our side?If it is the opposite side of that pan-psychotic (**|**) side (including the slavic / slavish idiot from Bosnia where life is rapidly declining! [**|**]), then I don't have to come over to your side because it has been my side since my first post (**|**) in this forum, as you probably know.
Cassie wrote:
Nihilism repeats. When a culture becomes old (modern, civilis[at]ed), it becomes nihilistic.Cassie wrote:
Globalism as the One World, the One Nation, is probably the last stage before the World of the Last Men / the World of the Morlocks and the Eloi will begin. And the World of the Last Men will probably lead to the World of No Men, but only Machines (**|**). |
==>
|