<= [441][442][443][444][445][446][447][448][449][450] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
441) Arminius, 27.04.2014, 00:00, 00:01, 00:02, 00:02, 00:29, 00:44, 03:04, 13:33, 14:27, 14:53, 22:59, 23:28 (977-988)
Bob wrote:
If you list them, you will find what I have said: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.
If the USA had not got e.g. the German technician and rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his crew, there would never have been any landing on the moon (except a German one). Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: either you help the USA or you will be put in prison! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.This was also a natinalistic act, and a criminal act too. Germany's enemies did not primarily fight the Nazis, they primarily fighted Germany. And that was not merely an allied goal, but as well or probably more a nationalistic goal because fighting Germany was a chance to become rich, thus more powerful, namely to become the world power. Until 1945 Germany had been the one and only rival of the USA, in the matter of world power which the British Emipre had already lost during the World War I. Besides: the USSR at that time was de facto still a part of the Third World.If you really want to speak truly, honestly, historically about nationalism, you should not forget that on the one hand there was more nationalism before 1945 or 1989/'90 than after 1945 or 1989/'90 and on the other hand there has been being globalism since 1945 or 1989/'90, but globalism is nationalism in global dimensions!Since 1945 or 1989/'90 there has been being more nationalism because there has been being more globalism, and globalism is nationalism in global dimensions. So on the one (quantitative) hand we currently have more nationalism, and on the other (qualitative) hand we currently have a different nationalism, namely a global one.
Lizbethrose wrote:
Ich liebe Dich auch, Lisbeth. (I love you too, Lizbeth.)
James S. Saint wrote:
That's right.Arminius wrote:
Globalism: Danger in global dimensions!
Nano-Bug wrote:
In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced?Then please answer my question directly:Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
Gib wrote:
In that sentence are two words wrong:1) American. America menas
two continents, and you mean the United States. |
983 |
The way I look at it, history will end when all of the books have been burnt, when there is no one left to remember it or to tell of it or to write it. **
That's not necessarily the end of mankind. **
984 |
You have the following categories (often by varied names);
1) Total dictatorship - dictator makes all laws.
2) Dictatorial Republic - dictator appoints representatives for regions who then vote on all laws.
3) Democratic Republic - the populous votes on local laws and elects representatives who then vote for national laws. **
4) Total Democracy - the populous votes on all local and national laws. **
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. **
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule. **
985 |
In this context, »social equality« merely means that everyone gets one vote on all relevant issues. **
Children still can't vote. **
986 |
987 |
This thread inspired this other one: Reforming Democracy (**). **
988 |
I propose then now as a Westerner - I AM THE FIRST OF MANY - that a new Western religion HAS RISEN. **
442) Arminius, 28.04.2014, 00:13, 00:41, 01:06, 13:24, 21:37, 22:06 (989-994)
Bob wrote:
If you list them, you will find what I have said: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.Bob wrote:
Nevertheless, Bob, if you use words which can be refered to numbers - I mean words like some, any, every, many, ... and so on -, you should also mention their relationship. The percentages we are talking about - 0.01%, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% - can easily be identified as very little numbers, so there is no discussion about that. But if you use merely words like e.g. many, then many (!) people do not know, what the relationship is.
Zinnat wrote:
Oh Zinnat!Fathers, brothers, sisters, ... and so on - what do you think about them then?Why are you not even saying: That is why true love is possible in only two relations- mother-daughter and lesbian(wife)-wife.?With
true love, |
991 |
I think future machines will have quantum computers not unlike our brains are. I doubt they will be made of metal and wires etc, more super fabrics such to experience the world just as any other life-form can [dextrous and sensual], possibly more-so. there would I feel be no reason to get rid of humans, because we will have changed into some manner of artificial living entity, or indeed will be them. **
992 |
History did not end with the fall of the Wall. From a US centered perspective, you had 9/11, the Patriot Act, and some wars. These were coupled with Changes in US relations to many nations. It led to a new era. It could lead to all sorts of discussions about politics, governance, separation of Powers, nation states, globallization, ethics of war.....and more, so it would seem strange to me to say that history ended with the fall of the wall, at least for US cits. This would all hold for Europe. **
Russia seems to be shifting historically as we type. China's role is changing and while much of this is economic and not the snazzy history of wars and famous people bios, it is history. **
According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o); Rule (leadership, a.s.o.); Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.); Classes; State; Great War; City and country as contrast; Education, especially in schools and universities; Science; Order of sexulality / demographics, economics; Historiography / awareness of history! Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder Existenzialien - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige Zwischenspiel der eigentlichen Geschichte bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines Schemas der historischen Existenz ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or existentials - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting interlude of the actual history and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a scheme of historical existenceis the main goal of this book.Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der Nachgeschichte, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the post-history as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der große Krieg, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the Great War, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«). ** **
Then lots of nations that have less Power are having wars, starvation, transitions into global economics, you had The Arab Spring, and while this did not change so much, it offers the potential for more Changes. **
China and Russia and not hooking in to any end of History .... **
993 |
994 |
I would actually think an atheist would be the best person for the job because an atheist would not care about the flame wars and actually decide on the quality of discussion, not on what is discussed.
