01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [421][422][423][424][425][426][427][428][429][430] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
421) Arminius, 06.04.2014, 00:01, 00:19, 01:23, 02:48, 18:08, 18:22, 21:02 (869-875)
Here comes the text of Jethro Tull's Locomotive Breath and my interpretation according to my topic (=> original post [op]):The situation of the all-time-loser is pretty similar to the situation of the mass of the male human beings (never fear because I am not a feminist!), or even the entire human species, not only when we think of the economical crises, but also and especially of the technical or engineering crises which have been increasing rapidly since the beginning of modern times, especially the beginning of occidental modern times.
The all-time loser is not able to defeat the all-time winner forever, but he is able to defeat him temporarily. We are able and have to fight the entropy, elsewise we are dead.The development of technology/technique, the so called progress, is not stoppable, if there is no handle which means no better or even best way of human life, and which assumes a philosophy of life, a life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie). If we don't find again or recover the right handle in order to live, then there is no way to slow down, and we are lost.We don't have to believe in modern rulers who play God. We have to pay attention to our lives, to our families, therefore to our children, to the demographic development (the fertility rates shouldn't be too low, as currently in Europe, North America, in parts of Latin America, in parts of Aisa, and Australia, and shouldn't be too high, as currently in Africa, in parts of Asia, and in parts of Latin America). We don't have to believe in progress because there is no progress in comparison to our lives. Outside of our lives there is only the same development as every time. We have to believe in our lives (existences) without paying too much attention to things which are too far away from us.
James S. Saint wrote:
Thank you, James.It's just what I said before (at least 13 times!): ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **This boy can not understand what science, techniques/technology, economy, politics, etc., and last but not least philosophy mean. He is wrong. It's likely the reverse of what he's saying. - Antithesis, formerly known as Eyesinthedark (**).The show of this boy was over before its beginning.
James S. Saint wrote:
One could also say that such agencies and corporations (giant companies) are kinds of superorganisms (systems of organisation), they live because they are systems of variation, reproduction, and of interest in self-organisation and reproduction - like organic systems, assuming that they are sane and fit (competent). These superorganisms (systems of organisation) have more power (in every case), more intelligence (many organic systems and many anorganic systems work always together) etc., so they are x-times more survivable than organic systems. And I think that someday in the future these superorganisms (systems of organisation) will merely consist of anorganic systems (machines), thus no more organic systems.And if organic systems are not needed anymore, then ... (? ?) ....Therefore my thread (**|**).
James S. Saint wrote:
I know that, James, but it is just my favourite model - not more. Geometric forms are also used as models or patterns. Mathematics can make happy, but not as much as music because music is the best. Now mathematics and music are reminding me again of Pythagoras and some posts: ** ** ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
Can you tell us more about the anentropic molecularisation?James S. Saint wrote:
Interesting, James, very interesting because you are comparing or even parallelising or analogising social developments with physical developments - and that's what I often do as well. But then I read this words: The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system. (**) With these words you are going very far, aren't you. Too far? Because that seems indeed bizarre (**). You are saying: Life is an anentropic force in nature (**). I challenge you by saying: Life is an antientropic force in nature.
Bob wrote:
I absolutely agree.The so called sexual revolution is a means to an end. But does the end always justify the means? And what is the end (about) ? Well, this end is anarchy, chaos, war, civil war caused by too much humanised will to power (Wille zur Macht - Friedrich W. Nietzsche), by to much civilisation, especially by so called individualism, socialism, welfare, revolutions (incl. sexual revolutions, feminism, genderism, gayism, pederastyism, etc.), etc..Thats hell.
