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 |
<= [1101][1102][1103][1104][1105][1106][1107][1108][1109][1110] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6712 |
The argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence. **
6713 |
6714 |
6715 |
6716 |
Arminius wrote:
»Alf wrote:
Arminius wrote:
'One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).' ** **
And when will the third phase end? ** **
One could think: 2070. Right? What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.« ** **
If the average machine rate will remain high and the average fertility rate will remain low, but the average economic status will shrink, then it will become clear that machines are in the long run a bad thing. ** **
6717 |
6718 |
The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.
The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the communal particles. But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.
So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines! You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.
And if someone has an idea like James with his SAM / communal particle (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he is a friend of the bad socialists of the past (for example: Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot), although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.
Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.
The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.
** **
James S. Saint wrote:
»The end result is that across the world, any and every abstract question gets resolved and distributed across the world overnight. And as each resolve is understood by each corp., if the resolve is applicable to their group, it is immediately incorporated (although ideas are communistic, the use of them is strictly democratic).« **
The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: »You are not democratic. You are communistic or socialistic like Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others were.« And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.
James S. Saint wrote:
»Thus the greatest intelligence of Man, rather than the least common denominator, becomes the functioning authority within Man. Man as a whole quickly and suddenly becomes sane after some 10,000 years of blindness and foolishness.« **
Anyway, they say: That is communistic or socialistic, thus not democratic. (See above). They themselves are more communistic or socialistic than you, I know, but they have the power. ** **
6719 |
Arminius wrote:
»The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.« ** **
Very true.
If you're going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know.
**
|
6720 |
6721 |
6722 |
The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of todays jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site. ** (**)
6723 |
6724 |
6725 |
6726 |
6727 |
Alf wrote:
»I think that there are indeed similarities between philosophy and art in the sense of cultural forms, so that both can be in a good form and afterwards in a bad form.« ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Occidental philosophy compared to - for example - a tree, architectural art, clothes:
![]()
![]()
« ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Alf wrote:
Surreptitious 75 wrote:
'Alf wrote:
`Just an example:
Is that art?´ ** **
Art is simply how an artist perceives the world at any given time. The only limitation is imagination but beyond that nothing. So anything labelled as art is art regardless of anything else. And it comes from the mind or the soul [the non metaphysical type].' **
So the art object above »tells« us that a certain artist perceives the decline. ** **
Perceiving this (?):
« ** **
** **
6728 |
Alf wrote:
»Rodney Brooks wrote:
The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.
.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of todays jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.
.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site. ** (**) ** **
That is a good article, Alf. ** **
Thanks.
6729 |
|
6730 |
Arminius wrote:
»I am afraid, he (**) will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....« ** **
I guess he proved you right. **
Prismatic567 wrote:
»Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.« **
And just to clue you in, Einstein's version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why. **
6731 |
Arminius wrote:
»I am afraid, he (**) will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....« ** **
Apparently he will never understand what »ontology« means either.
Preachers never learn. I can't imagine why. **
6732 |
6733 |
6734 |
|
6735 |
Since this OP is about God which must be a 'living' thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency. **
6736 |
Arminius wrote:
»The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.« ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
»The problem is that creating disagreement is the purpose (obfuscation, misdirection, and extortion).
If everyone has their own »reality«, then nothing and everything can be said to be real. That makes all history and facts questionable, and thus changeable. And manipulated change is the goal. Why allow people to restrain you with Truth? **
Both you of, those are known as the »slippery slope« fallacy: X can't be true because bad things would happen if it were true. Wanna be comfortable, better not seek out the truth. **
We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy. **
Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I. **
The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a »subject« is, a second one is needed .... ** **
6737 |
The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency. **
6738 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»I suspect that you dont understand what we each said, but perhaps you merely misunderstand the »slippery slope« fallacy.
