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 |
<= [1401][1402][1403][1404][1405][1406][1407][1408][1409][1410] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7795 |
7796 |
7797 |
|
7798 |
7799 |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
7800 |
7801 |
The New Dark Age Philosophy Part 1, ..., Part 2 ..., Part 3 ..., Part 4 .... ** ** ** **
7802 |
The Relevance of Truth .... **
7803 |
There's no reasoning with these psychopaths. **
»I would love to put a bullet in your head so I can sleep better at night.« **
Capitalism is far less dangerous than communism. We know the examples from history. Communism has killed 500 million humans so far. And if WW II Angry will kill Joker, the number will be 500 million and one. Maybe capitalism caused communism, then it would be the culprit, but that would be an exaggeration. Yet when capitalism and communism come together, as it happened in China, then it is especially dangerous.
And the bioweapon called Covid-19 also came from China. ** **
7804
7805 |
7806 |
7807 |
History repeats somehow. Doesn't it? ** **
7808 |
Gloominary, there's very little difference between political parties anymore, they infiltrate, blackmail, and bribe everybody nowadays. On the rare occasion they come across a politician they can't manipulate, they'll kill them or do a public character assassination hit piece against them through the mainstream media thus removing them from office. The mainstream media has become almost a quasi religious institutional church in this country anymore and anybody that challenges their perception of things are deemed heretics. You all can keep wasting your time on voting or political parties, that's all it is, one giant waste of time. **
I'll say this about Wallstreet, they're absolute Sith Lords of economic, social, and political warfare, and of course they are because they have practically invented the whole game as its creators. Us political dissenters and rebels are new to the game barely able to conduct an operation to put a single dent into them. Ah well, the great game continues. **
7809 |
We have been only partially and/or temporarily free, because freedom is always relative. Now we are not unfree, but almost unfree. So it is again relative, although relatively near to unfreeness. ** **
*If we have to wear seatbelts (bicycle helmets, safety goggles, glasses, etc) but don't want to wear them, then we are restricted in our freedom. (But we gain reasonable safety standards that reduce risk and save lives.)
*If a surgeon has to wash his hands and equipment before operating, but doesn't want to, then he is restricted in his freedom. (But the surgeon and his profession gain the safety and trust of patients.)
*If we want goods and services for free, but have to pay for them, then we are restricted in our freedom.
(But we all gain a fairer, more functional and sustainable marketplace instead of chaos and plunder; we gain the possibility for such goods and services to exist in the first place.)
The measure of freedom is not whether I can do absolutely whatever I want, whenever I want. It is whether I can reasonably pursue my interests and make reasonable concessions such that others can do the same. There are many competing freedoms. The challenge is to find the best balance or harmony between them.Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where one's liberty infringes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, it is necessarily limited in a free society. Nothing new about this.
The issue here is about basic facts. Is there a global pandemic in which a novel virus has the potential to kill millions of people at an exponential rate if left unmitigated? Do masks help prevent viral transmission, and thus many unnecessary deaths? If you answer 'yes' to those two questions, then it's overwhelmingly reasonable to wear a mask when, for instance, you go to the grocery store. If you answer 'no', then you're free to speak your mind and support your case via the means that are legally available to you. **
|
7810 |
7811 |
7812 |
What's our self-interest?
To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ... but what does this entail?
This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable. **
It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's »ethical radius« to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before. **
7813 |
7814 |
7815 |
7816 |
7816 |
Introduction.
The fact that we cannot prove or disprove Gods existence empirically or otherwise, could be because we are not supposed to. Since it would not be congruent with his New Covenant. If the faculty of choice were removed by demonstrating Gods or Jesus Christs existence and there was evidence of his miracles, the New Covenant would be void. The New Covenant expressly states, anyone who believes in Gods Son has eternal life (John 3:36 NLT), which is the core tenet. The nature of proof is that it removes the requirement for belief, therefore why would God void his own New Covenant by allowing us to prove his existence empirically or otherwise. That would cause belief in Jesus Christ to be unnecessary and would result in God contradicting himself. **
Discussion.