Helper wrote:
Well done, but my question refered to your pictures, namely: what do the points symbolise? Electrons? Galactic arms? ** **And by the way this pictures too:Help me, Helper!Thank you. |
422) Arminius, 07.04.2014, 00:03, 02:28, 03:09, 18:56, 23:13, 23:32 (876-881)
James S. Saint wrote:
I know all that facts very well.James S. Saint wrote:
It's just a logical consequence that they want a black hole to get formed (to be used as a weapon). We won't have to wonder, if it will happen. Do you know anything about CERN and the curious search of the Higgs-particle? Why was this CERN built in Switzerland, but paid by the EU, which means: paid by Germany (Switzerland is no member of the EU)?James S. Saint wrote:
Firstly there is a lingustic difference between the prefix a and the prefix anti because the meaning of the prefix a is similar to the maeaning of the adverb not, and the meaning of the prefix anti is similar to the adverb against. Secondly physicans don't say any word about anentropy because they really don't know enough about the beginning and about the end of the universe. Thirdly the word anentropy is given, thus it must make sense to use it in - for example - philosophical way, especially in a metaphysical way, as you do with your concept of anentropic harmony, but in this sense the meaning of entropy and antientropy as a physical concept remains outside of the metaphysical concept of anentropy. So in my sentence (see above **) the word antientropic is used as a physical concept.Every organic system (life) has to struggle for its life, thus for itself, by antagonising the entropy. The entropy is at last the winner anyway, but temporarily life defeats the entropy by the charge (expenditure) of energy, and this temporary fight against the entropy is what we call life. My argument follows more or less the concept of life which physicists have, but I don't argue always in this way. If I did, I were more religiously or ideologically than scientifically and philosophically orientated, but I am more scientifically and philosophically than religiously or ideologically orientated.Anentropy means not entropy, non-entropy, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the antagonist of entropy, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life.An interessing question is, whether a living being is able (capable, competent) enough to be completely anentropic. I negate because a living being isn't able to be completely entropic. If a living being were able to be completely entropic, it would be dead, and if a living being is dead, it is no living being anymore, its time is over. Life is not able to be completely organised (100% order) and also not able to be completely chaotic (100% chaos).
Helper wrote:
So the answer is: YES, the points represent electrons and galactic arms.Thank you, Helper.
Obe wrote:
Of course they may, I would merely use a different word. Instead of anentropic I say antientropic in order to clarify.What I tried to make clear is that the antagonist of entropy is not or can not be anentropy, but antientropy. My arguements were linguistical and physical ones, when I said: Life is an antientropic force in nature (**), and there is a linguistic difference between the prefix »a« and the prefix »anti« because the meaning of the prefix »a« is similar to the maeaning of the adverb »not«, and the meaning of the prefix »anti« is similar to the adverb »against« (**), and anentropy means »not entropy«, »non-entropy«, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the »antagonist of entropy«, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life. (**). It's always a question of definitions, of concepts, thus of linguistics, and physics with its methods can affirm (verify) or negate (falsify) this definitions, concepts, etc..The word antientropy and the word anentropy may often be used synonymically, but if so, we have a linguistcal problem, and with the utmost probability also a physical problem.I think, James and I use the same concept of the antagonist of entropy, but we use different words. And because we can merely speek by using speech (language) we have to do it linguistically. At times we have to make clear what is meant, if we want to undertand each other exactly and give or take as much as possible information.
James S. Saint wrote:
One says anti-entropisch or antientropisch (sch is as spoken as sh in English, and as a morpheme of adjective forms isch is like ic or ish in English). This word is not often used - both in German and in English.When I use X and Anti-X I may sometimes refer to Hegels Dialektik in which the Thesis and the Antithesis as the Thesis' antagonist lead to a Synthesis.In our case we perhaps have to find the Synthesis of entropy and antientropy. But I don't know whether the physicists agree to that.
|
880 |
Well, something else interesting. I just went through some of the mathematics of the all of this and discovered something disturbing.
The worship of wealth/power is exactly what WILL and must lead to the formation of a physical »Black Hole«. Machines are designed for the purpose of increasing global wealth/power. At a certain point, the ambient mass of wealth becomes so great that it spontaneously forms a new center of mass similar to the original (socially perceived as a rebellion). The combination of the two very quickly inspires the formation of a third which exponentially increases the formation of others. The machines and eugenics efforts get fed more and more the whole time, not merely replacing organic life, but becoming more and more efficient at ensuring maximum power concentration, absorbing energy. And there is no greater concentration of power than a black hole in the entire universe. The machine world is merely an interim state.
The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system. The God-wannabes WILL destroy not only all life on Earth, but the entire Solar system (as bizarre as that seems).
