<= [701][702][703][704][705][706][707][708][709][710] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
701) Arminius, 30.04.2015, 00:15, 19:00, 21:14, 21:28, 23:37, 23:59 (2937-2942)
James S. Saint wrote:
No human consciousness, no human cells. Are you sure that machines are already completely independent? (This includes that they also do not depend on a program which is or can be [for example: temporarily] controlled by humans.)
James S. Saint wrote:
But in conclusion that would mean that also the weight of each human body is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense and is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses respectively the bodies, so that each body, regardless which one, is merely an affectance concentration and its weight entierely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding it (?).You are saying that »weight« is just another term for gravitational pressure. But pressure seems to be something like a force and similar to pushing. I conclude that you are saying that gravity is a force but not caused by a force, although you told me at an earlier time that gravity was not a force.
Your text (**) is based on a proton pseudos and on propaganda (affirmative action and other forms of political correctness, thus dictatorship) which is also based on a proton pseudos. So all conclusions can only be false because the first premise is false.
No argument? (**). You need more than 100 words for saying nonsense, and if someone friendly says with a few words that your text is based on a false premise and propaganda which is also based on a false premise, then you have nothing better to do than to say even more nonsense. So your reaction is a typical reaction of an idiot.
Orb wrote:
By whom?Orb wrote:
Why?Amorphos wrote:
That is not enough!Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.Amorphos wrote:
But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).
Undefined Automaton wrote:
They seem to lack this ability, yes, but they do not really lack this ability. The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are, for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. "X" and "Y") and the human group "X" does "x" and the human group "Y" does "y", then it is very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants are great specialists - but they do always the same. |
702) Arminius, 01.05.2015, 00:27, 00:52, 03:10, 03:45, 22:20, 22:42 (2943-2948)
James S. Saint wrote:
You do not see the intelligence itself as an issue?
Amorphos wrote:
Coolness is not an issue (at least not for me) when it comes to buy a car. The old cars (e.g. those of the 1960s) were already perfectly functioning cars - coolness and too much electronics have nothing to do with perfectly functioning but merely with luxury. So when it comes to have perfectly functioning cars, cars with too much electronics (gps and so on) and coolness are not needed and oftener defect than the older cars were and are (!). Cars with too much electronics show what the future will be all about - therefore my question again: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
Consciousness: Remote Recognition. **James S. Saint wrote:
So consciousness is now defined (Orb **) as a remote recognition by you, James. But how do you define remote recognition? You say what and who does not have consciousness as remote recognition - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?
Amorphos wrote:
How would you define consciousness and intelligence then?
James S. Saint wrote:
But it is said that all machines are still under human control.
Zinnat wrote:
No, that is not true for two simple reasons.1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot)
made so far thus there is no such possibility.
|
703) Arminius, 02.05.2015, 00:39, 01:50, 03:05, 17:18, 17:49, 18:21, 22:37, 23:00, 23:39, 23:56 (2949-2958)
James S. Saint wrote:
Intelligence refers to (a) one person and (b) a group. A group needs very intelligent persons who are able to lead the group and to promote intelligence in the group, so that the group can become more and more intelligent. So intelligence itself must be promoted when it comes to the goal of an intelligent group, and this can best be done by very intelligent leaders.
What do you think about a cyclic universe?Such an universe starts and ends again and again, so that every and any situation appears again and again, each life would be lived again and again, everything and anything repeats again and again.
James S. Saint wrote:
You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.
When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) of humans, thus machines are under control of humans (programming, sending signals. I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.
James S. Saint wrote:
That is exactly what I mean. Currently the development is still at the first step, because machines are still under the control of humans, although the second step is already possible.James S. Saint wrote:
The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.
Zinnat wrote:
Is it possible that you are occupied by your idea?Zinnat wrote:
By whom or what are they made? By God(s)? By nature?Zinnat wrote:
By nature. Do you have evidence?Zinnat wrote:
Show us your evidence, Zinnat.Zinnat wrote:
Zinnat wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Zinnat wrote:
But why do you not tell us your definition of observation? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.
Each one does not have a reminiscence of it or just never experience it.
