581) Arminius, 03.10.2014, 18:40, 19:16, 19:38, 20:23   (2088-2093)

Back to the article which was praised by Only Humean:

Is artificial intelligence a threat?

Maybe we can go on with some questions about light, particular speed, bending the course, and other important questions.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM is about everyone actually becoming their own man (coherent, strong, and purposeful), but in a wise way.“ **

But SAM („Social Anentropic Molecule“) is not PAM („Personal Anentropic Molecule“).

Obe wrote:

„Arminius, hi, the degree of separation as of yet maybe does not adhere a systemic model requirement to emerge a necessary component, to avoid extreme differential between the human and the artificial intelligence. But perhaps there are some elementary systems in place, or in the works to prevent total dfferentiation. I don't know, but something tells me that it must be so. Forgive my late reply.“ **

Hi, Obe. What is it that tells you that it must be so?

582) Arminius, 04.10.2014, 01:23, 23:06, 01:23  (2092-2093)

So you do not deny the speed of light as a constant (299792458 m/s).

Infinitesimal pulses means affectance. But where do the small infinitesimal pulses which are picked up by the light come from? You are describing it as if the light were a particle (see here), although you also say that light is a wave and not or actually not a particle. So do you actually deny that the character or property of light can be both a wave and a particle? And you say that „a photon is a particlized wave“ (**), but you „would indicate that photons really are strictly particles“ (**). You can’t overcome the wave/particle dualism.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Infinitesimal pulses means affectance. But where do the small infinitesimal pulses which are picked up by the light come from?« ** **

From the space that the light pulse is traveling through. Space is never empty of such affectance.“ **

Here you can even see how much I am affected by the currently prevailing physics. Sorry, for I had forgotten that according to RM:AO space is never empty of affectance, especially of such affectance.

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»You are describing it as if the light were a particle (see here), although you also say that light is a wave and not or actually not a particle. So do you actually deny that the character or property of light can be both a wave and a particle? And you say that ›a photon is a particlized wave‹, but you ›would indicate that photons really are strictly particles‹. You can't overcome the wave/particle dualism.« ** **

Have I stated that a photon is strictly a particle somewhere?“ **

You haven't. Excuse me but I read „I“ instead of „it“, so I read „I would indicate that photons really are strictly particles“ instead of „it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles“ (here). Excuse me.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The issue is that a light pulse will be detected as though it was a particle whether it was or not because detectors have a threshold and as a light pulse bends its path, it largely maintains its energy level by picking up more affectance headed in the new direction. The total level of energy is largely maintained, but the inner constituency is exchanged.

Mass particles do that also, but they are stable when not moving. So there isn't much difference between a particle and a pulse. And a pulse does spread out over extreme distances whereas a particle will not. The photons detected from distance stars are not the pulses that departed from the stars as much as newly formed clumps made from all of the affectance waves that left the stars in the same general direction along with a great deal picked up along the way. Photons are not a one-for-one transaction between source and destination over very long distances. They combine portions such as to vary in intensity depending upon what the ran across on the way. They are a blob of affectance.“ **

How can we verify or prove what affectance really is and how can we falsify or disprove it?

Obe wrote:

„Actually, can not this duality be overcome by the concept of situational function, vis., that it acts like a wave under certain conditions, but appears as a particle in others?/ And thirdly it may not appear nor function, in others? (Where the gaps, as James desribes the pulsing ?)“ **

Not in that way because it is the way the currently hegemonic physicists prefer. It is not possible to overcome the wave/particle duality with the wave/particle duality.

583) Arminius, 07.10.2014, 00:08, 02:31, 03:00, 14:09, 17:27, 17:41, 17:59, 18:04  (2094-2101)

James S. Saint wrote:

„The only rational way to prove anything: Rational Metaphysics:
1) Definitional Logic (so that you know what you are actually proposing)
2) Scientific Falsification (so that you know there is no alternative) - THE PROBLEM IS THE ZEITGEIST, THE TIME, ESPECIALLY THE FUTURE.
3) Resolution Debating (so that you can verify that nothing has been overlooked) - DEBATING WITH WHOM?