On this basis, which seems logical, it can be reasonably argued that God will not allow his existence to be demonstrated nor refuted, empirically or otherwise, which is why his existence cannot be proved nor disproved. He is honouring the choice that the New Covenant presents, which is a characteristic of God that can be recognized in the Bible, viz Christs sacrifice for the lives of people. Given the consensus is that Gods existencecannotshould not (see your introduction) be proved or disproved. It is necessary for Gods plan of salvation, that the New Covenant remains valid. Necessity implies agency. I do not believe that chance or coincidence could constitute a valid refutation because there is to my perception, no remit for chance or coincidence within my argument. Therefore, his agency would seem to be the only logical answer. Thus, I propose that Gods existence cannot be proved or disproved, because he wants the choice of belief in Jesus Christ to remain. **
Conclusion.
This would demonstrate that God upholds his New Covenant. Which is congruent with the way that he is portrayed in the Bible. Thus, I believe I have established that there is a valid reason for God not allowing us to prove or disprove his existence. That he is justified in doing so for the retention of choice and belief in Jesus Christ. He also has a cause for doing so; he wants people to believe in Jesus Christ. So it seems there are the grounds of validity, justification and cause supporting my argument. Therefore, I believe that my argument is logical. In conclusion, although is it inconsistent with what I have argued in terms of his existence not being able to be proved or disproved, if God did not want us to do something, in this case, prove or disprove his existence, it would follow that because of his prevention, his existence would be demonstrated. **
7817 |
6 because with three of them you get 666. **
7818 |
7819 |
Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own »absolute islands« - thus: without any natural environment.
Arminius wrote:
»The ISS is such an »absolute island«. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.
There are more than this human-made islands, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric islands:
![]()
As long as all these islands will exist and will contradict their ocean nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.« ** **
If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit). ** **
7820 |
|
7821 |
7822 |
Obsrvr wrote:
»So now the only issue is merely how we (you [Urwrong] included) could arrange that kind of forum.« **
How about each person creating their own website where they host their own arguments and invite others to examine them? It's easy and it's cheap, even if you're from a developing country; but if for some reason you don't want to pay for a website, you can get a free blog.
It's much more desirable to have your own website (paid or free, blog or forum) than to write on internet forums and social networks owned by people you know nothing about for the simple reason that it allows you to be your own boss. You have a lot more control over your content as well as over who gets to participate and how.
Each person chooses the rules (i.e. what's allowed and what's not allowed on their website) and how to enforce them. It's completely up to them. Others are free to accept the terms and participate or leave.
Once enough people are doing that sort of thing, people will start organizing all of the available information in useful ways (e.g. by creating catalogues of arguments on various subjects -- encyclopedias that are alive.)
It shouldn't be too difficult.
But before one can do that, one must have an argument. And in order to have an argument, one must 1) become aware of why one thinks what one thinks, and 2) find a way to express it in language. **
7823 |
Existence and Life. Instance: Home and Housing (Dwelling). ** **
7824 |
If ... individuals of a species ... must necessarily diverge in innumerable directions and degrees, ... then also among all individuals some must always be less exposed than others to the danger that their equilibrium will be completely destroyed by a special acting force .... The necessary consequence will be that those individuals whose functions deviate most from the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces must perish, while on the other hand those will survive whose functions come closest to the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces. This survival of the fittest also results in the multiplication of the fittest. .... This survival of the fittest ... is the same thing that Mr. Darwin called natural selection .... The term »natural selection« is sometimes used in scientific terminology. - Herbert Spencer, 18621896: A System of Synthetic Philosophy. The Principles of Biology.Vol. I, § 164, 1864.