Life is an anentropic force in nature, intentionally gathering power. There is nothing else in the universe that gathers power such as to form a Black Hole other than mere probability of accidental mass aggregation, except life - organic life. **
Will machines enslave human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines? ** **
881 |
You will find that I have only small concern over what physicists agree on (in modern English a »physician« is a medical practitioner). **
423) Arminius, 08.04.2014, 01:15, 18:26, 22:30, 23:56 (882-885)
James S. Saint wrote:
No. Over 24! .... All jokes aside. We are using different words for the same concept. I was saying: When he has stopped growing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic. ** **James S. Saint wrote:
That is why I said before: When I use X and Anti-X I may sometimes refer to Hegels »Dialektik« in which the »Thesis« and the »Antithesis« as the Thesis' antagonist lead to a »Synthesis«. ** **In our case we perhaps have to find the Synthesis of entropy and antientropy. But I don't know whether the physicists agree to that.James S. Saint wrote:
That is what I also say.James S. Saint wrote:
Do you actually use the words anti-entropy and anti-entropic because I used them before, or do you use them anyway, usually when it comes to the topic anentropic harmony?
James S. Saint wrote:
So much the better that I have mentioned antientropy. Therefore I thank myself, but all the more I thank you for your respond.
Only Humean wrote:
That is known anyway. It is generally known that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.Besides:Please read the WHOLE text of my original post:
The fact that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things is given in my original post by the sentence, which reminds on that fact, thus defends the first premise (p) you mentioned, it defends the first premise (p) AND the second premise (q): We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings. (**|**|**). At first I wanted to write it clearly in the op, but than I thought, I don't have to because this here is an internet forum and not an university logic lecture.Only Humean wrote:
No, p is NOT false (cp. the most of the posts in this thread). And also at the moment p is not false. Read for example what James S. Saint wrote:
That's interesting, isn't it?But nevertheless: I'll do it. Only for Only Humean:
(p)
Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by
machines / machines replace human beings.Only Humean wrote:
NOT would, they DO!AGAIN: Because machines are cheaper and easier to control and easier to organise (machines do NOT rebel) and so on.Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.
Only Humean wrote:
Thats the question because thats the topic of my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). In that sentence one has to focus on the word completely or/and on the word all - both words are not used because of the tautology, but because of the fact that machines are able (a) to replace completely and (b) to replace all human beings.Only Humean wrote:
There
are more and especially more interesting reasons given. Maybe there's less value
in keeping humans alive or in designing humans who can do any more than function
in a way that machines appreciate. |
424) Arminius, 09.04.2014, 01:44, 03:54, 04:52, 09:32, 17:58, 20:14, 21:13 (886-892)
James S. Saint wrote:
Even when it comes to thinking about that what will be in 250 years, the stupid mass of people obeys the mainstream, although the risks and dangers of techniques (technologies), engineering, machines etc. have been becoming more and more obvious since about 225 years, or since about 125 years, at least since about 25 years. There have been being many critiques and disbelief about that since the end of the 18th century, and they have been increasing! But all these critiques and disbelief have also being managed, organised, controlled, especially since the last 2½ decades, since gobalisation (globalism) broke through.
Hobbes Choice wrote:
I think this is quite right. Nietzsche was as antithetical to Schopenhauer as Marx was to Hegel. Until Marx' death Marx had been a pupil of his teacher Hegel, and until Nietzsche's death Nietzsche had been a pupil of Schopenhauer. Interesting is the question who was or is synthetical to Hegel (Thesis) and Marx (Antithesis) and who was or is synthetical to Schopenhauer (Thesis) and Nietzsche (Antithesis).Put in the right name:Hegel (Thesis) + Marx (Antithesis) = . . . . . . . . . (Synthesis).Schopenhauer (Thesis) + Nietzsche (Antithesis) = . . . . . . . . . (Synthesis).Good luck!
James S. Saint wrote:
No, he said panpsychic (**), but I don't know, whether he meant pan-psychotic ....
Moreno wrote:
They will not know what they choose, decide, do, speak, think, but it will always look like as if .... So they will not really choose etc., but because they will also not know anything about choice etc., they will perhaps look like happy people, for example like die letzten Menschen (the last men) in Nietzsches Zarathustra: »Wir haben das Glück erfunden« - sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln. »We have invented the happiness« - say the last men, and blink.Isn't it justifiable or warrantable to fight against the forces which cause the last men?
James S. Saint wrote:
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p606pEEHsW0 -
That is absolutely horrible, a mix of Frankenstein, Last Men, Time Machine, Brave New World, 1984, and New World Order.And in the end of the film (=> 3:17 till end) there is a white baby shown. A white baby! Alive! A white baby who is alive! Sensational! Unbelievable!One has to become a cynic to bear the cynicism of the civilised barbarians.
Only Humean wrote:
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).