We were not saying that X is true because if not..... Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a slippery slope fallacy.« **
I still dont see how that's not the slippery slope fallacy. Here's what Arminius said:
Arminius wrote:
»The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.« ** **
All he's saying is that if you take subjectivism to its logical conclusion, you get solipsism. <-- Why that makes subjectivism wrong isn't highlighted in Arminius's argument. It just leaves one with the sense that »Gee, I don't want to be a solipsist ... better denounce subjectivism«. Not that I am a solipsist, but I don't see how solipsism is logically ruled out by this. **
Arminius wrote:
»Gib wrote:
Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I. **
Yes, I also think that you are not an extreme subjectivist. But I remind you of our dialogue in this thread on page 3 where I said:
Arminius wrote:
The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a 'subject' is, a second one is needed .... ** **
This second one could be a tiny thing, since it does not have to be a huge living being (thing) in order to be an object.« ** **
I remember this. Your wording is rather vague here; I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Sounds like you're saying: a subject is only a subject if it is known as a subject, and that requires something else to do the knowing. I take this means solipsism can't be true because there must be something other than the subject. **
The reason I'm not a solipsist is because I believe there is an extension to existence beyond myself. What I don't believe is that this extension is not a subject too (it's just not me). **
Arminius wrote:
»Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (see above). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think cogito ergo sum.« ** **
True, you wouldn't recognize yourself as a self. But you would have experience (even if that's just thought). The experience (thought) projects as a reality (truth). The truth and the thought are one and the same. <-- That's the kind of monism I'm getting at with my subjectivism. I don't mean to say the subject exist as a 'self' per se, just that as a fusion of truth and thought, the thought aspect is what makes it a subject at the same that the truth aspect makes it an object (an abstract object in this case). **
6739 |
6740 |
6741 |
|
6742 |
Alf wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!). ** **
And when will the third phase end?« ** **
One could think: 2070. Right? What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status. ** **
6743 |
6744 |
Arminius wrote:
»Kant did not say God is an impossibilty.« ** **
If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, »God is an impossibility« within an empirical-rational reality.
Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;
Kant in CPR wrote:
»There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [God, Soul, Whole-Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. - b397. **
6745 |
6746 |
|
6747 |
6748 |
6749 |
6750 |
Kant raised a detailed chapter [N. K. Smith] regarding;
»
Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ......... 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ......... 507
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being ......... 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof ......... 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason ......... 525
«In the finality following the above, Kant presented the conclusion, the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. Re B397 I quoted above. The conclusion of B397 is based on one big argument represented by the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason. **
6751 |
The first who discovered America were the Vikings under Leif Eriksson who lived from 970 to 1020. They discovered it around the year 1000.
»Leif had one ship and a crew of 35, including himself. History records the group as containing 34 Vikings and 1 German. After leaving Greenland, they first happened upon an undiscovered island made of rock with ice mountains in the background. The second island they found contained flat white sand beaches and woodlands. Continuing westward, the third giant island they found may not have been an island at all. Many historians believe that Leif and his crew had just discovered the New England coast.« **
In 1473, an expedition under the command of the Germans Didrik Pining und Hans Pothorst with the Danish navigator Johannes Scolvus and the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real discovered America also before Christopher Columbus (1492). ** **
|
6752 |
6753 |
6754 |
6755 |
6756 |
6757 |
Perhaps ... than again ... 1421: The Year China Discovered America.
And the Chinese likely were aware of the geography of the Western Hemisphere ... at least in a broad/general sense. **
6758 |
Here are some facts ..., draw your own conclusions.
I was living and working in Pond Inlet Nunavut before coming to China.
In bidding farewell to my boss ... a middle aged Inuit man ... born in an igloo ... probably one of the last Inuit people to be born in such circumstances ... he shared an oral Inuit legend ... »The Chinese will be back«.
12 years later the echo of his story is carried on the wind for all those with eyes to see or ears to hear. The message is crystal clear and the intensity of the message is both blinding and deafening ... in essence ... »The Chinese will be back!«. **
6759 |
RM:AO - EN:DE. **
|
6760 |
6761 |
6762 |
6763 |
6764 |
To me, it obvious God is an impossibility to be real within empirical-rational reality .... **
Because I am well aware the illusory God is idealized via desperate psychological existential impulses to deal with an existential crisis. This point is supported by Eastern non-theistic spiritualities. **
6765 |
6766 |
Arminius wrote:
»The perspective of those who wrote the Old Testament obviously required an evil God.« ** **
What do YOU mean by *required*? **
What would make them *require* an evil God? **
Wouldn't it have been simpler to just explain that life at times just has no satisfactory, answerable questions as to why things happen though showing cause and effect in many cases may have just explained those things away? **
Anyway, I wonder if any explanation would have sufficed? **
We humans always need a scapegoat. **
|
6767 |
6768 |
|
6769 |
6770 |
6771 |
6772 |
6773 |
6774 |
6775 |
6776 |
6777 |
6778 |
6779 |
If the semantics of the word »discoverer« or the word »discovering« has to meet two conditions - (1.) to be the first one who has arrived and (2.) to know for sure what exactly has been discovered -, then nobody has ever discovered North America. ** **
6780 |
Do you believe that if children learn (or as you say, »are programmed« [**]) those values - including Responsibility, Honesty, and Cooperation - mentioned in the original post (**), that this is »bad«.?
==>
|