Did the history essentially end with Hegel, especially with his 1807
published work Phänomenologie des Geistes?
|
2957 |
2958 |
704) Arminius, 03.05.2015, 22:56, 23:13 (2959-2960)
When it comes to understand the end of history in the Hegelian sense, one has to know what Hegel exactly meant by Staat (state), especially by Rechtsstaat (constitutional state, state of law), by Geist, especially by absoluter Geist (absolute spirit [but unfortunately Geist is not perfectly translatable]), and, of course, by Geschichte (history), and by some or many more words and concepts.
Have you ever been to Europe?
|
705) Arminius, 04.05.2015, 01:36, 02:21, 04:05, 14:07, 20:30, 22:49 (2961-2966)
Orb wrote:
Nobody, thus also no philosopher, can really be sure of the term end of history, because the definitions of history are unfortunately too many and too different. Therefore it is worth to talk about it philosophically in order to find something like an universal definition, but I think that exactly that is not possible. We do not know for sure how history and historicality can be exactly defined. Can they be defined by e.g. existence philosophy? Should we at first try to define what historical existence is? I did it - for example in this thread with the following post:
James S. Saint wrote:
Some of them may be too important, so that we need to rate them among evolution but not history; some of them may be too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among events but not history; but some of them may be neither too important nor too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among history.Arminius wrote:
Probably we have to wait before we judge. Maybe there will be a great war because of e.g. Israel. A great war definitely means history.
James S. Saint wrote:
It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is The Destroyer, the Left hand of God. They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: If you can kill it, you can control it.An when the Devil, who is worshiped by the Godwannabes, appears as Lucifer or as the Antichrist, then his motto (make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise) is especially dangerous. Right?
I think that the complete understandability of the universe, especially of its beginning and of its end, is more an issue of philosophy or/and theology than of physics or/and mathematics, because especially the question of the physical beginning and the physical end of the universe can merely be answered, if the framework conditions are defined and not merely calculated / computed. Mathematics allows too much, even the calculation of things humans can never completely understand by using other scientific disciplines than mathematics. I think the humans are not able to completely understand such things, although they are able to calculate / compute them.
James S. Saint:
I also can.James S. Saint wrote:
But that is not what I meant. I meant the whole story, especially the beginning and the end of the universe. I did not mean the ontological principles, because I said that it is an issue of philosophy or/and theology (for example your ontological principles), but I meant that "humans" are not able to understand the whole universe in the way they try it merely with physics and mathematics, because nobody of them understands the beginning and the end of the universe, and if one of them did, this one would also understand why the universe has a beginning and an end, thus this one would understand something which was before the beginning and after the end of the universe. Your RM:AO does also not refer to the time when the universe was made, if it was made, and how it began, if it did, and how it is going to end, if it is going to. And the answer that the universe has no beginning and end, can be logically explained, yes, but it is - nonetheless - not the last answer to the question whether e.g. there is something outside of the universe.
Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history..... You do not think that humans are created by God, do you? |
706) Arminius,
05.05.2015, 01:39,
02:22
(2967-2968)
|
2967 |
Arminius wrote:
»You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?« ** **
Of course they are, but that is irrelevant.
So you are talking about the end of significant cultural or social changes as being »the end of history«. And I still think that the advent of the internet (for example) is a significant change in culture and society and thus is an »historical« event (along with many others previously listed). And in the relatively near future, there is the reformation of the Americas and Europe. So I can't believe that social/cultural history has ended. **
Some people, no doubt, believe that globulization of homosapian ends history because they think that such is the final, never changing state. It is not the final state. The glob will breakup to form a new, unpredictable rearrangement of (hopefully) humanity (else machinery, but probably cyborg-ishness). **
2968 |
707) Arminius, 06.05.2015, 02:40, 03:12, 09:11, 09:31, 23:45 (2969-2973)
Great and Wise Trixie wrote:
Currently it seems to be more probable that the machines and some machinable humans but not the traditional humans will be those super soldiers you are talking about (**).
It is possible and probable that the concept dark matter, the concept dark energy, and other concepts are the tabooed admission that the current physicians do not understand the universe.