7825 |
I am not saying that the artificial environment invalidates Darwin's selection principle, but I am saying that the artificial (man-made) environment can replace the natural environment. I said this several times in my post. ** **
7826 |
|
7827 |
Kathrina wrote:
»The internet recapitulates modernity. In the beginning, modernity was very promising, especially for the middle class, and later also for the lower class, although the negative sides of modernity also became clear, which later could not be overlooked at all, and soon the end of modernity will be reached. If the internet recapitulates modernity, but at much shorter intervals of course, then the internet will also soon be at its end, at least for most users, because most of them will no longer like the internet.« ** **
I stopped liking it long time ago. I believe it's because it has become more difficult to find what I'm looking for. There is less and less variety. I have the impression that whatever I'm searching for, I always get the same exact results. That might be thanks to Google but I am not sure it's entirely thanks to Google. In any case, a different way of browsing the internet has to be considered (assuming there is relevant content to be found on the internet.) **
7828 |
Great Again wrote:
»Humans have only one possibility to prove themselves in nature, i.e. to survive: they have to use their brain - their intelligence. That is the only thing that can make them fit. And that is what it has done in the course of evolution.« ** **
I can't claim to have observed the development processes of humans but isn't it laudable that humans only grew to dominance due to their social skills?
And without the, perhaps inadvertent, development of more diverse vocal cords (beyond the oo-oo--ay-ay stage) the human brain would never have developed the required communication diversity that led to logic and extended reasoning skills - the conscious intelligence (not merely instinctive intelligence).
Isn't social communication the first step to domination over the wild and woolly? In higher realms of society, isn't the media control (propaganda) the first step to national and global supremacy (exampled by recent events as well as many throughout history)?
Once the variations of sounds were capable of being broadcast and thus distinguished (many animals can distinguish them even tough not being able to replicate them) the, perhaps inadvertent, survival of the brains capable of utilizing that new function seemingly would have little choice but to rise and become more dominate - literal armies would form due simply from advanced propagation of danger alerts and direction signaling.
So I'm thinking, to be aligned more with historic social developments, it is really the vocal cords that deserve the credit - without which the brain would never had inspiration to advance past - "oo--oo -- ay-ay".
And socially it is the language, the written word, the documenting, the news paper, the radio broadcasting, the tele broadcasting, the internet connectivity, and finally at the moment "social platform" development and control. The brains behind it all are more of an post development - after seeing the utility of a new way to spread influence to more human creatures.
The tool develops the mind - the mind then develops new tools - the new tools then develop new minds.
The sophisticated automobile did not invent the wheel. I think that is a safe bet. **
![]() |
|
** |
7829 |
@ Great Again. ** **
.... I think this part of the general consideration of »compensation« has been downplayed by Darwin, and the rise of behaviorism downplaying the more cognitive aspects form a naturalistic fallacy that expands focus into the larger universal categories. **
The early paradigmn of anthropological effects of genetic superiority, are replaced by political varience later on. **
7830
Yes. It's the language. It is itself a product of the unique development of the brain, both of which have hyped each other up. Body and mind/spirit, spirit/mind and body; later also: body against mind/spirit, spirit/mind against body.
It started with the upright walk and then with the development of the hands. The hands became more and more graceful. But the real process that made humans successful was the one after that: cerebralization.
** There were three conditions for these developments:
- Exogenous (environmental changes with corresponding necessities for adaptation).
- Endogenous (further development of certain organs, atrophy of others).
- Autogenous (as a distancing mode as production of self-created changes in conditions).
For humans, the importance of these 3 conditions to each other has shifted more and more in favor of the autogenous factors (see: 3.). For this relationship system the meaning of the migration into the savannah (exogenous) or the meaning of the upright walk (endogenous) or the meaning of the hand for the culture construction (autogenous) is emphasized again and again. However, a decisive basis was the cerebralization, i.e. the size development of the brain, which was triggered in a network from all 3 directions. The brain of an early hominid in the animal-human transition had a volume of approx. 500cm3 (example: Australopithecus) and grew up to approx. 600-800cm3 (Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis), approx. 750-1250cm3 (Homo erectus), 1200-1800cm3 (Neanderthal man), up to approx. 2000cm3 (Neanderthal man and Now man).
The cerebralization enabled the superstructure of repressed instinctual programming through conditioning (trial and error) and cognition (imagination and thought).
These humans would never have been successful without this brain development, but would have disappeared from evolution after only a short time.
