1401) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 30.01.2021, 00:47, 01:04, 04:44 (7795-7797)
Think first before you claim such nonsense a second time!
Because all good things come in threes.
A good satire, Otto.
@ Sculptor. **
Troll, there was no dumb question at all.
Also, there are no dumb questions, but there are many, too many dumb answers. You have already given two dumb answers here. That's enough now!
If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, then try to find another thread. There are enough threads in this forum.
I suggest that as a beginner you should read the threads What's for breakfast?, What's for lunch? , What's for dinner?, What are you doing?, What is your most recent purchase? - pics required, Post a Picture of Yourself , Post a Number of Yourself . The last one could be Post Yourself. Try to find it.
@ Obsvr. **
Thank you for your interesting contribution.
I guess, you know the following film (unfortunately, Wells' Time Machine is missing there): **
1402) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 31.01.2021, 00:59; Otto, 31.01.2021, 01:33 (7798-7799)
We should deal with the fact that many certain social (a magic word) and other phenomena and events belong together.
Examples: the deregulation and thus the increase of power of high finance to an unprecedented extent; the wars, whether local, regional, global or universal; the fear mongering (e.g. of catastrophes, allegedly e.g. by climate or/and epidemics [last: Covid-19]); the non-governmental organizations; the support of selected states (last the Chinese, whose rise became possible also by it); the key positions in the most important states; the westernal technology threatening the nature of the living beings (especially e.g. nano-, gene-, robot technology, AI); the eugenics for 0.0001%, the dysgenics for 99.9999% of the people; the racism (e.g. which has been waged against the white race for decades now); mass migration (immigration into the Occident: abolition of the Occident); the extermination of the middle class, the civil society (since it exclusively concerns the Occidentals: extermination of Occidentals); the abolition of Occidental national states (in favor of privatization); Occidental nihilism (annihilation of Occidental values) and deconstructionism in general; Occidental fashion as a substitute for origin, genealogy, tradition, history, past, family, children (since exclusively concerning Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); feminism (since exclusively concerning the Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); genderism, although the gender affiliation is clearly recognizable by the organs; plutocracy disguised as democracy resp. kleptocracy; the mafiotic corporatism practiced above and the downward dictated ecologism and communism; the deliberate confusion of truth and lie; the probably not coincidental similarity of many conditions with those described e.g. by Wells, Huxley, Orwell. The implementation of the strategy points means a giant profit, that is a giant increase of power for a dwarfed group of people. ** **
There had been other descriptions of a social future long before Wells, Huxley and Orwell. Goethe's Faust is certainly the most famous description; and the philosophical works of Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche are certainly the most famous futurological ones; later philosophical works that also and even especially mentioned futurological aspects are those of Spengler and Toynbee.
Here the coming history rises high above economic hardships and domestic ideals. Here the elementary powers of life itself enter into the struggle which is about everything or nothing. The prefiguration of Caesarism will very soon become more definite, more conscious, more undisguised. The masks from the age of parliamentary intermediate states will fall completely. All attempts to absorb the content of the future in parties will be quickly forgotten. The fascist forms of these decades will pass into new, unforeseeable forms, and nationalism of today will also disappear. Only the warlike, »Prussian« spirit will remain as a form-giving power, everywhere, not only in Germany. Fate, once concentrated in meaningful forms and great traditions, will make history in the form of formless individual powers. Caesar's legions are waking up again. (Oswald Spengler, Years of Decision - Germany and the World Historical Development, 1933, pp. 164 - the official translation of the book title is: The Hour of Decision). **
And also Caesar had to prefer foreign soldiers (e.g. from Germany and Gaul), because they were more combative, braver, more reliable, more alive than the overprotected and too much spoiled ancient Roman cowards.
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.
1403) Great Again, 01.02.2021, 01:40, 02:58, 03:55; Otto, 01.02.2021, 17:00, 17:44; Great Again, 01.02.2021, 19:45, 20:13, 20:27; Kathrina, 01.02.2021, 21:34, 22:44 (7800-7809)
The former USA replaced by new states:
Could that be a solution for you?
You have done a good spiritual job with each of the four parts of your New Dark Age Philosophy. Great. Thank you.
You also certainly exaggerated on purpose at times to make a point, and also used a bit of irony or satire. But the thoughts behind all of this are very serious. The text is very well thought out.
Again: very good thoughts. The topic is very important, contemporary and relating to the future. Thanks.
Sometimes it is cleverer (not wiser) to live with the lie. In the past, one could keep the truth to oneself or talk about it in niches (see: terror after all succesful revolutions since the end of the 18th century, last in communism). Now, we are dealing with communism of the last kind, which eclipses the communism of earlier times, because the latter was not yet capable of using the technology of the last three decades. Today's communism is capable of doing it (see: China). Because China is now even ahead, other nations (especially the Western ones) want to become like China because they have realized that slaves make it easier to keep up or even take the lead again.
WW III Angry wrote:
Said the Psychopath and continued with his death threat: I would love to put a bullet in your head so I can sleep better at night.