443) Arminius, 29.04.2014, 01:55, 02:06, 14:18, 17:49, 20:03 (995-999)
Besides: Fuse has already given an answer (by trend):
So, Fuse, you don't think (by trend) that all humans will be completely replaced by machines.
Fuse wrote:
You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!
Fuse wrote:
Is it because you are too young? You have forgotten important things, e.g. that the question is the TITLE OF THE THREAD (**) and of the OP (Original Post **). What's the matter with you, Fuse? Are you Con-Fuse?Fuse wrote:
Why? Is it because you are too young? ....Fuse wrote:
You have already answered the question (with: NO [**|**]) and you have even answered the question (also with: NO), whether machines replace human beings, if machines are cheaper than human beings. Excuse me, but the latter of this two answers is nonsense.Is it because you are too young? ....
Cassie wrote:
But what do you judgmentally think abaout that, especially about your last sentence: Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism ....?
Do you know Francis Fukuyama and his thesis?According to Hegels Dialektik e.g. Fukuyama interprets the extreme liberalism as the Thesis, the totalitarianism as the Antithesis, the liberal democracy as the Synthesis. So for Fukuyama the liberal democracy is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyamas thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary democracy and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyamas notion of the End of History can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: By »nation building« you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy. Scholl-Latour: I would have added: »Serving the market economy«. (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyamas bold thesis of the end of history of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes. **Fukuyamas thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyamas book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche. (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as housing of servitude by Max Weber. The Gestell (something like frame / framework o.s.) by Martin Heidegger, the managed world by Theodor W. Adorno, and the technical government by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of cultural crystallisation. **Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyamas work as the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called mass psychology and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in »The End of History«, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the »end of history« in the year of publication of Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes [Phenomenology of Spirit], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the »last men« more than all the rest .... (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67). **For Fukuyama thymos is nothing other than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for Anerkennung (appreciation, recognition, tribute). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the real engine of human history (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work Zorn und Zeit (Rage and Time, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger. **But Sloterdijk's work mentions also the Christian era referring to revenge and resentment:Vor
allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht
werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das
Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar,
in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde.
Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch
den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der
Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem
Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre
immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der
Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten
einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche
klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments,
das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst,
ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte.
Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit
zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens
mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß
die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen
Bösen zudachten. - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S.
4. |
444) Arminius, 30.04.2014, 01:54, 02:40, 04:06, 04:31, 05:14, 15:34, 15:45, 15:45, 16:41, 23:13 (1000-1009)
Obe wrote:
Not in any case.Obe wrote:
It depends on the case, on the particular case.Obe wrote:
You mean Fukuyamas liberal democracy as the Synthesis? Then it is up to him to object that or not. For me the current Synthesis is not something like a liberal democracy, but the globalism: containing amongst others a ochlocracy (anarchy) in order to get the monarchy. Probably the liberal democracy had been a Synthesis for a short time in the last fourth of the 18th century, namely the Synthesis of the Thesis democracy/oligarchy (egalitarianism) and the Antithesis liberalism/individualism (libertarianism). Fukuyama confuses his time (especially his Zeitgeist) with Hegel's time (especially Hegel's Zeitgeist). He also confuses ideality with reality. So for me Fukuyama is wrong. The assessment of Peter Scholl-Latour, Fukuyama's thesis has been absurd since its beginning (**|**), is right, I think.
