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 |
<= [471][472][473][474][475][476][477][478][479][480] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
471) Arminius, 28.05.2014, 00:15, 00:50, 01:46, 15:34, 18:27, 18:37, 19:00, 19:11, 20:04, 21:13, 21:45, 21:59, 22:07, 22:34 (1217-1230)
James S. Saint wrote:
It's not his arrow of time, because the concept of the arrow of time has been existing since the 1920's.James S. Saint wrote:
Interesting. Would you mind going into details?
The Never End.That is how your universe got here and how the other distant universes are forming. And as this universe dissipates from its initial explosion to become extremely thin in mass density, the whole process is already reoccurring elsewhere, fore the attraction effects never really stop - ever. Every new cluster of galaxies forms in its own vast segment of space from its own Big Bang. Infinity is a very, very large place.It is all an eternal dynamic process that never began and will never end. The larger infinite beginningless and endless universe view is that of clouds forming until rain drops fall upon the surface of an endless ocean that in turn generates more clouds. Each splash is another Big Bang and to us, an entire universe. - JSS (probably: James S. Saint).To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time? Can you imagine that there is a reverse of cause and effect, so that there is at first the effect and at last the cause?Somewhere in the universe there probably is such a reverse. The arrow of time is what we experience - perhaps wrongly experience -, and the arrow of time as the experienced asymmetric time violates the basic laws of physics. Whats wrong?1.) Our laws of physics.
|
1219 |
The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades. **
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 |
1220 |
Arminius wrote:
»To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time?« ** **
No.
I would have to think about it more, but I'm pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.
It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;
To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, »2+2« would equal »0« and »2-2« would equal »4«. And that wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that »A = !A«. And by making »A = !A«, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn't running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).
So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.
Thus, no, I don't believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn't logic to begin with). What we experience as the »real laws of physics« is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.
What is being called »The Arrow of Time« (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.
So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different). **
1221 |
Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.
And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality. **
1222 |
Kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it. **
1223 |
I've been to Africa. **
It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor. **
1224 |
As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation IS not yet the case. **
1225 |
People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations. **
1226 |
Arminius wrote:
»Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don't know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is really real or not.
We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept In-der-Welt-Sein (To-Be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings' Dasein, as an human existence in the world. (**).« ** **
Sounds like a good reason to get »our thoughts« in order, doesn't it?
If you get the thoughts straight (form a consistent, comprehensive, and relevant ontology), the proposed laws of logic, mathematics, and physics will be the accurate laws of logic, mathematics, and physics, right? But if you merely got the laws of physics right, how would you know if your thoughts are still eschewed? And the thoughts being eschewed leaves you with not even knowing whether the laws were right. You end up searching past what you were looking for.
Heidegger was a serious thinker (despite looking like a demonic psychiatrist). I'll give him that credit along with many of that era, but with a little perspective, you have to realize that they were »breaking ground« and not entirely coherent yet in their thoughts. The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve and is actually a bit irrelevant other than removing potential confusion concerning what is really going on. Once one gets his thoughts straight on what the conscious mind is and fundamentally how it works, it becomes sort of an »Oh okay, no big deal«. The fantasies of days past fade into memories of youthful, misguided musings, (»womanly«).
For example, Einstein described time as »how fast one clock turns relative to another«. That is more or less right but can be a little misleading. Time doesn't really have anything to do with what clocks do or don't do. He could have said that »time is the measure of relative change«. That is a more fundamental and universal truth. But no doubt, the question was relatively new to him and his response was understandable and not really wrong, just not totally precise - yet.
It seems that the world wants to stop all thought at the »enlightenment era« as though all truth to be found was found and is irrefutable, »YOU can't know anything THEY didn't already know!!«. Well sorry, but »Homey don't play that game«. They were in an »Enlighten-ing Era« but never really woke up before wandering off into dreams and fantasies of world conquest and are now dreaming of their glory - "day-dreaming" as the evening fades to night.
Get the thoughts straight (a proper ontology) and everything gets straight (and pretty quickly).
1227 |
1228 |
Arminius wrote:
»Lev Muishkin wrote:
As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation 'IS' not yet the case. **
Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.« ** **
Take the trouble to what the links i posted.
If you prefer to stay in ignorance and just respond with your childish prejudices then keep your eyes shut. **
1229 |
1230 |
472) Arminius, 29.05.2014, 00:20, 01:08, 01:19, 02:10, 02:56, 16:35, 17:02, 17:12, 17:30, 18:25, 18:25, 18:54, 22:01, 22:28, 23:52 (1231-1245)
I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems. Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem with his Existenz(ial)-Ontologie (existenc[e]ial ontology), also called Fundamentalontologie (fundamental ontology), especially with his concept In-der-Welt-Sein (To-Be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings' Dasein, as a human existence in the world. (**). I really don't know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably it is not possible to resolve that problem.
