1051) Alf, 21.09.2017, 00:00; Arminius, 21.09.2017, 01:02, 01:16, 01:02 (6458-6460)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Carleas wrote:

»Here's an idea: demographic changes in the proportion of humanity of various races is driven in large part by birth rates, which have fallen in the (mostly white) first world and remained high in the (mostly non-white) developing world. There is strong evidence from Europe and the US that birth rates for a given population fall as wealth rises. So if we want to equalize birth rates, and thus slow the current demographic trends, all we have to do is raise the average wealth among non-whites to the level of wealth among whites, by helping the developing world and reducing racial inequality domestically.

Turns out equality, redistribution, and social justice are the best ways to preserve whites (with the added benefit that once you get on board with those, the only group you really care about preserving is humanity).« **

Yeah right. Just MAKE EVERYONE RICH, then they will forget all about the propaganda to hate whites. Sounds like PK (Peter Kropotkin ist gemeint).“ **

Make everyone rich, yes. And how? By making everyone poor, yes.

Don’t forget to pay off your debts.

Arminius wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So mor lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.

« ** **

Since machines have become capable of serving and repairing machines, less humans are needed. And in future machines will probably even be capable of inventing machines, then no human will be needed. But will the humans have to be intelligent then (provided that they will still be there)?“ ** **

Commonsense wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and if they are successful, there will be nothing left.“ ** **

By this do you mean that machines, as nihilists, will destroy--amidst everything else--all human beings and the machines themselves as well?“ **

No and yes.

No, because humans have invented machines. So humans are the nihilists.
Yes, because machines are or will be the humans’ heirs. So machines are or will be the nihilists too. And as such they will at last destroy themslves as well, yes.

1052) Arminius, 22.09.2017, 01:00, 02:56, 03:16, 03:30; Alf, 22.09.2017, 04:02, Arminius, 22.09.2017, 16:37, 16:50, Alf, 22.09.2017, 21:05, 21:27, 22:53, 23:34 (6461-6471)

6461

Urwrong wrote:

„Logic is more important than language.“ **

It depends on what it refers to. If it refers to education in general, then the non-logical part of language can (but mostly does not) be more important than the logical part of language. The cohesion of the language (mostly called „text“) is always important.

Urwrong wrote:

„Semantics, arguing over definitions, doesn't affect the underlying logic.“ **

Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.

So if you want to know what, for example, a „circle“ is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word „circle“ and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.

And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.

The smaller a subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.

6462

Brando wrote:

„I think that certain Features like self-consciousness and Soul couldn't be implemented by a Computer. Insofar as we are grounded and rooted in the universe, this concepts Play a crucial role. So as a consequence, machines aren't able to be rooted in the universe, and this means that they are misguided as time went on. Günther saw this, and he thinks that with machine consciousness there is a way that man himself detects new sides of what it means to be human. This is coevolution of man and machine.“ **

I hope that the future will show us what Günther has foreseen and thought. I also think that humans have no other chance in the long run than the said human-machine-coevolution. But if you compare humans with animals, then you will find that humans are the most terrible predator on this planet, much more terrible than all predators together; and if you compare some humans with other humans, you will always find that some are much more terrible than others. Think of the unconditional will to power, the greed, the fate between wanting to be like an almighty God and having to be like an almost powerless animal, which means the incapability of being like God and of being like an animal. Humans are no gods and no animals, they are somewhat between them, and that is their fate.

6463

This universe seems to require life.

Brando wrote:

„Ethics of the anthropic principle.“ **

By the way: why ethics, Brando?

6465

Soul => Culture => Art and all other cultural forms of expression.

So:
Art comes from both culture and soul.
Culture and art as well as all other cultural forms of expression come from a soul.

