<= [951][952][953][954][955][956][957][958][959][960] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
951) Arminius, 11.11.2016, 16:35 (5708)
Kriswest wrote:
By saying that pain belongs to life and life ... tries to reduce or overcome pain I was referring to your statement that pain is needed for evolution (**). I mean: reducing or overcoming pain belongs to life as well as pain itself does. So reducing or overcoming pain belongs to culture as well as to evolution. It is similar to the fact that humans try to reduce and overcome natural environment.Compare:Arminius wrote:
If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit). ** **- New
Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
|
952) Arminius, 12.11.2016, 01:18 (5709)
Unfortunately, most humans are not interested or/and do not understand the technological development and its consequences. Most humans only begin with a little interest in technical things, if they can use it for themselves. |
953) Arminius, 13.11.2016, 01:35 (5710)
@ James S. Saint.Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Exactly. |
954) Arminius, 14.11.2016, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:01, 00:33, 00:50, 01:20, 04:21, 16:41, 17:15, 17:33, 19:37, 20:10, 23:57 (5711-5724)
Arminus wrote:
Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can argue in this way.Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones argue as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but also very rich people.
Copied post in another thread.
The problem is that being conscious is defined differently.I know, you define consciousness as remote recognition.
Man created machines in order to rationalize and did not consider that this could mean being replaced not only economically but also biologically.
The Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism).
A lioness (for example), although not capable of counting, ascertains the absence of one of the cubs.
The founder of the modern mathematical logic (=> logistic, symbolic logic ...) was Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925), the spiritual father of Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) and of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).
Do you (**) really think that there is such a difference between them?Remember:Arminus wrote:
Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege's Sinn und Bedeutung) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.
No. (1.) I would not go so far and speak of a split, and (2.) there was not only an English or, as you say, an Anglo empirism but also a German or, as you say, a Continental empirism. The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus (Logical Empirism).
Total power (**)?
Moralität ist Sittlichkeit.
|
5723 |
5724 |
955) Arminius, 15.11.2016, 05:22, 06:06, 06:31, 07:13, 07:28, 12:53, 13:55, 14:59 (5725-5732)
I did not say is found but can be found or is immediately findable, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.Arminius wrote:
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
Copied post in another thread.
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called point of view. This was the exact reason why I opened a thread dealing with a superconsciousness (**|**). Do you remember?
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
It seems that you are in the mood for your shenanigans.
Stop derailing this thread, Maniacal (**). Personal attacks are not needed here. And if you really want to be in the mood for your own shenanigans, then do it in another thread - not in my thread.
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
Are you a monarch?I am not wrong, and I did not say that you attacked me by using the word wrong or something like that (concerning the attack: see below). You have not been speaking to the context. Did you read the last posts before you posted? Obviously not. Did you read the opening post? Obviously not.It is obvious what it means when somebody posts something like this:Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
(Not you Arm, not in the mood for your shenanigans) .... **Shall we all always name all those who are not meant? Like this:A wrote:
If it is not meant in a rhetorical way, then in a stupid way or in both ways.I do not want to discuss this further. So please try to communicate civilly, as Only Humean often says, and by referring to the topic, or look for another thread.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. And do you know for certain who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immedeiately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.James S. Saint wrote:
It was meant in both senses, but more in the sense of beyond than in the sense of greater. Beyond is the more proper word in that case, because I was talking about the superconsciousness more metphysically than physically. So I admit that it was meant in a pretty much speculative way. My intention was to get some knowledge about it via a speculative thesis.
And if you want to rhetorically use these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.) |
956) Arminius, 16.11.2016, 07:59, 08:09, 22:00, 22:02, 23:22, 23:36, 23:59 (5733-5739)
Good question. I would say: The levels partly overlap. Parts of them can migrate due to the fact that parts of the brain are just neurologically connected with each other.
|
5735 |
5736 |
5737 |
5738 |
Phyllo wrote:
»The white male has three targets on his back - racist, sexist, homophobic. « **
White males are what Jews were to National Socialist Germany towards the current Marxists in power all over the globe.
When you look at the declining birthrates of Europeans everywhere one could say that is genocidal. I'm still waiting for a European holocaust of the future where 'white' people are targeted violently on a grand collective scale.