1) Define the concepts involved: Fundamentals of Affectance Ontology
2) Emulate the concepts and see where they lead: Jack (the program) - SO THAT YOU KNOW THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (see above: 2)).
3) Debate the issue (online for example) to see if anything has been left out. - DEBATING WITH WHOM?

....“ **

It is not possible to know whether there will also be „no alternative“ in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely probability. The conclusion „gold, silver, iron ... etc. are metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier than water“ had been „true“ („no alternative“; see your point 2)) until the potassium was discovered.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»2) Scientific Falsification (so that you know there is no alternative) - THE PROBLEM IS THE ZEITGEIST, THE TIME, ESPECIALLY THE FUTURE.« ** **

I'm not sure what you mean by that.“ **

It refers to your point 2). Again the following example: The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than water“ had been „true“ until the potassium was discovered. It seems that conclusions can also „die“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Logic doesn't change through time, merely people's use or misuse of it.
If something is totally logically impossible, do you believe that there is a possibility that it will happen anyway?“ **

Logic as a such doesn't change, but some or many contents of it change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity. The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than waterr“ had been „true“ for a long time; but then it changed to „false“ because the potassium was discovered. Since the potassium was discovered the conclusion that „not all metals are heavier than water“ has been being „true“; probably it will be „true“ forever because probably the premise that „potassium is a metal“ will be „true“ forever. Please don't forget that this example refers to science, thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the logic as a such) which has caused the false conclusion.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh, I see. I'm sorry. I wasn't referring to SCIENTISTS and whatever they might say, but rather the scientific method of observing an occurrence that could logically only happen if the hypothesis was true because there is no alternative.“ **

Never mind.

James S. Saint wrote:

„You didn't answer my question. But I see that you are conflating what is said to be true by others with what is »actually true«, not merely what is speculated by others.

Remember:
Nullius in Verba.“ **

I answered that question not directly but indirectly, although it is not typical for me to answer questions indirectly.

2097

James S. Saint wrote:

„
Okay, so what is the »direct« answer?

If something is totally logically impossible, do you believe that there is any possibility that it will happen anyway?“ **

It's like the indirect answer but not so easy to find out.

What do you say? According to RM:AO „nothing is possible until something is impossible“. What is your answer to the question wether there is any possibility that something will happen although it is totally logically impossible?

Mutcer wrote:

„Can something exist outside of time?“ **

Do you know the difference between the real being (existence) and the ideal being (essence)? The real being is spatiotemporal, the ideal being (essence) lacks temporality. According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being (essence) is the true, the actual real being, while the so-called „real“ being is merely the appearance, the illusoriness.

If our definitions merely accepted spatiotemporality as the property of being, then being without temporality would not be possible by defintion. If our definitions accepted that temporality is not required for being, then we being without temporality would be possible by definition.

JSS wrote:

„By declared definition, Existence is that which has affect.“ **

What about the essence? Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don’t forget: According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual real being.

James S. Saint wrote:

„As long as no one plays with the definitions of the symbols involved, »1+1=2« will never change.“ **

Some physicists (seriously) say „1+1=1.9...~“ because of the „mass defect“ (cp. E=MC²).

Obe wrote:

„Here ref. to James thread on pattern recognition ....“ **

Which thread do you mean?

Obe wrote:

„Is this something akin tom what we were talking about?“ **

Tom?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Just making certain (verifying ).“ **

What's your point?

Obe wrote:

„Sorry, I've had trouble with my computer with editing. It should read »to«, instead of »tom«. I read James' blog on recognition, and i will try to find it in the archives, it's been a while.“ **

Thank you, Obe.