There are different cultures.
So it is very likely that there are different souls too, or the soul is basically always the same (though, I don't believe this), but the way how souls experience their environment is different, and this different experiences lead to different ways of life, thus to different cultures and thus to different cultural forms of expression.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Bottom line: The fear of being judged a bad guy - the fear of other people: »Sure I will go along. Whatever you say because I am one of you good guys«.“ **

„Gutmensch“ - in English: „good (hu)man“, „do-gooder“, „goodie“, „bleeding heart“, „starry-eyed idealist“. Dictators want „optimists“, not realists, the conclusion of this false dichotomy is: „realists = pessimists“ (which is - of course - false). This people can be found everywhere, especially in Occidental countries. Many ILP members are also examples of such false optimists. They all are victims of the propaganda. And they all are perpetrators when it comes to the avoidance of using their own brains.

Do not forget those who are blackmailable because of their workplaces. They lose their jobs if they do not agree.

How many ILP members are paid ILP members?

Meno wrote:

„Literally, life doesent »make sense«; sense »makes« life.“ **

In German it is said „Leben hat Sinn“ („life has sense“), not „Leben macht Sinn“ („life makes sense“). Though meanwhile and unfortunately, the latter is also possible.

Meno wrote:

„Otherwise, have a nice vacation in Spain, and remember,
The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.“ **

Thank you.

* The Spain in the rain falls plainly in the main.

Okay.

I will tell this to the Spaniards.
_____________________________

By the way: From where did you get the information that I am going to go to Spain again (with rain in the main plain ... and so on)? From here (**)?

Zinnat wrote:

„There is a breed of frog found in Alaska which is called [u]woodfrog[/u]. Its botanical name is Rana sylvatica. We all know that frogs go into hibernation in winters. Woodfrog does the same but it goes far beyond normal hibernation.

.... The survival of the woodfrogs happens due to a very special chemical procedure. When ice touches the skin of a woodfrog, it starts increasing the sugar level into some cells, which goes as high as 13 times than the normal. This high level of concentration of sugar in some cells save those from freezing. in other words, one can say that these cells remain alive during hibernation.

So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?“ **

No.

Zinnat wrote:

„Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever? **

No.

„Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?“ **

That is different from what you have asked in your opening post.

Alf wrote:

„Zinnat wrote:

»What is death?« **

Death is »absence of life«.

Zinnat wrote:

»How we should define death?« **

The shortest definition is certainly »absence of life«.

Zinnat wrote:

»How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure?« **

1) Knowing that there is no heartbeat of this one.
2) Knowing that there is no brain activity of this one.
3) Knowing after observing this very probably dead one further over a certain time (at least three days).“ ** **

There is in fact „something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive“, but that doesn’t answer your three questions.
If the process of keeping a living being alive is very economical, very spare, then this doesn’t mean that this living being is dead.
Your example says something about how economically a body can work, but it doesn’t answer your three questions.

The metaphysical soul we are talking about here has nothing to do with theism.

This thread should not be about the question where the soul comes from; and if it came from nature, it would have a non-metaphysical origin, if it came from god/s, it would have a metaphysical origin, if it came from nature as god/s, it would have both a non-metaphysical and a metaphysical origin (see: pantheism).

But this thread is about the question where art comes from.

So let’s have a talk without mentioning the origin of the soul.

Or is that question that important to you?

Zinnat wrote:

„By the way, internet costs me merely 6 $ per month, which includes unlimited sms and calls per day and 1 GB of 4G internet data daily. But yes, some people living in any remote place in Africa may call it a luxury. And, that is precisely why i said that i do not consider myself a poor.

Realize that poverty has nothing much to do with the means of living or wealth one have. You would always run into trouble if you take that as a benchmark for deciding poverty because then everyone on this earth becomes poor in the comparison of Bill Gates or Jeff Bezros so do not make it a relative issue.

To me, one becomes poor only when one cannot do or achieve most of those things in spite of one's best efforts what he/she would be able to do if the necessary means were available to him.“ **

Poverty or poorness is nevertheless the opposite of wealth or richness.