James S. Saint wrote:
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncXjBih6mcw -
If these people are really forever living people, then they will longer exist than the machines, assuming that they will sufficiently early leave this planet, but therefor they will need the machines or - until then - they will have become mechanical human beings (NOT human mechanical beings, BUT mechanical human beings), such as cyborgs, equipped with nano-chips, nanobots (powered by ...[put in the right name]...), and so on.The forever living people can not really be forever living people, if they can not except or eliminate any accident and so on.So I will have to ask again (**|**|**|**):Will
machines enslave human beings?
|
425) Arminius, 10.04.2014, 00:46, 20:51 (893-894)
Sauwelios wrote:
I think the question how to understand Nietzsche's Wille zur Macht (will to power, will to the might ) can mainly be answered by his personal and philosophical development, and - last but not least - by his language use, and his language was of course German. Nietzsche was a philologist, a poet, and of course a philosopher.By the way: the German word zur is a composition which includes two words: the prepostion zu (to) and the article der (the), in this case der is not masculine, but feminine because of dative singular. Thus der Wille zu( de)r Macht is the will to the might (power).Philosophically Nietzsche was a pupil of Schopenhauer, and this fact should not be confused, if it is said there were two or three or even four or five stages in Nietzsche's life:(1)
childhood and youth, |
894 |
The intelligence of the people; the managers, engineers, and employees, is being replaced by remote machine intelligence. **
The people become merely humanoid drones. **
The drones' main function is to be ready to fertilize a receptive queen. Drones in a hive do not usually mate with a virgin queen of the same hive because they drift from hive to hive. Mating generally takes place in or near drone congregation areas. It is poorly understood how these areas are selected, but they do exist. When a drone mates with his sister, the resultant queen will have a spotty brood pattern (numerous empty cells on a brood frame). This is due to the removal of diploid drone larvae by nurse bees (i.e., a fertilized egg with two identical sex genes will develop into a drone instead of a worker).
Mating occurs in flight, which accounts for the need of the drones for better vision, which is provided by their large eyes. Should a drone succeed in mating he soon dies because the penis and associated abdominal tissues are ripped from the drone's body after sexual intercourse.
Honey bee queen breeders may breed drones to be used for artificial insemination or open mating. A queen mating yard must have many drones to be successful.
In areas with severe winters, all drones are driven out of the hive in the autumn. A colony begins to rear drones in spring and drone population reaches its peak coinciding with the swarm season in late spring and early summer. The life expectancy of a drone is about 90 days.
Drones do not exhibit typical worker bee behaviours such as nectar and pollen gathering, nursing, or hive construction. While drones are unable to sting, if picked up they may swing their tails in an attempt to frighten the disturber[citation needed]. Although the drone is highly specialized to perform one function, mating and continuing the propagation of the hive, it is not completely without side benefit to the hive. All bees, when they sense the hive's temperature deviating from proper limits, either generate heat by shivering, or exhaust heat by moving air with their wings-behaviours which drones share with worker bees. In some species drones will buzz around intruders in an attempt to disorient them if the nest is disturbed.
Drones fly in abundance in the early afternoon and are known to congregate in drone congregation areas a good distance away from the hive. **
If you were an ant or bee, there would be nothing wrong with being programmed to perform a very specifically designed task. Drones serve a great purpose.
But drones are preprogrammed to be blind to anything that might inspire them to be anything different than their programming, thus they are not inventive. And you don't program drones to be particularly self-valuing. The willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the social order is great ... for the social order. **
The people dare not think for themselves. Yet they are not aware that they are not thinking for themselves. **
Destroy the species. That is the design intent. **
426) Arminius, 11.04.2014, 00:08, 04:46, 05:18, 05:43, 05:49, 21:30, 23:14, 23:43, 23:52 (895-903)
James S. Saint wrote:
So putting science in the hands of women (**) means: destroy the species. That is the design intent (**).
James S. Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Gib wrote:
Hello, Gib.Please do not confuse the word panpsychotic with the word panpsychism!Obe wrote:
Hello, Obe.Well done!@ GibDe Sade is not the only example for panpsychotic.
Gib wrote:
Pan-Scottish and panpschotic are a little bit related. Though I didn't mean panpschotic, but panpsychotic (read my post again, please!).Regards.
Gib wrote:
Although my first language is not English, I would say that the word mind means basically and thus mostly spirit / ghost (Geist is the German word for that), but psyche means basically and thus mostly soul (Seele is the German word for that). So pan-psychicmeans more universal soul than universal mind.But maybe the English language has cast off many Old-English words and especially their meanings, so that nowadays pan-psychic may be interpreted in that way, which you prefer, Gib. But I prefer the other interpretation.Next lesson: pan-psychotic!