Artimas wrote:
But is not a well chosen word in your sentence, Artimas, because it does not change (for example: relativise or even falsify) the meaning of the statement that wisdom is more than knowledge, e.g. that wisdom is the use of knowledge in a wise direction. It takes knowledge to know how to use knowledge, yes, and if one uses the knowledge in a wise direction, then this one is wise, can be called a wise person or a person with wisdom.
Project 2501 wrote:
If ..., yes. Knowledge is not power but can mean power.Arminius wrote:
If knowledge is not always power, then one can hardly say that knowledge is power; so one should rather say that knowledge can mean power but is not power.It is very probable that those with the most knowledge do not have the most power, and it is also very probable that those with the most power do not have the most knowledge (in order to remain powerful they need merely an average knowledge and a few people with more than the average knowledge who depend on them). For example: each boss of a company does not always have more knowledge than the underlings of this boss; the situation, especially in the long run, that some underlings have more knowledge than their boss is more probable.
Please, do not misunderstand me, because I am not saying that that new tech (**) is not possible, but most of those news are nevertheless mere propaganda, and the machines will probably be superior to humans. Perhaps you will be able to buy you a human Aryan for your fun at home and a machine Aryan for your wars in the whole world. |
708) Arminius, 07.05.2015, 00:22, 00:32, 00:38 (2974-2976)
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, and I think it is mostly because of non-scientific lobbyism. There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science to an end. Another point is that scientists themselves get more an more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the brainwashing of the people by propaganda.
Here follow some more examples:- War is peace.
|
2976 |
709) Herr Schütze, 07.05.2015, 22:29, 23:26, 23:40, 23:43 (2977-2980)
@ Ditmar Lindner.
Außerdem gibt es die 20 Millionen vertriebenen Deutschen und deren
Gebiete, die ebenfalls nicht wiedervereinigt worden sind. Von Wiedervereinigung
kann also nicht die Rede sein, sondern allenfalls von Wiedervereinigungsverhinderung
(was ich übrigens auch schon in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren, also
noch vor der Deutschen Einheitsverhinderung von 1990, geahnt
habe).
|
2978 |
2979 |
2980 |
710) Arminius, 13.05.2015, 20:06, 20:11, 20:27, 20:44, 20:48, 20:57, 21:32, 21:47, 22:38 23:21 (2981-2990)
Project 2501 wrote:
Perhaps, yes. It depends on how you (want to) go on with your interesting thread.
Zoot Allures wrote:
It is sad enough that one has to explain this again and again. The brain is a part of the body, scintifically spoken: a part of biology, especially neurology. Brain is not mind, and both are not psyche. Brain is scientifically accessible, but psyche and mind are scientifically not accessible, because they are scientifically not objectifiable. So psychology is not a scientifical discipline. Psychology has no scientifical object. It can merely be a part of a theory.Nobody knows what psyche really is. That is the reason why it is used for everything. It is no thing (=> no-thing => nothing), and if no thing is used for everything, then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans, quacks, quacksalvers, and so on.
|
2984 |
And btw, light slows as it passes through an affectance/mass/gravity field. So if it is true that there is dark matter between the stars ("high density affectance" - "dense space"), the light passing through those regions would be retarded as though it was passing through a transparent substance, similar to passing through glass. And that effect might be one factor in calculating the actual distance to those stars.
And affectance also affects the degree of red-shifting involved in extreme distances. That effect is sufficient to make the universe appear to be expanding when it actually isn't.
In addition, such an effect might explain why some stars don't appear to be moving away while most others do.
The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that there was a big bang nor that the universe is expanding.! **
2985 |
2986 |
2987 |
2988 |
I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well defined. Psyche is no scientific object. ** **
2989 |
1) Do you really know what the sciientific object of physics is?
2) Do you know what psyche really is?
It is no thing (=> no-thing => nothing), and if no thing is used for everything, then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans, quacks, quacksalvers, and so on. ** **
2990
Yes, Arminius, but Nature is defined as such:
1. The phenomenon of the collective physical world and
2. The basic internAl
features of some thing, when seen as characteristics
of itHence, Nature is the phenomena and it's characteristics, as characteristics, they are perceived and channeled through the neural circuitry which interpret and organize them into laws. these phenomena and it's effects are no different from those aspects and effects of the so called psyche, which manifest in the feelings and thoughts of human beings. **
==>
|