If people in developed countries have to economically live like people in not-deceloped countries, they are much poorer than the poorest in not-deceloped countries.

Brando wrote:

„With Peirce I would suggest that it is a riddle to nature to be in a semiotic fashion. That perhaps mirrors a philosophy of freedom: In so far as nature constitutes itself as sign man is free. As signs realize a contingent signification they are bound in the constitution of language: The scope of signs provides facilities for semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations.“ **

Do you mean that man is as free as nature is a sign and that this is because signs are bound in language?

1053) Alf, 23.09.2017, 02:53, 02:54, 03:07, 22:12, 22:35, 23:00; Arminius, 23.09.2017, 23:57 (6472-6478)

Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?

It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?

Kathrina wrote:

„Also, music is therapy.“ ** **

It depends on what music it is, where and when it is played, how all those circumstances are ... and so on and so forth.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„This has probably already been covered, this USA decline, but folks barely take notice so I must hammer on it. Times are changing for the worse in the USA but most US citizens refuse to acknowledge the greater reality, the one beyond their bubble of safety, particularly that reality here in the states is as bad as it is. What will it take for US people to wake up?

Are the following 10 signs that the USA is heading towards becoming a 3rd world country true?

»

1. Rising unemployment and poverty:

Unemployment numbers, food stamps, and home foreclosures continue to reach new record highs. The ugly reality of those numbers was recently on display when 30,000 people showed up to apply for public housing in East Point, GA for 455 available vouchers. Fights broke out, people were fainting from the heat while in line, and riot police showed up to handle the angry poor.

2. Economic dependence:

The United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The current trend projects the United States to finish 2010 at 94% and 2011 at 98%. The 90% level has become the IMF’s make-or-break point for countries hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution for reducing that debt, and the IMF insists on austerity measures. Surpassing this debt threshold has also caused China’s lead credit rating agency to cut America’s credit rating.

3. Declining civil rights:

Everyday freedoms are often a casualty of a society in collapse. As the anger of the populace mounts in response to declining economic conditions and political corruption, the government counters by increasing draconian measures that restrict the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens.

America is becoming a country like China, which has one of the lowest scores according to Freedom House. In America, private discussions and movements are monitored, free speech is corralled, the freedom to assemble for protest is by government decree, and independent thought that questions the political system is increasingly looked upon with suspicion. A final indicator is when the government insists upon secrecy for its own actions, while new laws and systems are created to put the individual under nearly constant surveillance.

4. Increasing political corruption:

When political corruption becomes the accepted norm, as opposed to the exception, then there’s a good bet your country resembles the Third World. Congress and all major institutions face a growing crisis in confidence, where a record-low 11% of the population believe Congress is doing a good job. It now seems obvious to all observers that big corporations directly control the agenda in Washington — much like typically corrupt Third World countries.

5. Military patrolling the streets:The rise of a militarized police state is a hallmark of most Third World countries, particularly in times of rapid economic collapse. America’s declaration of the War on Terror has created a constant threat to National Security that has allowed for the military to be deployed on American soil. Building upon the War on Drugs, this has created a fusion between the military and local police, where military-grade weapons and tactics are being used against American citizens in a cascade of violent confrontations over non-violent offenses. Military checkpoints are moving farther inland, away from meaningful border control functions, and a full-blown military presence in American cities has been planned by the U.S. Army War College.

6. Failing infrastructure:

As 46 of 50 states are on the verge of bankruptcy, cities are going dark, asphalt roads are returning to the stone age, and nationwide budget cuts are leaving students without teachers, supplies, or a full-time education. These are common features one will see as they travel through the poorest of Third World countries.