We need to round up all the 'evil' white people.... **
5739 |
957) Arminius, 17.11.2016, 17:50 (5740)
Are the democrats left out in the rain?If so, then they could learn something from the Pope. |
958) Arminius, 18.11.2016, 01:22, 02:15, 03:00, 03:11, 09:35, 09:59 (5741-5746)
Words like life and birth should not be used for the Sun.
|
5742 |
5743 |
5744 |
5745 |
There is more than just Eastern and Western thought. **
5746 |
Our origin is still unknown it seems, but Mars is still a possibility .... **
The general claim of Däniken over several published books, starting with Chariots of the Gods? in 1968, is that extraterrestrials or »ancient astronauts« visited Earth and influenced early human culture. Däniken writes about his belief that structures such as the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Moai of Easter Island and artifacts from that period represent higher technological knowledge than is presumed to have existed at the times they were manufactured. He also describes ancient artwork throughout the world as containing depictions of astronauts, air and space vehicles, extraterrestrials, and complex technology. Däniken explains the origins of religions as reactions to contact with an alien race, and offers interpretations of sections of the Old Testament of the Bible (See also Ark of the Covenant and The Spaceships of Ezekiel). **
959) Arminius, 19.11.2016, 01:02, 01:12, 09:25, 09:33, 09:54, 09:59, 15:05, 15:07, 15:09, 15:13, 15:16, 15:19, 15:36, 15:48 (5747-5760)
Maybe or maybe not.But: What is your point?
Why would they never oppose?
If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a Jew-who-officially-hates-Jews, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, ... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.The method is very easy: You jump with your thesis (e.g.: X is evil) into your synthesis (e.g.: if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the antithesis (e.g.: X is good) and telling the lie that the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role.
The question is also, whether such oppsoitions (although we would habve to discuss whether they are real oppsotions or not) occured intentionally or not.
Yes (**), and many historical examples have impressively shown this.
It is not possible to get rid of Hegel. Take, for example, his dialectic. The dialectic process is not unreal and not merely logical (theoretical) but also ontological (factual).For comparison (only): ** ** and ** **.
A decentralization is alraedy a synthesis between centralization (thesis) and anticentralizaition (antitheisis). Take a political example: The current Germany has a decentralized structure, whereas the current France has a centralized structure. Both have one national capital, which means centralization, and smaller capitals of Bundesländer or Départements, which means decentralization. The difference is that the power is more decentralized in Germany and more centralized in France. But no one of the both is anticentralized (thus: antithetical to centralization).
We do not know very much about the consciousness. But this does not mean that we should not talk about it. We know that many things do not belong to the consciousness and that the consciousness or something like it must exist.
Copied post.The group X depends always on its therapist or teacher or reeducator. It has no chance to become a good one, if its therapist or teacher or reeducator does not want that, because it can always be ointerpreted as being evil.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
You (**) are obsessed.If I really had disliked the result, then I would not have made the poll. I have expected that result, because I know that most ILP members (including you, of course) believe in nonsense. I do not care much whether I belong to a minority or to a majority.Your false gods and their religions are dead.
By the way:Stephen Hawking says humanity will likely be wiped out in a thousand years if it doesn't colonize the stars. ** **
Copied post in another thread. |
960) Arminius, 20.11.2016, 12:38, 12:40, 12:48, 13:04, 13:27, 13:42, 14:12, 14:43, 15:15 (5761-5769)
Venture wrote:
Yes, by far.Venture wrote:
Yes, that is right.Venture wrote:
Faustian, dynamic/energetic, more individual and analytic in a more scientific sense on the Western side, whereas more metaphysical in a more religious and moral way on the Eastern side, although we have to consider that the Eastern philosophy, if there is such, has at least five several cultural backgrounds: Sumerian, Egyptian, Arabian in the Near East, Indian and Chinese in the Far East.
Jerkey wrote:
Yes.
A computer-generated image representing space debris as seen from high Earth orbit (HEO). The two main debris fields are the ring of objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and the cloud of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO):
What are your sources (**) then?
Do? Do you (**) mean what they are built for? Or what?
From Earth?
Jerkey wrote:
You mean the leaders of the church until a certain time, namely until the time when the secular leaders had finally won their fight against the church. But think of other institutions of the church, especially the monasteries. The Occidental monasteries of the Early Middle Ages can be interpreted as the first universities (the real universities appeared later).
Celyne Kayser wrote:
I would say: 1% of the population will be welcome. **(By Richard Duncan do you mean the author of the Olduvai theory?)
We have the hardware of the cavemen and the software of the transhumans.So what shall we do? |
==>
|