584) Arminius, 08.10.2014, 00:23, 00:35, 02:28, 13:11, 13:22, 13:26, 13:38, 14:02, 14:07, 15:02, 16:02, 16:49, 18:57, 19:34, 20:00, 20:05, 21:20, 21:39, 23:58   (2102-2120)

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What about the essence? Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don't forget: According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual real being.« ** **

»Essence« is the concept of a thing, and idealism, thus not physical. The concepts have their realm of existence and the physical has its realm of existence. We have been through this before.“ **

„We have been through this before“ probably means „no one else than you and I have been through this before“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›As long as no one plays with the definitions of the symbols involved, '1+1=2' will never change.‹ **

Some physicists (seriously) say ›1+1=1.9...~‹ because of the so-called ›mass defect‹ (cp. E=MC²).« ** **

That is an example of them playing with the definitions. It is untrue that 0.99999... = 1.0, but that doesn't stop them from believing it and stating it as true on Wiki.“ **

And that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people, so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I said, »totally impossible«, meaning that it can't happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might be able to construct something that you call a »square-circle«, but an actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist.“ **

The German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published in 1882) that p (pi) is a transcendental number, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients.

„In 1882, Lindemann published the result for which he is best known, the transcendence of p. .... Before the publication of Lindemann's proof, it was known that if p was transcendental, then it would be impossible to square the circle by compass and straightedge.“ **

p is irrational, even transcendental. The transformation of the same area of a circle in a square is impossible. This impossibility was given the designation „quadrature of the circle“ because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem is in principle unsolvable.

Maia wrote:

„Pagan matriarchal theocracy.

As a Pagan I find the following campaign quite interesting, though I don't necessarily agree with every single point. The basic proposal is that the state should be run by an order of priestesses. There's a democratic element too, but subject to veto by the priestesses, and a form of conscription for everyone under 25.

http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/“ **

The logical continuation, culmination, and completion of the so-called „revolutions“: „French revolution“, „Communism“, „Nationalsocialism“, and now the „Feminism“ as hell on earth.

In comparison to that which follows they always start harmlessly:

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzvlQ0hy7kg (Swedish Extreme Feminists Want To Exterminate All Men).
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_SgD5cORs (Soldiers Want To Kill All Men).
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSCPPkI-Ywo (KILL EM ALL!“Feminists” Call For 90% Male Population Reduction In Order To Achieve Global Utopia!).

All these „projects“ end in hell.

Copied post in another thread.

Artimas wrote:

„That is creepy man, and disgusting.“ **

Yes, of course. Do you want such a creepy and digusting „society“, such a creepy and digusting „humanity“, such a hell?

Artimas wrote:

„That video is real? Someone in the comments said it was an ad or something.. but it looks pretty real to me. No, I already know how to fix it, but people don't want to.“ **

That video is real. You are right.

I guess you don’t want more videos, man.

Obe wrote:

„Wolfgang Pauley used the principle to further connections to Jung's idea of synchronicity.“ **

I guess you mean Wolfgang Pauli.

Artimas wrote:

„Turtle wrote:

»Which do you want ... you cant have both .... The USA has sold its soul to the devil ... so to speak .... I don't believe in a soul or the devil ....« **

I want humanity, instead of machine.“ **

Machines will probably completely replace all human beings (**|**).

Turtle says „money or morals“, Artimas says „machines or humanity“; so perhaps we can put both statements together to: „machines and money versus morals and humanity“. When you read that, what do you notice?

Artimas wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»The bokascum.se video is a promo for a theater show.

Is it real feminism or satire?« **

That's what someone on the video said as well, that it was a promo.

Not sure, either way it's bad. Satire/irony are a form of insanity.“ **

That is no promo, no satire, no irony. Read Valerie Solanas’ or other „femninistic“ books or watch more „femninistic“ videos. „Femninism“ is the same terrible, horrible totalitarianism that we have been knowing for so long.

To say that were „promo“, or „satire“, or „irony“ is a bad, mad, evil rhetoric in order to define down and to play down the reality of that terrible, horrible „feminism“ (sexism as racism).

Artimas wrote:

„These are not jokes, there are serious issues that should be addressed as such. Regardless of if the video is satire, it's disgusting and disturbing to even think about. The very idea of it is inhumane.