7. Disappearing middle class:

During the last presidential debate season, they argued that a family income of $250K was solidly middle-class. Well, Census data shows less than 15% of families make over $100K, and only 1.5% of families make over $250K. The income gap between the rich and poor has increased at a staggering pace, while many more middle-class folks join the ranks of the poor every day. Cavernous income gaps may be what Third-World nations are best known for.8. Devalued currency:

The value of the Federal Reserve Note (U.S. dollar) has declined 96% since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The value of the dollar is based on its supply in circulation and, to a lesser extent, the demand for those dollars. For the last three years, the monetary base has spiked literally off the charts. It can be argued that the dollar has become America’s top export as the world’s reserve currency, and if the volatile dollar is scrapped, which the U.N. and IMF now suggest, then demand will plummet, killing the currency.

9. Controlling the media:

A government-influenced media that censors information is a key component of Third World countries. In some countries it is openly owned by the State. In America, privately-owned major media is not as balanced or as diverse as it seems; the concentration of ownership has led to censorship when national and corporate interests have sometimes overlapped. The persecution of high-profile investigative journalists such as WikiLeaks is set amid a backdrop of the proposed Internet censorship of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. The end of net neutrality creates a pay-to-play system that can lead to further corporate and government control of information and opinion. Cybersecurity initiatives are the final nail in the coffin, as the entire free flow of information can be vetted in a China-style system of “identity management.” On the street, the police state and media control have converged in the recent rise of arrests for those who videotape the police. This is a huge blow to First Amendment rights and the role of photojournalists who wish to document public police behavior.

10. Capital Controls:

Many nations have enforced capital controls as their economies collapse. It most recently happened in Argentina and Venezuela as they sought to keep the remaining wealth within their borders. The SEC already has adopted policies to allow money market funds to suspend withdrawals during a financial crisis, while the recent HIRE bill (HR 2487) puts restrictions on Americans moving capital to foreign countries. Some economists suggest that the national debt has gotten so high that the government must now force investment of private capital into U.S. Treasury debt.

Key economic indicators point to a situation potentially worse than the Great Depression.
The land of opportunity for so many is devolving into a system of government corruption, corporate looting, and military rule that threatens to sink the American Dream. The capital flight from America has left a dwindling middle class holding an empty bag. This style of underinvestment in the foundation of society is similar to what already has led to the exodus from the rural Midwest. Now, there are ominous signs of a silent exodus of young, intelligent professionals seeking opportunities to realize their dreams outside of America; they are becoming known as Generation Xpat. Lastly, many skilled immigrants have returned to their home countries to seek a better quality of life, which might be the scariest indicator of all.

« **

“ **

Yes, the ten signs are true.

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„I only mentioned the soul in passing because clarification was required. So have no desire to derail the thread by talking about something else.“ **

No problem.

But you are right, it would be a derailed thread, if we started talking about the origin of the soul. Also, such a topic would be too extensive for this thread.

Maybe one of us will soon open a thread with the topic: „Where does the soul come from?“.

Meno wrote:

„Literally, life doesent »make sense«; sense »makes« life.“ **

Is God the „sense“ you are speaking of?

Meno wrote:

„Maybe a higher power would be a better way to put it.“ **

Why? Are you afraid of the word „God“?

Alf wrote:

„Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?

It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?“ ** **

We already talked about that in this thread (**|**):

Arminius wrote:

„What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

   

....“ ** **

Song of the Luddites (by Lord Byron, 1816):

„As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,

So we, boys, we

Will die fighting, or live free,

And down with all kings but King Ludd!

When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,

We will fling the winding-sheet

O'er the despot at our feet,

And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.

Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,

Yet this is the dew

Which the tree shall renew

Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!“

1054) Arminius, 24.09.2017, 03:08; Alf, 24.09.2017, 10:28; Arminius, 24.09.2017, 10:35; Alf, 24.09.2017, 13:11, 13:48, 22:06, 22:30, 22:48, 23:42 (6479-6488)

Four steps:

1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs (objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2) and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2), on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.