WW III Angry wrote:
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:
The new fascist is not going to say Hello, I am the new fascist; the new fascicst is going to say I am the antifascist.
Freely based on Ignazio Silone.
The difference in answering the question whether a glass is half full or half empty (**) is only significant if the speaker of this statement is included. For the statement itself there is no difference, at least not in the mathematical or mathematical-logical sense. That is just the difference between a purely mathematical statement and a purely linguistic statement. And the logic mediates between the mathematical language and the linguistic language. You must use your words (your lexemes) correctly if your statement has to be logically correct; you must use your numbers correctly if your statement has to be logically correct. Only then, if you include yourself or another person (a subject) in your statement, you have to leave mathematics to this very part and to the other part you have to take care that you say what you want to say linguistically correct (well-formed) and logically correct.
@ Sleyor Wellhuxwell.
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.
Yes. But sometimes something really new happens. And one of the examples of this really new are the technical achievements. Probably the patterns for this are not new either, but the phenomena, i.e. how it appears, and their application always lead to new forms of signs, because the people who deal with them just deal with them in different ways. It is a question of culture.
*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. **
1404) Otto, 02.02.2021, 00:08; Great Again, 02.02.2021, 01:05, 01:37; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 02.02.2021, 02:26; Great Again, 02.02.2021, 03:30; Otto, 02.02.2021, 04:21, 04:33, 17:24 21:03; Kathrina, 02.02.2021, 23:33, 23:41 (7810-7820)
The structure on ILP is just like the structure in reality out there.
There is the one group that is made up of many and is too stupid to notice anything at all, let alone that it is being abused and by whom; then there is the other group, made up of somewhat fewer but still many, that notices exactly what is happening and is therefore made the bogeyman; and then there is the third group, made up of very, very few, that wants to let the other two groups fight its battle by setting these two groups against each other.
And that's how it always goes in history.
Increase the stupidity! Demonize the intelligence! Divide and rule!
Who expected, when we still had horse-drawn carriages, that someday automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, rockets, space shuttles would be driving around, and that the internet and artificial intelligence would prevail? Almost all horses have been replaced by machines. And humans have never been considerate of humans in matters of power. So why shouldn't it be possible to replace all humans? After all, many have already been replaced anyway? And why shouldn't it be possible for machines to become independent of humans (in this thread this possibility was affirmed in principle by Arminius and James S. Saint). Humans want to control machines, yes, but so far they have always failed with their attempts at control. And humans want to controll other humans. Now, draw the conclusion from this, please.
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. **
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 existence
cannotshould 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. **
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. **
6 because with three of them you get 666. **
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.
»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.« ** **
1405) Kathrina, 03.02.2021, 00:59, 02:48, 04:37; Great Again, 03.02.2021, 18:04, 18:29, 18:56 (7821-7826)
No, Phoneutria. **
You do not respond at all to what I said!
Also, 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.
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.
1406) Kathrina, 04.02.2021, 00:02; Great Again, 04.02.2021, 00:28, 00:46; Kathrina, 04.02.2021, 22:38 (7827-7830)
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Google and other global players who dominate the internet ensure that they are always the first to be found via the search engines, and because people are lazy and don't search further, they get the most clicks, so that their oligopoly becomes ever more powerful. Market laws do not apply to them. And this has a lot of consequences.
I would very much welcome an independent, legally secured web presence of any person. It seemed to take this development in the 1990s, but the history of modernity initially also showed a pleasant development for each individual and then took a different course.
Before the turn of the millennium, it should have been ensured that the internet did not fall prey to total control. But that was gladly avoided. Now it is too late for such a development. But as I said, I am sure that the internet, which itself is part of modernity, will recapitulate modernity, with which it will end.
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.
There were three conditions for these developments:
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.
Yes. See my response to Obsvr.
The 19th century was a century of natural science. Everything was interpreted in terms of natural science. Philosophy was also strongly influenced by this, of course. This can be seen exactly in the history of phisosophy in the 19th century.
The turning point came with the turn to the 20th century, in dates: 1900; in terms of cultural history: World War 1 (1914-1918).
Let's wait and see, because the 21st century will not be like the 20th century. That's for sure!
Great Again wrote:
Just as you said, intelligence is the fitness characteristic of human beings, and therefore, according to Darwin, the most intelligent humans must be those humans who have the most offspring.
1407) Kathrina, 05.02.2021, 00:01, 01:50, 18:40; Great Again, 05.02.2021, 18:40, 18:56; Kathrina, 05.02.2021, 20:24, 21:13; Otto, 05.02.2021, 23:30, 23:48; Great Again, 05.02.2021, 23:59 (7831-7840)
Everyone here has so far agreed that it is true that Darwin was concerned with the survival of the fittest, and everyone here has also so far agreed that intelligence is a characteristic of fitness. That those will survive who have more offspring than others, that was probably known tens of thousands of years ago. But Darwin, clever as he was, also said that.
So the characteristic of fitness and those with the most offspring must be related. And according to Darwin, they are related, namely causally. Their relation is the causality. Darwin was a typical 19th century scientist (thank you, Great Again [**|**], for pointing this out), always and everywhere looking after natural causes.