Amorphos wrote:
So you are saying that progressing and history are not dividable, or they are even the same? Progressing and history do not have to have, but can have to do with each other. Progressing and history are not the same. History is a development, evolution is a development, but history and evolution are not the same. History is a part of evolution because history is an artifact, a product by humans, and humans are as part of the evolution as other living beings.Amorphos wrote:
Is that poetry?
|
1003 |
All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that. **
1004 |
Arminius,
Every time I speak you keep asking me to answer your simple question with a yes or a no. **
I answered your OP on the first page with my thoughts. My thoughts do not fit into a simple yes or no .... **
I've said that I don't think the question is simple and explained why. I've been having a conversation with James throughout this thread and I've read many of your posts. You've oddly suggested that I have trouble reading, that I am confused and I am too young, and that my disagreement is nonsense -- all without explanation. So it is up to you. **
1005 |
Arminius wrote:
»If machines are cheaper than human beeings, then machines replace human beings. ** **
I disagree. **
1006 |
However, there is credibility in the notion, that if machines displace jobs, and even if they can do the job cheaper and more efficiently, the buying power of those displaced people will effect the economy adversely. Another fact is, that profits will, rather then being re-invested, may be used to enhance personal and corporate capital instead for research and product development. This trend has not noticeably kicked in as of yet, because, human jobs still far outnumber machines to a very significant degree, and for the most part, automation augments, rather then displaces human workers. **
1007 |
At the present time, it is far more feasible to hire workers in China, then set up vast automated industries.When wages go up there, this too might change , in time, not foreseeably, i would think, with hundreds of millions, if not billion workers in that country. **
Country | Birthrates | Fertility rates | Year |
Bosnia | 9 | 1.2 | 2010 |
Burkina Faso | 44 | 6.0 | 2010 |
Burundi | 47 | 6.8 | 2010 |
Chad | 45 | 6.2 | 2010 |
China | 12 | 1.7 | 2010 |
Germany | 9 | 1.4 | 2010 |
Guinea-Bissau | 50 | 7.1 | 2010 |
Italy | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Japan | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Kenya | 39 | 5.0 | 2010 |
Mali | 48 | 6.5 | 2010 |
Mexico | 19 | 2.1 | 2010 |
Uganda | 47 | 6.7 | 2010 |
World | 20 | 2,5 | 2010 |
1008 |
Extreme adaptability of ultra-liberalism is the sloth of the cynic is what Sloterdijk was pointing out. **
1009 |
You might want to note that the countries with a high Debt/GNP are the ones promoting automation the most; USA and Japan at the top of the list. Those countries cannot afford to have people being paid to do what a machine can do very much faster and better.
If in your foreign trade, you are going to be selling 10,000 of product X per week and you have the choice of building a machine to produce it for you at that rate (or any easily changeable rate) or hiring enough people to be able to keep up that rate (not easily changeable rate), the machine will be far cheaper, produce far more consistent quality, last much longer, and be more rate-versatile. **
Thus by controlling Money, the national debt is controlled and by controlling the national debt, people are eliminated in favor of machines. The lust for Money, eliminates people ... selected people. **
445) Arminius, 01.05.2014, 00:20, 01:15, 02:02, 02:18, 17:30, 22:35, 23:40, 23:48, 23:57 (1010-1018)
First of all, James, I buy and send you the Ü-key for the Übermensch - and you may have the Ä-key, the Ö-key, and the ß-key too.James S. Saint wrote:
And according to you: How can I become the Übermensch? By getting a Fourth Eye? How can I get a Fourth Eye? Can you send me one in return for my Ü-key?
Skakos wrote:
Seek the empty, if you wish to be full. That slogan is not a paradoxial phrase, not illogical. Why are you saying, that Tao contains wisdom our western logic cannot comprehend? Logic is logic. You are suggesting the existence of different logics, and that is paradox because Tao is comprehendible for all those who know logic. What you mean is that for a Non-Chinese Tao is more difficult to understand than for a Chinese. But that does not also mean that our western logic cannot comprehend Tao.
Skakos wrote:
There is no human free will because it is merely a relatively free will.
Progress is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is progressivism.
James S. Saint wrote:
Maybe that it is not the goal, but it is something like the original living cause, the original living reason, the original living source for life itself, for every living being and their situations. The goal for the will to power is: to get more power! But there are other goals as well, and they may even fight the will to power (might). .... Danger!James S. Saint wrote:
Maybe that the anentropic harmony is the goal, but if so, you probably should say a few sentences more about anentropic harmony or set some links, James, because I think that many people don't exactly know what it is.James S. Saint wrote:
You probably should explain »that direction« a little bit.James S. Saint wrote:
That is absoutely right, James.One doesn't have to read much, merely the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**) !
James S. Saint wrote:
The globalists have too much success with their hypnosis propaganda.