Now, we want to know what a circle philosophically means. Right?
For this we do not need „high“ mathematics, because we do not know for sure whether mathematics is more right than philosophy or other disciplines. But we want to talk about it in a philosophical sense. Right?

If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).

The „higher“ Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion in another thread: „Is 1 = 0.999...~?“ (**). 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.

And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.

In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?

I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.

So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity (**|**)?

Meno wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Meno wrote:

›Literally, life doesent 'make sense'; sense 'makes' life.‹ **

Is God the ›sense‹ you are speaking of?« ** **

It's not that except that spelled backwards God is dog.“ **

What is the „sense“ you are speaking of then?

Meno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Meno wrote:

›Literally, life doesent 'make sense'; sense 'makes' life.“ **

In German it is said ›Leben hat Sinn‹ (›life has sense‹), not ›Leben macht Sinn‹ (›life makes sense‹). Though meanwhile and unfortunately, the latter is also possible.

Meno wrote:

„Otherwise, have a nice vacation in Spain, and remember,
The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.“ **

Thank you.

* The Spain in the rain falls plainly in the main.

Okay.

I will tell this to the Spaniards.
_____________________________

By the way: From where did you get the information that I am going to go to Spain again (with rain in the main plain ... and so on)? From here (**)?« ** **

Got it there blogs up in this forum in the communication with Zinnat.
The distinction in usage pertaining to meaning from 'life has sense' and 'life makes sense' is interesting, and revolves around two orbits. One 'in the sense' of sensibility-in the former, and two in the perceivable coherence of what Russell called 'sense data' for intelligibility.

There is a novel out there, which I haven't read, named 'Sense and Sensibility, I think by a woman by the name of Jane Austen, that may allude to the difference.

When You imply a regret for the use of the conjuctive 'makes' , instead of 'has', shows a German geneological tenet holding for praxis rather then process. That ,in turn implies the philosophical value underlying differance.

The plain in rain falls mainly in Spain? Naaaaaaaa.
Again have a good one.“ **

Thank you again.

Alf wrote:

„Meno wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Meno wrote:

'Literally, life doesent `make sense´; sense `makes´ life.' **

Is God the 'sense'you are speaking of?‹ ** **

It's not that except that spelled backwards God is dog.« **

What is the »sense« you are speaking of then?“ ** **

I think, he means „nature“ in a way of pantheism („nature <=> God“) by avoiding the word „God“.

Or he (**|**) is just joking.

Kathrina wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Many ILP members post no or a few posts, and a few ILP members post many posts.

Look:

5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19.80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.

That's interesting, isn’t it?

I’d like to know what you think about it.« ** **

Most of those who have posted a few posts use these few posts as »sock puppets«.“ ** **

Yes, certainly. Therefore my question: Should the memberships of those members who post no or merely a few posts be terminated? Till now there are 2 „yes“, 5 „no“, 2 „I don't care“ answers (**).

Extreme criminal and disgusting.

During the Victorian Era the people of the British empire were not allowed to speak about sex (except in the sense of reproduction), today the people of West Europe, North America and Australia - at least the white people - are not allowed to speak about politics (except in the sense of political correctness), but forced to speak about sex. In the case of sexuality they are now allowed to do whatever they want to, but in the case of politics it is just the other way around. So it’s no surprise that we have got more and more politicians who are sexually perverse, extreme criminal and disgusting - just like some ILP members (**).

So the „sense“ (**) which „»makes« life“ (**), as you said, is a „pathetic understanding of an unresolved state of being“ (**)? Or what?

The case of North Korea as the new case of Pearl Harbor?

By the way:

How many nuclear missiles does North Korea have?
How many nuclear missiles do the United States have?
How many wars has North Korea started until today?
How many wars have the United States started until today?

Is it really true that „Ghana has become a particularly popular destination“ (**)?

Your solution seems to be that „we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information“ (**|**) , and that „we must take another direction and slow down“ (**|**).