End of night shift. I have to go to bed now. What's the time in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Gib?Regards.
James S. Saint wrote:
Pan = allumfassend
(all encompassing), überall verbreitet, weit
verbreitet (wide spreaded), whole, entire,
complete, full etc.. |
901 |
Language and thinking tend to affect each other. So is German Science what it is because of the language, or is the language the way it is because of the thinking? And did Science form the thinking or did the thinking form Science into the particular form that it took. It could have taken a different form and yielded the same results. **
Measuring is what made Science succeed and that could have been from any language as long as it included detailed math. **
It is hard for me to separate »psyche« from »mind«. And »soul« doesn't even come into the picture, for me. **
902 |
What's the time here? It's 8:05 AM. But I'll bet it's hours after you last posted, so that doesn't answer your question. I'd look at the timestamp on your post and tell you it was 5:49 AM when you posted, but judging by the timestamp on my own posts (5:25 AM for my most recent one) I can tell you that's inaccurate. From what I understand, ILP is a British website, so that's probably the timestamp of the server.
Where do you live anyway? **
903 |
I am Texan, English is my second language. **
427) Arminius, 12.04.2014, 02:51, 03:10, 04:12 (904-906)
Moreno wrote:
Therefore it is a plus, if the meanings of words are stretchable and refer to the language they hisorically belong to. Too many influences by foreign languages are probably advantaged when it comes to the so called "lingua franca", but in other cases they are more disadvantaged.Moreno wrote:
Yes. English has been more and more a lingua-franca-language since England became an empire. That was the price. The Englishmen lost parts of their language and language tradition and won or gained a lot of vocables from foreign languages. They lost culture and won civilisation, especially in an economical and political way. A lingua franca (Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Latin, Modern English) has always been very useful for international economy and of course other international affairs.Moreno wrote:
Thats right. But not only English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side, other Germanic languages as well. English is as well a Germanic language as the other Germanic languages, but these have less foreign influences than English has. And that's the point.If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc..
@ James S. SaintAt that time Ancient Hebrew had an advantage over the neighbouring languages, but when the Greek, who were the first ones with vowels, put the vowels into their alphabet, it was like a language revolution because the Greek language got not only a different quantity, but also and very especially a different quality. This different quality gave the Greek language a level, which never before had been reached.And after that the Greeks stopped the borrowing of lexemes from other languages and kept their language clean. Well done, Greeks.
When it comes to to strengthen a culture communication is not the most important thing of the language, but Information is the most important thing of the language, of science etc.. Communication is more (but not most) important when it comes to civilisation in order to get the information, which is neverthelless most important. Elsewise communication is talk, only talk. .... Talk, talk, talk ....Moreno wrote:
It did lose parts. Of course. Very much. Look into your dictionary! And I also said: it gained (cp. vocabulary). Though not the quantity, but the quality is important when it comes to culture. When it comes to civilisation - okay -, it seems to be the reverse -, but civilisation is not what a culture starts with. A culture starts as culture. That what we nowadays call civilisation is perhaps in later or even latest times of a culture more important. A civilisation is not a motor for a rising development, but for the organisation of a declining development, of the decadent times.Amongst others, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler argued in a very similar way as I do.
|
|
428) Arminius, 13.04.2014, 00:14, 00:36, 01:43, 03:50, 06:01, 06:29, 08:40, 09:12 (907-914)
Hello, Lesbethrose.I am not from Armenia. I am not Armenius, but Arminius.You confused the i with the e. E forgeve you.Lizbethrose wrote:
Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarily sound.Lizbethrose wrote:
According to this topic here my main argument refers not to a national language, although in the 19th and in the first third of the 20th century the German language was declared to be, regarded, recognised, accepted as the language of philosophy and science. But I don't actually want to insist of this fact, but I want to evidence that language has its own system, is a system by itself - similar to philosophy or mathematics for example -, and therefor I used some examples of national languages (Ancient Greek, German). If we accept such systems and accept that mind is not psyche, then we can also accept that someone doesn't necessarily have to be both mentally ill or sick and psychically ill or sick, but can be e.g. merely psychically ill or sick without being mentally ill or sick.Lizbethrose wrote:
This is an interesting question which should be answered without any reservation, without any taboos, which have been increasing so much ....Lizbethrose wrote:
And here is the first evidence for the taboos I mentioned. The neighbouring nations have always been very much more nationalistic than Germany. If you had used other words, then I would not say that here in some sense Nürnberg is judging. Anyway. History is not physics! Do you really know what caused WWI and WWII? I don't think so.Lizbethrose wrote:
And if not so?Lizbethrose wrote:
What one can say is that it was neither ONLY this nor ONLY that. That is why I try to answer the question of this topic here whether Nietzsche was a panpsychic or even a panpsychotic. I think, he had the ability or competence, especially the competence of language, to put his own life with all its pain into a poetry and philosophy (life-philosophy, Lebensphilosophie), and maybe also into myth, but he did it first with a healthy psyche and a healthy mind (Geist), then with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and a healthy mind, and at last with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and an ill / sick/ diseased mind. Thus: Not his psyche, but his mind was the last entity leading him to his collapse.