Fuse wrote:
That is not an argument? You want to make trouble because:
You haven't read the thread, have you? This question you mention is resolved. Again: You have to read the thread, before you make trouble here.Look here:
There is no problem. It is a fact that cheaper things replace expensive things, and it is a fact too that machines are cheaper than human beings, and it is a fact too that machines replace humans. So, what you want? .... Oh I see, you want to make trouble because:
Fuse wrote:
No you want to dictate!Besides: It is not difficult to understand the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings?So what is your problem? Oh, I see:
You are young and full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. That's all.Goodbye.
Fuse wrote:
No. You haven't. ** **
Fuse wrote:
You feel that I have been condescending to you. That's right and that's the reason why you are full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. Your last posts have just proved it.Are you a child? A re you a woman? If yes, then excuse me.You have not understand the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings? |
446) Arminius, 02.05.2014, 00:01, 01:07, 01:28, 02:10, 02:46, 03:33, 19:19, 19:46, 20:05, 20:34, 20:54, 22:16, 23:48 (1019-1031)
Fuse wrote:
(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.« ** **Yes, this is a valid argument which is not what you have int he OP. It is not of logical necessity that »expensive things are replaced by cheaper things«. **Child, you would have saved much energy, if you had listened to me! I have told you a number of times: Please read the thread, if you don't undesrtand the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**) !Will machines completely replace all human beings?
James S. Saint wrote:
I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:All M are P |
1) First premise (propositio maior): | Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. | |
2) Second premise (propositio minor): | Machines are cheaper than human beings. | |
3) Conclusion (conclusio): | Human beings are replaced by machines. |
1021 |
Fuse wrote:
»Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.«
I understand what you were getting at. But what you need to do is provide the counter argument, much like Lady K is attempting (»cheaper will not replace all else«). **
In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long. **
1022 |
Arminus wrote:
»....
1) First premise (propositio maior): | Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. | |
2) Second premise (propositio minor): | Machines are cheaper than human beings. | |
3) Conclusion (conclusio): | Human beings are replaced by machines. |
.....« ** **
As a formal syllogism, that would be a »non-sequitor« (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, »Cheaper things always replace more expensive things«. And also, »Only machines replace people«. **
I say: | Cheaper things replace expensive things. | |
You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): | Cheaper things always replace more expensive things. | |
I say: | Machines replace human beings. | |
You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): | Only machines replace people. |
1023 |
I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.
The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term) **
1024 |
I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.
Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.
But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.
Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument. **
1025 |
Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:
P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings. **
Arminus wrote:
»....
1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. 2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings. 3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines. .....« ** **
Yes, this is a valid argument .... **
I disagree with premise 2 .... **
1026 |
1027 |
Arminius wrote:
»There is no human free will because it is merely a relatively free will.« ** **
»Relatively« to what? **
1028 |
As long as events are dependent upon, caused by, or are led to by other events, there will be stories. The linking up of certain events to promote a designed idea are the stories that precede history. **
1029 |
1030 |
Cheaper workers will always be preferred. **
I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper. **
1031 |
447) Arminius, 03.05.2014, 00:21, 01:24, 02:10, 02:32, 02:45, 22:13, 23:48 (1032-1038)
Finishedman wrote:
Right. But they can do that merely with story, thus: without history.
Eric the Pipe wrote:
In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):All M are P |
1034 |
1035 |
Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything. **
Brilliant. **
Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. **
After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale. **
1036 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, James S. Saint, Moreno, Amorphos, Tyler Durden. | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe. | |
Sum: | 5 | 8 | 8 |
1037 |
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. ** **
1038 |
Fuse wrote:
»Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?« **
The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision. **
And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't »the implication«, but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, »it seems like things point in this conclusion«. An exact implication means, »because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true«.
The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; »Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?«, »Are machines really cheaper than people?«, »Might it all occur by accident?«, »Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?«, »Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?« .... **
448) Arminius, 04.05.2014, 01:34, 04:09, 15:07, 16:35 (1039-1042)
Obe wrote:
That we become oblivious to history, yes, but that means in consequence that history ends after a while because human beings have become oblivious to it. If human beings become oblivious to history, then there is no historical comprehension anymore; and if there is no historical comprehension, then there will be soon no history. History without historians and without people who are interested in history is no history anymore.Obe wrote:
Stories have to be told in order to be stories. So only human beings can have stories. Stories of animals or plants are merely stories for us because we make and want them to have stories. All non-human-beings do not have any story, they only have information, and they communicate with each other in order to get information - not more.Story is human - and only human.Obe wrote:
That's
right, Obe. But to whom are they traces? Who interprets them to be traces? Non-human-beings
know nothing about traces as traces, but as a kind of information - certainly
without historical information. Trcae is a word, a concept, a term, a definition
only for us. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because
they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have
no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also
have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically
like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential (**|**) - can merely defined as great war, if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a great war could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are artifacts, because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word human being with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.