Arminius wrote:
So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt - they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.) techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by machines.
According to Ernst Nolte science is a historical existential. So, if there will be no history, than there will be also no more science, but that does not mean, that there will also be no more wisdom, but that means, that there will be merely less wisdom. Less wisdom! Bad times.
Tyler Durden wrote:
If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end
of human evolution:
|
1235 |
All examples you used being very probable. **
Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It's an inevitability.
However out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.
A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation. **
1236 |
1237 |
All I know is that whatever happens I look forward to the day when the establishment collapses completely and seeing once kings become the new vagabonds.
If there is anything I enjoy it is seeing the once mighty being brought down low underfoot.
I like watching people from high places fall. **
1238 |
This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminius to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.
One thing though, if mankind can resemble analogous silly derivatives , and if this forum may be supposed to be representative of mankind's overall thinking about the role mechanization will play in the future,(after all this is a philosophy forum), then surely Sal type machines can not be afforded the role of taking over man's job of cognitive assignment, since it will shift immediately into dissonance, disarray, with Sal taking over and making humans into subservient slaves. Sal would think, these silly creatures are delusional in thinking they can run any kind of show here, they are fooling themselves. Therefore, very, very smart machines, should not be designed to trump man, man would surely become another endangered species. End of story. I am staying the course, in the indeterminate, column #3. Thank You. **
1239 |
I certainly hope so. I'd worship a machine that worked on taking out humanity; it'd be more worthy of praise than any God than created life. **
1240 |
1241 |
Arminius wrote:
»How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the truth?
What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself really exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it really exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?
Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung [The World as Will and Representation], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?« ** **
Well, I'm glad that you explained that, because I would not have guessed that to be a serious »problem« for you. **
But I would have guessed that you believe in an objective reality; a reality distinct from whatever you might think of it. Is that right? **
1242 |
In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.
But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything. **
It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious? **
It ... can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious. **
1243 |
1244 |
Here's the video:
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEwCB7bGIw,
Http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xcov ... mbediframeHere's the page on Humanarchy:
This may put the Snowden narrative in a different light. **
1245 |
For exactly the same reason citizens should not be allowed to freely use hard drugs (Heroin, Opium, Cocaine,...), governments should not be allowed to use Technology.
And what happens when you try to take a drug away from a drug addict?
- The same thing that happens when you even hint at taking technology (especially surveillance) away from a government. **
473) Arminius, 30.05.2014, 00:15, 01:27, 02:16, 02:49, 16:04, 17:04, 17:33, 17:51, 18:08, 18:15, 19:20, 21:50, 22:06, 23:00, 23:40 (1246-1260)
How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?
The trend is the Brazilization of the World, and the machines contribute much!And when the Brazilization of the World will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).Guess what the goal is.And the machines contribute much.
Maia wrote:
A serious question: Is that really pagan or just feministic, thus: politically correct?Maia wrote:
Make what we will?
James S. Saint wrote:
Linguistically said: You use the distinction between the words awareness and consciousness in order to get a physical awareness and a cognitive awareness, thus consciousness. You use the linguistical distinction between the words awareness and consciousness because there is a distinction between living beings and lifeless things too. And your result is: animate and inanimate objects behave likewise.James S. Saint wrote:
And what is life, exactly?James S. Saint wrote:
Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.
Dan wrote:
Yes, of course, and therefore my questions (for example here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here), but they dare not to answer. Are they cowards? If yes, then they are no heathens, right?
In polytheism the gods are not perfect because they have to be like humans, and humans are not perfect. In polytheism the gods have just the purpose to be the projection surface of the humans, and therefor they must be imperfect.It is a kind of arrogance or even megalomania to say that merely the non-monotheistic religions are heathen religions. Nonetheless: Heathen religions can also be arrogant or megalomaniac and say that all non-heathen religions are inferior.B.t.w.: Monotheism should be called henotheism because the other God is known and thereby accepted by each of the monotheisms.
James S. Saint wrote:
One or the human beings should solve the subject/object dualism, but one or they probably can not. One or they would have been able to overcome the subject/object dualism, if one or they had solved it before. That problem is not merely a philosophical one, but before it can be overcome in social or other ways it has to be solved in a philosophical way. Who of the philosophers is able to solve the subject/object dualism?Here is the one, and there are the others, the world.James S. Saint wrote:
Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?