Women are just as brutal as men. This is not a sex or nationality problem, this is a human problem. Labels for humans do nothing but cause more confusion. Language should be redefined, as well as it's usage.“ **

If we do not defend ourselves against that evil development their dreams will come true: all males will be killed.

Artimas wrote:

„All you have to do is release truth. Truth that they are extremists, delusional, insane and the like.

Truth is similar to a lion in trapped in a cage, you release the lion. The Lion will defend itself.“ **

I hope your avatar will awaken the threatened humans!

James S. Saint wrote:

„I touched on that many years ago in studying why Pi could not be represented in digital form. All irrational numbers and calculus are about converting a »natural unknown into an unnatural known« or »perfectly describing nature«. At that time, I considered creating a number system based on Pi such that the number »1« represented our current number »Pi«. All measurements would be in the form of Pi-units. And although there would be a few advantages of that, I didn't see it as resolving the more serious problems at hand.

I haven't verified that it is impossible to square a circle and these days, it would probably be a waste of time to try. But seeing where I am now, I suspect that I should have looked into the squaring of the circle issue more seriously long ago. These days, I am far, far past being tired of resolving issues that no one really cares about. If I proved that it really is possible to square the circle and posted that, nothing would change. Society is past the point of no return from its musings.

But if a particular number isn't exactly known, such as Pi, no portion or exponent of it can be known. And since the »squaring of the circle« requires a square with exactly the square root of Pi as its dimensions, to resolve the issue would probably mean resolving Pi perfectly, which cannot be done in digital form. Although perhaps some exponential of Pi can be digitally represented.“ **

Which can perhaps „be digitally represented“?

The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example „p“ [„Pi“] or „e" [„Euler's number“]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't understand the question. Which what?“ **

Exponential of Pi.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And giving the squaring of the circle a little thought this morning, I realize that I can describe both circles and squares in terms of angles. And if I can get a rational relationship between those angle measurements, I could "square the circle". But I haven't gone that far yet.“ **

You „could »square the circle«“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I said, »totally impossible«, meaning that it can't happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might be able to construct something that you call a »square-circle«, but an actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist.“ **

Artimas wrote:

„Humans have become machines, not just through creating them, but by suppression of feelings/emotions. Desensitization.“ **

Humans have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least 99% of them), but they have not become machines!

My response: ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't know what exponential. I said that perhaps there might be one. It would have to be a pretty complicated one, but I think that I might have found a better approach.

And realize that »squaring the circle« has nothing to do with a »square-circle«.

Just because someone, as brilliant as he was, said that something couldn't be done, it doesn't mean that it is impossible. But a »square-circle« is impossible by definition of »square« and »circle« - obviously impossible, although you could have a »squarish-circle« or a »circlish-square«.“ **

If you will „square the circle“ someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably change the definition of „circle“ and the definition of „square“.

But „someday never comes“, said John Fogerty:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ7Rnu8MVYo
(Creedence Clearwater Revival [John Fogerty, Tom Fogerty, Stu Cook, Doug Clifford], Someday Never Comes, 1972).

Impossible?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Mathematics has become merely mysticism for the masses, much like early Hinduism rituals - »seemingly profound«, thus alluring to the masses.“ **

But among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists.

585) Arminius, 11.10.2014, 16:19  (2121)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Infinitesimal pulses means affectance. But where do the small infinitesimal pulses which are picked up by the light come from?« ** **

The same is true of the other religions. Those doing the real thinking deep within the church are the honest ones, not those reporting to the public.“ **

Yes. Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the public are the worst.

586) Arminius, 12.10.2014, 17:08  (2122)

To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe.

587) Arminius, 15.10.2014, 22:50  (2123)

Obe wrote:

„Sorry, I've had trouble with my computer with editing. It should read »to«, instead of »tom«. I read James' blog on recognition, and i will try to find it in the archives, it's been a while.“ **

Have you found it in the archives, Obe?

588) Arminius, 16.10.2014, 23:52  (2124)

Zinnat wrote:

„There are very less chances that China would ever become a democracy. Neither Chinese establishments wants it nor those MNC's who have invested heavily there. Democracy will serve no purpose to either of those.“ **

Would you mind giving evidence, Zinnat?