Tyler Durden wrote:
And after the genie his epigones, his copyists, his copycats, his imitators come and get high outside the bottle.Tyler Durden wrote:
Probably - or probably not?Can you give evidence?
Perhaps isolation leads to suicide:Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
Okay, that is a cynical statement, but nevertheless: Nietzscheans are endangered ...:Gib wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
So Nietzsche was a panpsychotic, wasn't he?Tyler Durden wrote:
What shall we do with him?Probably Nietzsche didn't overcome nihilism, but brought more nihilism than all other nihilists before him, because he spread nihilism all over the world.Who is really able to overcome nihilism in times of nihilism?
Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that's all. I don't know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism. (Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism. |
449) Arminius, 05.05.2014, 20:25, 22:17, 23:26, 23:50 (1043-1046)
Moreno wrote:
Nevertheless: It can be a part of a western strategy.
Obe wrote:
Do you see there even a chance for the humans in the age of sleep?
Arminius wrote:
Many of the so called Nietzscheans misuse Nietzsche for thoughts which have nothing to do with Nietzsche. One example for this high copycats is that racist Cezar - as you surely know, Contra-Nietzsche.Arminius wrote:
Many of the so called Nietzscheans try to copy that, and since they are not able to copy Nietzsche entirely, they copy merely the psychosis.Tyler Durden wrote:
Tyler Durden, I asked you whether you can give evidence. Would you mind answering my question?
Obe wrote:
But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction? |
450) Arminius, 06.05.2014, 01:09, 01:36, 02:18, 03:14, 03:49, 04:59, 17:45, 19:02, 20:35, 21:22, 21:27, 22:30, 23:10 (1047-1059)
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
Jerome Cardan was: Gerolamo Cardano (Girolamo or Geronimo; lat.: Hieronymus Cardanus). He was a doctor, a philosopher, a mathematician, and a technician. I don't think that he wrote as a philosophical immunulogist. He wrote in the 16th century, Nietzsche wrote in the 19th century. Writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 16th century has a duifferent meaning than writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 19th century. I don't know very much about Gardano, but I don't think that he wrote as a philosophical immunologist.
It is possible that the western strategy includes anti-western politics.
Obe wrote:
My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%. 80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.
James S. Saint wrote:
The first truly perpetual energy source?
Contra-Nietzsche wrote:
According to Oswald Spengler the West has been consisting religiously of catholics and protestants, thus without all (all!) orthodox Christians. Greeks, Slavs, and other orthodox Christians have never been belonging to the Western culture / civilisation. They all have been getting influenced by the West - like the other people of the world as well -, but never been becoming a real part of the West.Spengler assumed that there will be either no new culture anymore or perhaps one: a Russian one. But Spengler tended more to the conviction that no new culture will come, thus: the Western culture / civilisation ist the last one.
Moreno wrote:
According to Ernst Nolte both science and technology are meant. Science (incl. technology) also includes media, but media is also included in the other historical existentials, especially in education. Living beings are media beings. So media is important for all living beings, not only for human beings, also not only for historical human beings. What you probably mean with the word media is the modern media.
Moreno wrote:
Übermensch, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, post-human remind me to my other thread:Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call Letzter Mensch (Last Man). This Last Man will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.
Arminius wrote:
If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.In that case we merely would have to eliminate the lie. The lie is a problem humans can't resolve.
Phyllo wrote:
Can't you guess it? My last post (**|**) contains already the answer. Haven't you read it, although you have quoted it?According to some scientists chemical, but not fossilised, thus inorganic processes lead to oil, so oil is an inorganic product.
If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call Letzter Mensch (Last Man). This Last Man will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.
Phyllo wrote:
I did answer your question, but you are unable to read That's strange. In addition: English is your mother tongue, isn't it?The abiogenic hypothesis fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because (**) the Soviet Union was defeated, the Cold War ended, and the western age of total globalism started. You know what I mean?Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material. **Therefore I wrote:
Wikipedia (although also mainstream):However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively. **Do you agree with the mainstream theory?
Inorganic chemistry is the study of the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of organic chemistry.Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
@ MorenoMartin Fleischmann (not: Fleishman) was his name. ** |
==>
|