Arminius wrote:

„Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources, we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this »advantages« as »short advantages«, or as »pretended advantages«, or even as »disadvantages« because the prize is too high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.“ ** **

1055) Alf, 25.09.2017, 01:01, 02:32; Arminius, 25.09.2017, 18:02, 19:09, 19:58, 23:59 (6489-6494)

All your examples (**|**) don’t and can't show what I’ve meant. I’ve meant whether a thought can be illustrated in the way that all humans would do it each time in the same way (your example „thought“, for example, does not show this, because it can be interpreted in many, many other ways and from time to time very differently) and whether a picture can be thought by all humans each time in the same way (for example: a planet as a picture and Saturn as the thought always in the same way by all humans, but that is not the case either). What I mean is that we have the subject/object problem here again.

What do you, for example, think when you see my avatar?

How would you, for example, illustrate this thought?

Wendy Darling wrote:

„What is a workable program (**) for folks who haven't the income to sustain their living environment?“ **

All his proposed „solutions“ are as old as the industrial modernity itself. They don't work in the long run. Even Keynes & Co. knew this, but thought that debt was nonetheless the best „solution“. But it is an error too. It's something like communistic capitalism and similar to capitalistic communism: an unworkable program, at least in the long run.

He and the other „liberals“ don't know or don't want to admit that they can't provide a workable program for those cases you mentioned, which means in the long run that they can't provide a workable program for all.

And they always have excuses. This time it is „complexity“ (**), „... those who try to help are simply overwhelmed with the complexity and so much of their efforts are submarined by »issues« that they cannot control“ (**) ... and so on and so forth.

Do they know what a computer program is and what a computer modelling means?

Stellamonika wrote:

„These days, I think that the schools are intended to damage the intelligence of people.“ **

You are right.

Two points are important here:

(1) Schools as an institution of a state do what the government wants them to do.
(2) If the economic and - in particular (!) - the demographic situation is like the one we have in our western countries, then the average intelligence decreases and even a teacher who does not go along with the mainstream has to damage the intelligence, otherwise the colleagues will punish this teacher by mobbing and firing.

Stellamonika wrote:

„I have a fundamental question: does one need education in order to be an intellect?“ **

I would like to answer the question whether one needs education.

This answer depends on whether one means (A) the education as such or (B) the school education which is basically a state education.

(A) If the education as such is meant, then: yes, one needs education.
(B) If the school education which is basically a state education is meant, then: yes (Ba) and no (Bb).

(Ba) Yes because of those who are genetically less intelligent and can use the school education as a chance to become more intelligent.
(Bb) No because of a situation like the described one (=> 2).

6492

By the way, Stellamonika, may I ask you a question?

If yes: Are you really from Tiruchirappalli?

Tiruchirappalli is on the one side of the Kaveri River and the temple town Srirangam on the other. Both are certainly interesting places. I should visit them.

Alf wrote:

„Your solution seems to be that »we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information« (**|**) , and that »we must take another direction and slow down« (**|**).

Arminius wrote:

»Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources, we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?« * **

Arminius wrote:

»Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this ›advantages‹ as ›short advantages‹, or as ›pretended advantages‹, or even as ›disadvantages‹ because the prize is too high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.« ** **

“ ** **

This is true. If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„What is the definition of a responsible ruler?“ **

Somebody who really decides and acts as ruler responsiblly, according to Kant’s categorical imperative. A responsible ruler is never corrupt, is never greedy, is never a godwannabe. But most modern politicians are just what responsible rulers can never be, and the other few modern politicians have no chance to become rulers.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Modern politicians can't possibly be included in that definition after all the shenanigans that they've pulled, can they?“ **

Not really, only ideally.

Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility, and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Is this careening off topic?“ **

Only a bit.

(Maybe I have to save the topic of this thread. )

What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans?

1056) Arminius, 26.09.2017, 01:02, 02:00, 02:52, 04:04, 04:32; Alf, 26.09.2017, 23:59 (6495-6500)

Alf wrote:

„What do you, for example, think when you see my avatar?