Fuse wrote:
Obe wrote:
Yes. Of course. I can guarantee you.Obe wrote:
Well said, Obe.
Gib wrote:
Excuse me, Gib, but this sentence attests to a naive belief. You really believe in a revolt of this kind of humans who - at least for the most part - don't know what's going on with them?
Gib wrote:
Until that time when it comes to replace all humans - and that's what we are talking about - they will have forgotten the meaning of being laid off and what or who always or usually causes starving, so they also will have forgotten the meaning of starving.Please ask for example the 20 years old humans in the slums of the big cities in North America abaout the meaning of being laid off. You will notice that the most of them don't know what you are asking, what you are talking about. The meaning of being laid off will be completely forgotten when all humans will not be needed anymore. You may estimate how long it will take.To make the humans believe that the meaning of starving is a different, probably the reverse one, is no difficult task. Please ask the humans in Africa about the causes and reasons for starving. You will notice that they don't really know anything about the causes and reasons for starving, but a lot of causes and reasons they are told by their dictators and his propaganda media. So it is only only a question of time when the meaning of starving will be forgotten or projected on »evil« other humans (who are responsible e.g. for global warming etc., thus for starving). In other words: Humans will not really know who or what is really responsible for their starving, who or what has really caused their starving. So when they don't really know that, against whom shall they rebel? I tell you: They will rebel against them who rebelled before them. And in addition: Have you ever seen humans who are rebelling while they are starving?
Gib wrote:
NO. It is NOT how the french revolution started.Gib wrote:
NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP (Original Post **) because you are always only talking about political and social issues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about.
You are talking about revolution, revolt rebellion, out of work, workforce, working class, starve. You are changing my OP (Original Post **) in a primarily political DP (Different Post). You think of revolution, and socialism, or communism, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers.
You don't know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP (Original Post **) refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). That's the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what's the OP is all about.
Primarily it is a technical, economical, and last - but not least - a philosophical question. it has very much to do with rationality, not so very much with wishes / desires. Secondarily it is also a politcal and social question. Of course. But both questions do not refer very much to the past and to presence, but very much to the future.One should not confuse the meaning and importance of the first question with the the meaning and importance of the second question.
Gib wrote:
I HAVE WRITTEN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD (**) ! I HAVE WRITTEN THE OP (Original Post **) !Please follow the link above, and you will at first read a question. A question! And although I am asking this question, I have hopefully the right to say something different, something which differs from the question and tens to an answer.And why do I have to detail for me a timeline of events ... (etc. pp.), and you don't have to explain anything, although your statements are full of errors and lead - with the utmost probability - to conclusions which are false and not good for you and your descendants? Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don't rebel, the current machines are already able to learn and also in some cases already part of human bodies, machines will capture the human bodies and probably - I don't know exactly, therefor the question in the title of the thread and in the OP - take over. I don't have to go in details because you can raed them in my posts of this thread. So please read my posts of this thread, If you are really intersted in my arguments and their evidence.But what about you? You don't have to detail and so on? Are you God?Your arguments can hardly convince. So please explain them and detail a timeline of events.Try to convince the people who don't believe in social revolutions, in socialism, communism, and other totalitarianisms!