589) Arminius, 17.10.2014, 00:00, 20:21   (2125-2126)

First of all we have to know (a) what „democracy“ really means, (b) whether there is a real democracy or not, and, if so, (ba) to which degree, and (bb) why. You think there is a real democracy in Europe and North America? In Europe the European Union dictates and is not elected by the European people. The national governments in Europe have nearly nothing to say because they are the diener (servants) of the European Union which serves the globalists. Merely 10% of the political decisions in Europe come from the national governments, thus 90% of the political decisions come from the government of the European Union, thus from the globalists. Do you call that „democracy“?

One can doubt that Freud was a good psychologist.

590) Arminius, 24.10.2014, 13:58, 18:08, 21:03, 22:06, 22:20, 23:19, 23:28, 23:46  (2127-2134)

During my holidays in Spain the barman always played this music:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMvR6WFlOHc
(Joaquín Sabina, Concierto Nos Sobran Los Motivos [Completo], 2000)

Then he changed to the music of his guests from Germany and the UK.

What do you think about that music?

Peter Sloterdijk wrote in his diary on the 11th of May 2009:

„Woran würde man das Ende der Geschichte erkennen? Vielleicht am Aufhören der Sorge.“
- Peter Sloterdijk, Zeilen und Tage, 2012, S. 197.
My translation:
„By what would one recognise the end of the history? Perhaps by the cessation of the care.“
- Peter Sloterdijk, Lines and Days, 2012, p. 197.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yeah, that is very true. When people have been so confounded by all of the manipulations, information, and disinformation overload, they stop caring about so called »grand issues« that demarcate a change in history. Once they don't care about such things, wars that would change the face of history are much more difficult to contrive. And due to that »perpetual war« is being strongly considered and will result in that same lack of caring and lack of any substantial change. But before that happens, I imagine they will have already rearranged the nations into the new order and established the Global Empire.

And welcome back.“ **

Thanks, James.

I hope I translated the German word „Sorge“ correctly because philosophically it is a bit difficult to translate: „Sorge“ means „care“, „concern“, „trouble“, „anxiety“, „worry“, „solicitude“, „sorrow“, ... and so on. The words „besorgen“ (verb), „versorgen“ (verb), „Vorsorge“ (noun), „umsorgen“ (verb), „fürsorgen“ (verb), „Fürsorge“ (noun), ... and many others are derived from the words „Sorge“ (noun) and „sorgen“ (verb), and this has not only a special meaning in the German language but also in the German philosophy - since Heidegger also in the worldwide philosophy.

So we have i.e. the nouns „care“, „concern“, „trouble“, „anxiety“, „worry“, „solicitude“, „sorrow“, „forhandedness“, „precaution“, „prevention“, „aid“, „ministration“, „providence“, „provision“, „welfare“, „relief“, „supplying“, ..., and many others and i.e. the verbs , „to (take) care“, „to prevent“, „to provide (for)“, „to look (ahead)“, „to attend (to)“, „to obtain“, „to procure“, „to secure“, „to find (something)“, „to fix (someone) up (with something)“, „to look (after)“, „to supply “, „to accomodate (someone with something)“, „to shepherd (soemone)“, ..., and many others. No one of that words really means to 100% what one of the words „Sorge“ (noun), „sorgen“ (verb), „besorgen“ (verb), „versorgen“ (verb), „Vorsorge“ (noun), „umsorgen“ (verb), „fürsorgen“ (verb), „Fürsorge“ (noun) means.

In the case above (**|**) the word „care“ fits the most, I think. But what do you think?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I am pretty sure that you got it right. And if he didn't really mean that, he should have.“ **

I am pretty sure too that I got it right. And I am also pretty sure that Sloterdijk really meant his words like I translated them.

It takes merely one minute from one photo to another, thanks Photoshop ....

Can you imagine that there is no gravitational and also no other attraction?

And what is your point?

==>