James S. Saint wrote:
You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don't know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.
Tyler Durden wrote:
This beautiful question reminds me of this question:Tyler Durden wrote:
And here comes my answer:
|
Examples | Finland | Germany | USA | Brazil | WORLD | |
Richest 20% * | about 35% | about 40% | about 47% | about 65% | about 85% | |
Rest (80%) | about 65% | about 60% | about 53% | about 35% | about 15% |
The trend is the Brazilization of the World, and the machines contribute much!
And when the Brazilization of the World will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).
Guess what the goal is.
And the machines contribute much.« ** **
According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years. **
1255 |
40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones. **
1256 |
1257 |
For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic. ** **
1258
1259 |
Arminius wrote:
»For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists hae always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.« (**|**) ** **
1260 |
474) Arminius, 31.05.2014, 00:05, 00:18, 01:33, 01:51, 14:58, 15:14, 15:20, 15:48, 17:29, 22:49, 23:57, 23:58 (1261-1272)
James S. Saint:
Can you?
James S. Saint wrote:
If there is less risk, then there is also less risk for wars, so that the number of wars rises. And you know: the victims of wars are human beings - as always.
James S. Saint wrote:
It would require a very specific governing type, a mix of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism - »Anentropic Molecularisation«.James, I recommended you to
open a thread: AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY. **
** |
1264 |
1265 |
Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life. **
1266 |
Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know. **
Those who don't find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up. Some people just don't care enough to find out. No one is more blind that he who wills to not see. **
1267 |
1268 |
1269 |
Arminius wrote:
»Tyler Durden wrote:
What's progress? **
This beautiful question reminds me of this question:
Tyler Durden wrote:
To answer this question of what progressivism is one must first define what progress is. **
And here comes my answer:
»Arminius wrote:
'Progress' is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is 'progressivism'. (**|**) ** **
With that post we are in firm agreement. **
1270 |
And just as entropy is not universal in that it can be and often is defeated (by every subatomic particle), the Second »Law« of Thermodynamics isn't a universal »Law«, merely a tendency and most common occurrence.
Photon = an amount of radiant electromagnetic radiation.
Photon Path = the sequence of spatial locations through time of a photon.
Affectance Gradient = a variation in affectance field density, »a gravity field«.
Infinite Mass = maximum density of changing affects, maximum affectance density (although never actually infinite).
Light Fall = the path of a photon as affected by an affectance gradient, gravity.The anime is an emulation of a photon's reaction to a gravity field immediately surrounding it associated with an immensely strong concentration of »mass« (location of high affectance density). Note that the light, the photon, does not maintain a straight path (as noted in astrophysics, »the lensing effect«). Note that the speed of the light is also affected such as to come to nearly a complete stop (would be a complete stop if the mass were truly infinite).
The direction and speed of light is not constant in a gravity field. And then because a gravity gradient cannot be reversed, the path traveled cannot be reversed. **
1271
1272 |
475) Arminius, 01.06.2014, 01:33, 01:52, 02:28, 03:14, 03:41, 16:28 (1273-1278)
So, should we close this thread? I mean: what you said in your last post is not new - I know -, but this thread should enable something like a discussion, but if the question, whether there is an asymetric time, allows only one answer, then we can close this thread, can't we?This is a philosophy forum, and philosophy - as well as mathematics - has no limits of thought, no thinking borders .... Probably I am as well a rational human being as you are, but I am not generally against the so-called irrationality because irrationality has often been changed into rationality since the beginning of thinking. Is the proposition that asymetric time is possible really absolutely irrational?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, James ..., but ... why not?I think a thread with the topic Universe and Time requires straightforwardly a maybe when it caomes to talk about the possibility of time symmetry or the negation of the time arrow and so on.Do you not think so?
A scientist can never say: I have finished my work. A scientist who says that is no scientist.This thread has many scientific dues, but also many philosophical dues. Therefore a maybe is not generally wrong or false, besides: the probability indicates this too.
James S. Saint wrote:
Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?
James S. Saint wrote:
So you are saying that scientists are slaves. Okay, maybe (ah: maybe again) you are right.But scientists want to find certainty - as well as capitalists want a monopoly -, but they can't find certainty because they are scientists, and only few of them find certainty, but when they have found it they are no longer scientists, but bought slaves. For comparision: only few capitalists catch a monopoly, but when they have caught it they are no longer capitalists, but communists, socialists, globalists - because they have no competition, rivalry anymore.