Zinnat wrote:
Sorry, but I am not very much convinced. |
429) Arminius, 14.04.2014, 04:47, 21:27 (915-916)
Hello, Gib.Gib wrote:
I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don't know him.Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, »revolutionising«?Gib wrote:
That's not a proof of revolution, it is more a proof of NO revolution.Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, revolutionising?Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - Gods?Gib wrote:
No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread (**), of the topic, and of the OP (Original Post **): Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **If you want to discuss the question »what would be better«, you have to answer firstly the question of the »what«, secondly the question of the »would«, and thirdly the question of the »better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....Which sense does it make,
when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...? |
916 |
Arminius wrote:
»Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, revolutionising?« **
Yes, the French Revolution. **
Arminius wrote:
»Where did, do, or w}ill do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?« **
Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you'd be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure. **
Arminius wrote:
»Gib wrote:
Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve ..., is that better?
No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
If you want to discuss the question "what would be better", you have to answer firstly the question of the "what", secondly the question of the "would", and thirdly the question of the "better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....
Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying better => would be => what instead of what => would be => better?« **Which sense are you making? **
Arminius wrote:
»Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!« **
Is answering your question now a problem? **
Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don't want to read through all that. Can't you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are? **
Arminius wrote:
»The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**]) with yes is not 100%, but it is high.« **
So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right? **
Arminius wrote:
Gib wrote:
This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?). **
I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!« ** **
Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a »yes«/»no« answer. **
I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
430) Arminius, 15.04.2014, 00:00, 01:39, 04:22, 05:18, 17:09 (917-921)
Moreno wrote:
1)
Grammar refers not only to linguistic systems, but also to mathematical systems,
and to semiotic systems. |
918 |
@ Gib.
Revolution ONLY takes place when the people perceive that their government is the cause of their discomfort and that discomfort is extreme. Currently the USA has about 1/6 of its population »laid off« (47 million). The USA spends a great deal ensuring that they do not also »starve« by spending money that it doesn't have while also spending billions on high tech enhancement projects (all aimed at mechanizing police and military) and »foreign aid«.
As long as the people cannot clearly see (or think that they can see) that drastic measures from them personally are their only option, they will not rebel. The USA knows that. And for that reason, a great deal is spent upon ensuring that the mainstream media presents a good »normalcy bias« scene at all times. Anything resembling any kind of uprising is merely a »lone wolf« episode.
The money is being spent in two ways: removing the perception of immediate threat and preparing for marshal law.
The USA is already a true police state. They have already manufactured millions of »Marshal Law« signs. They are practicing military action against the citizens within the cities. They have already deployed army vehicles and weaponry to the major cities. They have already built the stalags in all of the states, complete with body disposal equipment. They have already armed 800,000 Homeland Security employees to the teeth. They don't expect the feigned perception of normalcy to last forever as they force Americans into conspicuous slavery and begin wiping them out (the Vanishing project, already underway). And the feminism is merely a part of all of that - »replace the males first«.
The intent is to maintain the structure and just get rid of the people. The original idea was to replace the people with their own people and that hasn't been abandoned, but they don't have that many "good people" and thus require far more manual laborers, robots.
They really ARE slowly boiling the frog and because they are getting away with it, they are not going to stop.
What they are not expecting is simply the complexity of an intelligence far superior to their own. They are unwittingly creating their own god (different than the one they intended). To think that they can control it is to think that a bunch of monkeys could control a homosapian. How long do you think that would last?
The rebellion isn't going to happen because they understand how to prevent it and they are doing that. If they go ahead and say "to hell with it", it would probably last about 3 days. But then there would be another programmed uprising requiring guess what - androids to help stop the rebellion in America.
They ARE getting away with it so they are not going to stop. And YOU are an example of it. WW1&2 were examples of how to murder and conquer and get away with it - »the perfect crime« and explained in the Torah. **
Gib wrote:
»If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.« **
Arminius wrote:
»If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings decide always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.« ** **
Gib wrote:
»So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?.« **
Arminius wrote:
»You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don't want to.« ** **
919 |
The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness. **
And concerning to my question in the original post (op), to my question or statement of surviving in my next-to-last post (**), and the questions in my last post (**), that is also assuming that there will be no human errors (for example: creating machines-with-self-will), no wars, no accidents and so on. ** **
We tend to confuse complexity with learning. **
Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.
It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything. **
To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. **
We cannot enable them to will. **
They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them. **
with love,
sanjay **
920 |
Do you read any history at all? **
921 |
If language isn't sound, then what is it? **
Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarily sound. ** **
Who declared the German language to be the language of philosophy and science. You've given us no references. **
Do any eye-witness accounts say anything about his mental and/or physical condition at the time of his death--other than his sister. **
==>
|