How would you, for example, illustrate this thought?“ ** **

If I may answer:

I think of Alf and would illustrate that thought as follows:

Wendy Darling wrote

„A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans.  “ **

But would this ruler still be a responsible ruler then, if many people said „we want to be replaced by machines“?

Maybe or even likely, because many people do not know what is better for them and what not. So a responsible ruler must also be a wise one with foresight. He must know what is the best for the people now and in future, despite of the fact that many of them do not know this. But this could and probably would lead to the fact that the responsible ruler gets fired by the people, at least in democracies.

So this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that democracy may be not good for many people. Probably democracy (at least as we know it today) is not really or not merely meant for the demos, but for those irresponsible rulers who rule because of their money, because the money has made them powerful.

In any case, this circumstances are typical for modernity.

Howsoever, I agree that a responsible ruler „would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans“. Why? It is the only chance to save humans in that case, otherwise the ruler would not be a responsible ruler.

One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing:

McKinsey Report: „Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing“ (**):

At last, the percentage of the replaced humans will be 100% everywhere, if this development will not be stopped.

In the past, it was said that machines would not replace humans who serve, repair and invent machines. Now, most of these humans are already replaced by machines.

Otto West wrote:

„Did the Flavian Roman emporers invent Christianity and Jesus?

The theory is that with the collapse of the Roman empire economically, militarily, and by invasions of the northern Germanic tribes Rome was in a dire situation to hold onto power concerning the whole of western Europe where the only way it could hold onto its power was through religious cultural dominance thus Christianity was invented by the Flavian emporers later put into law by that of Constantine. The other reason was to subdue the Roman conquered province of Judea which the Romans were having a problem with the religious Jews failing to accustom themselves with and resisting Roman imperial law. A new religion had to be created to counteract and compete against Judaism but also aligning itself submissively to Roman rule where Christianity worked perfectly to that regard. Christianity worked so perfectly in pacifying the province of Judea that it was later decided to be adopted throughout the ancient Roman world itself at much cost of the indigenous pagan beliefs that became destroyed in the process.

Of course this wasn't the first time a religion was created for purely socio economic and political reasons as in another thread we discuss how the origins of Judaism is that of ancient Egyptian Atenism (**).

Now how hilarious is that? Christianity plagiarized Judaism which itself was a plagiarization of an Egyptian pharoah cult. All in all I would say that is pretty funny pondering the whole ridiculousness of it.

Who helped the Flavian emporers fabicrate the creation of Christianity? Why none other than Titus Josephus Flavius.

Whom better to fabricate the creation of Christianity itself than a descendant of an Atenist themselves, right? A bonified Adonai worshipper! Now why would a Jew help the Romans create christianity? I mean that sounds absurd, ridiculous, and absurd, right? That sounds counterproductive to Judaism, right? Well, consider all the in roads have been made into christian Europe as Jewish merchants. You have a new testament connected to the old testament of ours! We're brothers and sisters of the same god goyim! We do so well living amongst you!

Christianity has essentially pacified all Europeans (formerly pagans) so much under Christian civic humanism that perhaps Titus Josephus Flavius forseen all of that deciding to himself that it could only aid future Jewry in the end. (He of course was unfortunately right.) In the end the creation of Christianity under the Romans was just too good of an opportunity to be missed by Jewry itself and so a Jewish blessing was given in its aided creation.“ **

Interesting.

Because you do not know what a soul is (**): do you know what a psyche is?

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»What do you, for example, think when you see my avatar?

How would you, for example, illustrate this thought?« ** **

If I may answer:

I think of Alf and would illustrate that thought as follows:

 “ ** **

But that’s not what everyone thinks and would illustrate.

I, for example, think of my birth place when I see my avatar and my illustration of this thought would be the birth house, and that is not illustrated in my avatar.