Hello, Bob.The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! Relating to what you said about the 1960s in Germany: We are of the opinion that also in the 1960's there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.When did you come to Germany, Bob? |
476) Arminius, 02.06.2014, 01:29, 02:59, 04:06, 04:15, 13:20, 13:59, 15:12, 21:16, 21:24, 22:02 (1279-1288)
I was born in the 1950s in a 99.99%-Catholic village, I went to school in the 1960s, when one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - in addition to three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany - his family was the only Lutheran family in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.
Moreno wrote:
Maybe, Moreno, but I don't know certainly. Secularization of Society, as you said, has many problems too, and I often think: more problems than societies without securalisation. Secularised societies put their huge problems in other societies, so secularised societies do not have to manage problems inside themselves and unlearn / forget to manage problems inside themselves because it is easier to source problems out. The religion of secularised societies is almost exclusively money, consuming, running in debts, and other decadent doings.
James S. Saint wrote:
80% - that is what I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) - and say.
Cheap quips about black people? (**). There is no cheap quip about black people in this thread. Stop insulting me!O_H!
Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself.Back to the thread:The topic of this thread is a QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). A QUESTION! A question doesn't have to be justified by a logical implication. I did it anyway because I wanted to give an example for one of the possibilities to answer that question. If one wants to disprove my this answer, then this one can not disprove the question. A question is just a question. If one wants to givae an example for another possibility to answer that question, then this one has to give evidence as well as I have to.My given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn't satisfiy the logical implication truth table. It doesn't matter, whether a logical implication is simple or not, elsewise all ancient philosophers, especially the excellent logician Aristoteles, could not be designated as philosophers. A counter argument to my argument has to be provided, for example this one: cheaper will not replace all else.The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940's they had the population of x and in the 1990's they had the population 10X - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920's Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more! That are no quips, but facts.When machines replace human beings there are three steps of human behaviour:1.) They behave as usual (according to their tradition), although machines
make already life more pleasant.
|
1284 |
1285 |
1286 |
What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is: We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. **
1287 |
1288 |
477) Arminius, 03.06.2014, 00:51, 02:11, 03:21, 03:56, 04:27 (1289-1293)
James S. Saint wrote:
James, you should send on or add to you or for you, because the current mainstream physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, an exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon isn't an object, but rather an amount.Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years (**) ?
James S. Saint wrote:
You mean photons as living beings?James S. Saint wrote:
It is true that the modern, especially the current physicists are religious or ideological, that they are crazy about particles, especially exchange particles because they are materialists? I would prefer if they were more crazy about energy.James S. Saint wrote:
You know that I mean dissapear for ever, do you?James S. Saint wrote:
According to your theory.James S. Saint wrote:
Dark energy doesn't act as gravity, but as its contrary.James S. Saint wrote:
It seems so.
Excerpt from THE DENVER POST, 21st of May 2010:
No panic, that isn't the first sign of the end of the world, is it?No, they are very beloved. You will soon be fond of them.Hear them say (again and again):Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.
Tyler Durden wrote:
Indeed ..., one msitakke only: Stalin was a Georgian. Anyway: he made his career in Russia / Soviet Union, although he had failed in the male choir.So, yes, we should blame Stalin's male choir officer as well as Hitler's art teacher and dietician.B.t.w.: In his youth Mussolini wanted to become a girl, but his mother did not allow him to be a girl.So we should blame Mussolini's mother as well as Stalins's male choir officer and Hitler's art teacher and dietician.
Some words to the picture and the adaptation of humans and machines:The similarity between humans and machines is not random. Look at the picture (again):Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines. |
478) Arminius, 04.06.2014, 21:10, 23:18 (1294-1295)
Human beings build machines, machines produce things and other machines. The machines do that for human beings and instead of human beings and other living beings (for example: horses, oxen etc.). Those human beings who did the same before the machines began to do it did not want to be replaced as workers / wage earners, but as consumers they wanted to be replaced. And what happened? Replacement! The currently workers / wage earners do not want to be replaced, but as consumers they want to be replaced. And what happens? Replacement! This will not change until the completely replacement of human workers / wage earners by machines. So the probability is very high that all human beings will be completely replaced by machines. I have been estimating that that probability is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
|
1295 |
Tyler Durden wrote:
»Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.« **
Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. **
If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of 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«). ** **
479) Arminius, 05.06.2014, 00:01, 00:30, 01:58, 02:34, 04:08, 14:46, 14:55, 16:32, 16:55, 17:07, 17:40, 19:04, 22:10, 22:51, 23:48 (1296-1310)
James S. Saint wrote:
James, I did not say that photons will disappear, but that black holes will disappear:Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Is it acceptable if we say that polytheism is part of paganism? If so - and I say: yes, polytheism is part of paganism -, then we can also say that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism. Thereby the probability for the following declaration rises: yes, the heathendom will bring freedom back to us (**|**). But this heathendom would have to be very powerful, because the montheistic religions do not want the heathendom to be powerful.