Everything that humans have created, their culture (including technology), goes back to their intelligence. That made them successful. Thus, the characteristic of human fitness is their intelligence. ** **
|
7831 |
7832 |
7833 |
The way I understand it, to say that someone is fit in Darwin's sense of the word is to say that that someone has reproduced or that he will reproduce at some point in the future. Thus, if you do not reproduce, you are unfit. Doesn't matter how intelligent you are.
But to say that someone is fit in the usual sense of the word is to say that that someone has what it takes to perform certain task in a desirable way. So when your employer tells you that you are fit for the job, he's telling you that he thinks that you have what it takes to do what he wants you to do. He's talking about your potentials and not about what happened and/or what will happen.
It's easy to confuse the two and I think it's Darwin's fault to an extent.
But I didn't read Darwin, so there's a possibility that I am wrong. Is there anyone here disputing my claim? What about you, Kathrina? Are you claiming that Darwin didn't define the word fitness this way?
Have you ever thought of reading a book? **
The Origin of Species is clear and well written. You can read it free online (**). **
7834 |
7835 |
7836 |
7837 |
7838 |
Otto = Arminius? **
7839 |
7840 |
I think the objective of the powerful is to gain more power - »only serving the peasants to cause them to serve power«. - The Borg. **
|
7841 |
Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, published in 1868, »This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term »natural selection« is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity«. He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the »attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets«, or the way in which »agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection«. He had »often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events.[3] **
In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase »natural selection«.[10] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[4] Darwin implies again the synonym: »Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest«.[5] By »fittest« Darwin meant »better adapted for the immediate, local environment«, not the common modern meaning of »in the best physical shape« (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[6] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing »I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.«[11] **
In the Darwinistic sense, »fit« or »fitness« describes the degree of adaptation to the environment (i.e. adaptive specialization), or the ability to reproduce despite low specialization. This means that not that species survives which defies everything and displaces other species, but the one which either adapts to the environment or manages to reproduce continuously despite adverse environmental conditions. ** **
7842 |
7843 |
Great Again wrote:
»Gaining more power is the goal of every creature. It is nevertheless necessary to limit power, howsoever.« ** **
It seems the prevailing strategy is proving to be - eliminate the encumbrance - replace the less harmonious with the more harmonious - replace unserviceable with the serviceable - manufacture the servant to design specifications from the ground up as soon as possible - and eliminate that which doesn't serve.
7844 |
Even then, if Tim Berners-Lee wanted to change something, he most likely wouldn't have a chance to do it, would he?
Why didn't he think earlier about the huge problems that the internet already brought us shortly after its creation? ** **
7845 |
7846 |
Otto wrote:
»The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.« ** **
Absolutely this.
This is why these cowards need to threaten violence here on this philosophy forum, because they have nothing left in terms of conviction, argument, debate, and rationality. **
|
7847 |
7848 |
7849 |
Ho Otto are You really Arminius? **
7850 |
7851 |
7852 |
7853 |
7854 |
7855 |
Humans are already machines albeit genetic ones simply through the process of serving programmed functions without much thought for anything else. As humans this usually gets transcribed into some higher imagined purpose which actually serves no function at all except wishful thinking. The counter question would be can a machine become what a human is supposed to be? After all, just like a machine, humans are just another assembly of various entities. **
7856 |
7857 |
7858 |
7859 |
7860 |
|
7861 |
7862 |
7863 |
I know you think you're trying to relate to me but you can't Peter, try being homeless for almost ten years straight for starters and then imagine what it's like skewering a snake on an open fire for a meal.