My avatar shows pretty clearly the church and pretty dimly a few houses of the village where I was born, but not my birth house.

1057) Alf, 27.09.2017, 01:01, 01:01, 01:01, 01:02, 01:02; Arminius, 27.09.2017, 01:03, 01:04 (6501-6507)

Mannequin wrote:

„Us government used rock metal music on Arab terrorists as a torture method.“ **

Yes. Music is the best.

So the last conclusion is that the machines are going to replace us.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is it really true that ›Ghana has become a particularly popular destination‹ (**)?  « ** **

(Are you mocking my proof?  ) Not popular enough, but if what the article says is true, the door towards citizenship is open in Ghana.“ **

Also, Liberia 2.0 will perhaps be founded.

Alf wrote:

„Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a »product of immigration« and are »Africans«, at least according to the »Out of Africa« hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state »Liberia 2.0«.

“ ** **

Stellamonika wrote:

„Anything which cannot be destroyed will remain in this universe forever. In the school textbooks, I read "energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

But, vast majority of people say that nothing shall remain in this universe forever. Is it correct?“ **

I have two possibilities (souls):

1. Everything.
2. Energy.

But is that (**) a proof or evidence that life makes no sense (to you)?

Stellamonika wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»By the way, Stellamonika, may I ask you a question?

If yes: Are you really from Tiruchirappalli?

Tiruchirappalli is on the one side of the Kaveri River and the temple town Srirangam on the other. Both are certainly interesting places. I should visit them.« ** **

Yes, I am from Tiruchirappalli and I live Tiruchirappalli, Chinthamani. My name is not stellamonika. I just used it as screen name. You are most welcome to Tiruchirappalli. I invite you to be in Trichy. My real name is sivashanmugam. just dial +919444499818 before coming here. I will pick you up. Https://www.quora.com/profile/Tiruchira ... ashanmugam (**).“ **

Great. Thank you, Stellamonika. That is very kind of you.

In a few hours I am going to start spending my holidays in Spain (9/27-10/11). So, first of all, I have to wait till the next holidays (in the full sense of that word).

Wendy Darling wrote:

„So sweet.  “ **

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Send me a postcard Arminius.“ **

In that case, I need your postal address, Wendy Darling. You may send it to me via private message. Thank you.

Now, I am preparing for my current holidays in Spain. Do you want me to send you a postcard from Spain too?

Or is Spain too uncool?

I am preparing for my holidays.

Cheers.

1058) Arminius, 28.09.2017, 15:55 (6508)

Brando wrote:

„I think that life is what the whole is in a sense of immediacy. It must be integrated into a Mediation. Perhaps by Music, which sets categorial perception on controlled Change. In this way a certain Musical way/direction mirrors social Relations. And this does mediate life.“ **

Music could be the best.

Just for comparison (**|**).

1059) Arminius, 29.09.2017, 16:27 (6509)

Alf wrote:

„Stellamonika wrote:

»Anything which cannot be destroyed will remain in this universe forever. In the school textbooks, I read ›energy can neither be created nor be destroyed‹.

But, vast majority of people say that nothing shall remain in this universe forever. Is it correct?« **

I believe that there is only one possibility (soul): Everything.“ ** **

You mean that everything that was, is and will be is always the same and merely changes from matter to energy and from energy to matter and will remain forever?

1060) Arminius, 30.09.2017, 15:48 (6510)

Alf wrote:

„Wendy Darling wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Is it really true that 'Ghana has become a particularly popular destination' (**)?  ‹ ** **

(Are you mocking my proof?  ) Not popular enough, but if what the article says is true, the door towards citizenship is open in Ghana.« **

Also, Liberia 2.0 will perhaps be founded.“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a »product of immigration« and are »Africans«, at least according to the »Out of Africa« hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state »Liberia 2.0«.

“ ** **

Will Ghana be „Liberia 3.0“ then?

==>