|
1299 |
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube **
1300 |
Freud built his conclusion that religion is a neurosis. **
1301 |
Well, I agree that the end of history doesn't necessitate the end of Man, but I don't see how the end of Man couldn't also mean the end of history. **
1302 |
| 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! |
1303 |
I haven't read Herr Nolte's book but from what I've gleaned from the included quotes, haven't these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term End of History somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.
Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best! **
The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the »Enlightenment« (»Aufklärung) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.
Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became
a »starting signal« for many people, e.g.: | ||
| Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology, thus a reference to Hegel; | |
| Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the last men; | |
| Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture; | |
| Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe); | |
| Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel; | |
| Ernst Nolte with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche. |
There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).
My questions:
1.) Is the end of history merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised? 2.) Is the end of history not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised? 2.1) Has the end of history been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the Enlightenment (Aufklärung) ended? 2.2) Has the end of history been realised since 1989/'90, when the Cold War ended? 2.3) Will the end of history have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century? What do you think? ** **
1304
As a heathen, I think it would be odd for me to tell heathens how they should live, which a statement of how a heathen should live is a basic form of. Apart from the category issue - »as a non-dualist here's how people who are non-dualists should live« (or pick some other category beginning with non- and encompassing many different types of groups - it's more of an Abrahamic way of thinking, at least from this heathen's perspective. There are some heathen, clearly, who think they know how everyone should live. **
1305 |
1306 |
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter .... **
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human .... **
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human, perhaps less machine like .... **
1307 |
I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.
Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there. **
1308 |
Superb writer.
1309 |
Arminius wrote:
1.) Is the end of history merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised? 2.) Is the end of history not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised? 2.1) Has the end of history been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the Enlightenment (Aufklärung) ended? 2.2) Has the end of history been realised since 1989/'90, when the Cold War ended? 2.3) Will the end of history have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century? What do you think? ** **
Let's get practical. Regardless of all the brilliant intellectuals declaiming on the matter, there is no »end of history« if we have to keep on asking the question. The words »End of History« is fallacious if it only sums up the end of an epoch. It's like saying at the end of Götterdämmerung no one is left alive when it's only the Gods who have left the scene whilst humans are forced to continue. The way EOH is here applied amounts to nothing more than a paragraph within history as a whole. **
1310 |
I have read Spengler, yes. The issue here is the end of Western history and civilization .... **
480) Arminius, 06.06.2014, 01:00, 02:42, 03:41, 04:16, 04:18, 15:02, 15:18, 15:52, 20:05 (1311-1319)
Monad wrote:
No! And you can not give evidence. Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact. This fact can be proven, although merely by statistics, yes, but that doesn't matter because the statistics are an indicator, and an indicator is adequate enough for such trends. You need intelligence, if you want to resist against such a dictatorship we are talking about. Becoming smarter is not enough.Monad wrote:
Just the reverse is right. Human is a word, so that we can research it linguistically and then philosopjically. Philosophers who do not use language are the losers.Monad wrote:
The nature of intelligence (you have said that!), okay, then we can accept the IQ statistics as well.Phyllo wrote:
Yes, I have. But do you accept statistics and experiences as evidence?The Flynn effect has been falsified: too much statistics.
|
1313 |
Obe wrote:
»So i gather, Monad is in the indeterminate column?, as well?« **
What does »indeterminate« mean? **
1314 |
I think you meant to say »Without statistics no one can say...«. **
How long does it take to research »Human« linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, »What is the meaning of life?« The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human? **
1315 |
1316 |
You who have read so many books .... **
I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument...the perennial response to any opposing view. As for »evidence« if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn't YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution? **
As to »Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?« is an absolutely ludicrous question! **
I for one, don't find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again. **
It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans. **
I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be. **
1317 |
»Human« literally means »the hue of, or most basic element of Man«.
So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people. **
1318 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat, Barbarianhorde, Ivory Man, Moreno. | Obe, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe, Backspace Losophy, Monad. | |
Sum: | 5 | 11 | 9 |
1319 |
Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them. **
That's the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight. **
Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof. **
==>
|