Natural selection does not only reuqire references to successful progeny - that would had been nothing new under the sun for Darwin -, but requires also the cause for the successful progeny! Regardless whether Darwin was right or not on this.
Otto = Arminius? **
I think the objective of the powerful is to gain more power - »only serving the peasants to cause them to serve power«. - The Borg. **
1408) Kathrina, 06.02.2021, 00:48, 01:28; Great Again, 06.02.2021, 02:30, 02:32; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 06.02.2021, 20:46, 20:53 (7841-7846)
It is quite obvious that you are just offended because you do not tolerate any other opinion than your own, and that is typical for communists. Fact.
Go away, you stupid and unfriendly communist.
Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you Sculptor.
By »fittest« Darwin meant »better adapted for the immediate, local environment«, not the common modern meaning of »in the best physical shape« .... JUST WHAT I SAID IN MY LAST POST (and you illiterate communist could not read it):
So again, Scalped Sculptor, go away, you illiterate and unfriendly communist. And don't start with your insults again, because that's the only thing you can.
Go away, ugly man.
Yes, that's right, and I believe that we are among those to be eliminated, so, given the alternative, I almost feel like a martyr already.
Maybe Berners-Lee was one of those who won back then, but while the others have won and probably will continue to win, he hasn't won in quite some time.
Some are more free than others. This sentence shows that freedom can only be relative.
Will the cowards get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?
1409) Great Again, 07.02.2021, 00:01, 00:44; Otto, 07.02.2021, 01:00, 01:14, 01:17, 01:22, 02:03, 02:20, 02:44, 02:47; Otto, 07.02.2021, 04:00; Great Again, 07.02.2021, 04:08, 04:12, 04:25 (7847-7860)
Topic: Renewing the Moderation?
Do you have any suggestions on how to renew the moderation here, which
seems to not exist?
Ho Otto are You really Arminius? **
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. **
1410) Great Again, 08.02.2021, 00:00, 00:36; Kathrina, 08.02.2021, 02:06; Great Again, 08.02.2021, 02:40, 18:29, 18:41, 19:15, 20:28, 20:43, 21:07, 21:31, 22:08 (7861-7872)
Perhaps they wish for a better moderation, but have realized that a better moderation is not possible here.
That is one of the most important question in this issue: Whom does it serve? Cui bono?, as the Chinese says.
The overlords believe that they are being served by this, because they know that they are being served for economic reasons (bubbles everywhere) and ecological reasons (energy problems, soon everywhere too). They want energy saving machines and energy saving humans. Both are to draw their energy mostly from outside the planet earth, in order to preserve it - allegedly. For this more alleged reason and because of their delusion (Godwannabe ) they want humans (inventors) and machines (inventions) to merge. This is rational, yes, but in the end it serves no man, no machine, no machine-man, no man-machine, unless rationality is understood to mean purely economic benefit, which would be wrong, because this is not only about economy but also about ecology, more precisely about the consideration for the environment, and that does not mean benefit, but servanthood, sacrifice, death.
This whole thing will probably turn out to be a milkmaid's calculation in the end.
It could have worked, if the wiver had been made early enough. Waiver also has to do with rationality!
The biggest problem is the desire for power, which here extends to the Godwannabe.
Zero Sum wrote:
Retribution against whom? And who benefits from that? You? I do not think so. I know that you are actually very nice. There are still many women who want a nice man. I also know that you are mentally very fit, that you use the language properly, unlike most here. So you would realize it quickly if you did something that was not good for you. Do not throw your life away.
Merely partially true (**)?
Hue-of-Man? And the machines will become this hue-of-Man? Will there still be homosapiens then? The homsapiens will then have been replaced, i.e. will have disappeared, right?
But it may also be questionable whether people will still be alive in this fully automated world (**).
I am not saying that people will not be alive then, but only asking whether they will be alive then or not.
Those two (**) were not the only ones who wrote about it.There are quite a few who did that as well. Hobbes experienced a terrible war, and because of that he wrote both about it and about the conclusions he thought should be drawn.
Kant was the inventor of anthropology. After Kant came other conclusions concerning anthropology as well. I don't know if we have to go into them in detail. But I do know that one has to use one's own head to come to certain conclusions, which one then confronts with ethics and reconsiders, especially with regard to all historicity of such questions.
The prospect that one can always interpret all this only relatively is great.
According to the number theory, 0 is not a so-called natural number, but a so-called integer number.
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.
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.
The people will slowly die out, namely on the following
way: They will become demented (their memory is already reduced by censorship).
They will have no more memory, i.e. history and history narrations will
be no more possible, because the memory for it is missing. They will become
communistic, whatever that may mean in reality, because they will be machinized
at the same time, become cyborgs. They will be fought and defeated by
the androids and the pure machines, so that at the end of this fight no
human will be left.
Great Again wrote:
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:
How all very West World. **
0 (zero) is a number, and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity 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. Ought and aught (/??t/), as well as cipher, have also been used historically. **