Imagine what it's like feeling empty and numb every single day of your existence like feeling your entire body has been embalmed, that's what I feel like every single day, but you're not dead you see, you're very much alive, you've become the living dead. Then imagine the most horrific nightmare you've ever had and then when you wake up everyday your life or own existence is much worse than your own scariest nightmares asleep, your entire life or existence a living nightmare that you constantly have to endure daily. Then think what's it like wishing you were never born, wishing that your own mother would of saved you all the trouble in life and had you aborted at birth. Think of what it's like going from one shitty low income bullshit job to the next having to deal with shitty ass people you hate and having everything you can do to restrain yourself from going on a homicidal rage where you think to yourself that if that person makes one more bad remark you can just see yourself bashing their skull in until blood comes out of their eye sockets, I have really bad days sometimes. I have everything I can do just keeping myself from going into violent outbursts against other people, takes tremendous willpower to restrain myself. Your entire life shuffling about from one place to the next where every time you breathe or are conscious you feel like you're drowning in water with somebody's hand on your head forcing you down into the water where you're swallowing water drowning, imagine feeling like that all the time.
Wife? How fortunate you are. Women generally want nothing to do with me, I've tried everything I can to attract a mate or spouse, but to no avail. Something about being too poor, not good enough, and so on and so on. They always seem to have a long list in rejecting me and niceties with them gets me nowhere. In truth, I view a majority of women with contempt, they talk about love but with me all I ever see in them are huge dollar signs. I have an extremely negative opinion of a majority of women, they're vicious gold diggers, opportunists, and grifters with tits that will sell you what they have to offer so long as you can match their outstanding price. Paradoxical really, on the one hand I hate a majority of women, but on the other hand I envy or desire the devoted love of a woman, I just never can see one getting with me and as a general rule in my life they don't. Infrequently I'll bag a whore here and there but it never seems to last or go anywhere as the prospects of long term relationships simply non-existent. Always wanted a family, doesn't happen of course. I have no close friends and no family of my own, both parents deceased, no siblings. Just me and my miserable lonely self, an individual who is constantly damned.
I've read all of your hopeful socially utopian favorite writers and authors too Peter, I've read them all, but none of them ever seem to have advice for the damned, condemned, or cursed. Just some irrelevant pieces of advice from hopeful idealistic fools, bourgeois, or aristocrats with too much money and idle time at their disposal, people who have never truly suffered, lost everything, and have never been banished from society as a whole casted out like a leper. They don't know true meaning of pain, misery, suffering, or despair, but I do.
I'm sorry Peter, your happy magical positive thinking doesn't work for me, it never has, and since it never has all I have left is anger or rage along with a desire of retribution. There is much more to this world than perception and there are grave consequences to it.
7864 |
7865 |
Great Again wrote:
»The machines invented by humans are not humans, even in the case when it is tried to interpret the machines into the humans or the humans into the machines.« ** **
Although ---
If James was right (and I strongly suspect he was) the idea and name »human« meant »hue-of-Man« - the lower order creatures that made up the higher Man-ager of the paradise Eden originally called »ADM«, »Adam«, »Ahdam«.
So I can see the possible day when those machines, in whatever form, are the actual lower order creature making up the Man(ager) of Earth. And at that point, homosapians will no longer be »humans« - the androids will be instead - just like conservatives in the US are no longer citizens with equal rights, but »domestic terrorists« - the Jews would call them »the goyim« and the Musslims would call them »the kafir« or »infidels« - not humans.
It is an issue of who or what makes up the constituency of who or what is managing/governing life on Earth.
Fortunately James also had the ethical solution for all of this but it isn't clear that Man will ever realize it.
**
7866 |
7867 |
7868 |
7869 |
7870 |
7871 |
Great Again wrote:
»The machines and the androids (both are not humans) will utilise and benefit from a fully automated world. Machines will get what they will need from other machines and vice versa.« ** **
Are you assuming that machines will appreciate this benefitting, or that it will be a passive/non-sentient machine code level operation? **
Great Again wrote:
»Yea, it would not be my world, it would not be your world, and it would not be a world for humans at all, because humans would already be dead then.
![]()
« ** **
How all very West World. **
7872 |
0 (zero) is a number,[1] and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity[2] of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems. Names for the number 0 in English include zero, nought (UK), naught (US) (/n??t/), nil, orin contexts where at least one adjacent digit distinguishes it from the letter "O"oh or o (/o?/). Informal or slang terms for zero include zilch and zip.[3] Ought and aught (/??t/),[4] as well as cipher,[5] have also been used historically.[6][7] **
==>
|