WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
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

<= [1411][1412][1413][1414][1415][1416][1417][1418][1419][1420] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
1150
1180
1198
1400
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
16,16%
2,61%
1,53%
16,86%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
0,1885
0,1813
0,1754
0,1946
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1579
1950
1102
79
26
671
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3879
5829
6931
7010
7036
7707
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
68,65%
50,27%
18,91%
1,14%
0,37%
9,54%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,83
6,89
2,63
1,44
3,32
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3260
5,3279
3,0192
0,2164
0,0712
1,8333
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,569
5,888
6,027
5,941
5,873
5,505
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7225
1,0164
1,1362
1,0843
1,0302
1,0710
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 1411) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 09.02.2021, 00:00; Great Again, 09.02.2021, 00:20; Kathrina, 09.02.2021, 00:26; Otto, 09.02.2021, 00:34; Great Again, 09.02.2021, 00:56, 01:46; Kathrina, 09.02.2021, 02:37; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 09.02.2021, 03:04, Otto, 09.02.2021, 13:36; Kathrina, 09.02.2021, 14:32; Great Again, 09.02.2021, 19:59; Otto, 09.02.2021, 22:59 (7873-7884)

7873

Great Again wrote:

Thesis.

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.“ ** **

Note and take into account that this is a thesis.

Orwell studied totalitarianism, especially communism, also in terms of forgetting. He did not yet know the technical possibilities that exist today, but he was already betting that people's memory would be taken away by communism, which he himself experienced at times (he was temporarily a communist himself).

As for the criticism of modern technology, let us recall Heidegger:

Wikipedia wrote:

Gestell (or sometimes Ge-stell) is a German word used by twentieth-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger to describe what lies behind or beneath modern technology.[1] Heidegger introduced the term in 1954 in The Question Concerning Technology, a text based on the lecture »The Framework« (»Das Gestell«) first presented on December 1, 1949, in Bremen.[2] It was derived from the root word stellen, which means „to put“ or „to place“ and combined with the German prefix Ge-, which denotes a form of „gathering“ or „collection“.[3] The term encompasses all types of entities and orders them in a certain way.[3]

Heidegger applied the concept of Gestell to his exposition of the essence of technology.[4] He concluded that technology is fundamentally Enframing (Gestell).[5] As such, the essence of technology is Gestell. Indeed, »Gestell, literally ›framing‹, is an all-encompassing view of technology, not as a means to an end, but rather a mode of human existence«.[6] Heidegger further explained that in a more comprehensive sense, the concept is the final mode of the historical self-concealment of primordial fysis [4]

In defining the essence of technology as Gestell, Heidegger indicated that all that has come to presence in the world has been enframed. Such enframing pertains to the manner reality appears or unveils itself in the period of modern technology and people born into this »mode of ordering« are always embedded into the Gestell (enframing).[7] Thus what is revealed in the world, what has shown itself as itself (the truth of itself) required first an Enframing, literally a way to exist in the world, to be able to be seen and understood. Concerning the essence of technology and how we see things in our technological age, the world has been framed as the »standing-reserve«. Heidegger writes,

»Enframing means the gathering together of that setting-upon which sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve. Enframing means that way of revealing which holds sway in the essence of modern technology and which is itself nothing technological.«[8]

Furthermore, Heidegger uses the word in a way that is uncommon by giving Gestell an active role. In ordinary usage the word would signify simply a display apparatus of some sort, like a book rack, or picture frame; but for Heidegger, Gestell is literally a challenging forth, or performative »gathering together«, for the purpose of revealing or presentation. If applied to science and modern technology, »standing reserve« is active in the case of a river once it generates electricity or the earth if revealed as a coal-mining district or the soil as a mineral deposit.[9]

For some scholars, Gestell effectively explains the violence of technology. This is attributed to Heidegger's explanation that, when Gestell holds sway, »it drives out every other possibility of revealing« and that it »conceals that revealing which, in the sense of poiesis, lets what presences come forth into appearance«. [10]“ **

„Only a God can save us.“ - Martin Heidegger.

„The humans will only be used in the way they are needed.“ - Martin Heidegger.

So, if they will not be needed at all anymore, then ... (see above).

7874

Are you (**) sure?

See how willingly more than 90% of all humans on this planet do what they are told to do from above, and fight, insult, physically attack, and in some cases even demand the death of the less than 10% of all humans on this planet.

7875

I prefer strict moderation and especially strict moderation against trolls.

Also, insults can be detected early enough. The same applies to the aspect of who started the insult. It is quite easy to determine who it was who first insulted.

So I voted „yes“.

7876

But also think of the possibility that even though the machines are about to replace the humans, the humans will fight back and start replacing the machines.

7877

Making humans small, sick, forgetful and weak, but also spoiled, in any case helpless in an autistic sense and without reference to space and time (think of dementia, forgetting time and therefore also forgetting history) is part of the agenda.

Work is no longer valued as highly as it was in earlier times, which is especially for wage work, because machines work for free.

7878

According to the voting result, 63% want to renew the moderation.

Abstimmungsergebnis

And because we already have almost no moderation at all, I don't assume that those 63% want even less or no moderation at all. I believe quite clearly that they want more moderation.

7879

Rather a house of the lower class?

7880

Obsrvr wrote:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

»Will the ›cowards‹ get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?« ** **

To actually get into the real I think they have to get into the feel - they have to personally face an enemy on their own - and get used to winning. Having others do all of your fighting for you just encourages the cowardice. That is why you want experienced fighters making the decisions - not just experienced users.“ **

Or they will die out.

Copied post in another thread.

7881

Meno wrote:

„In the 18th century, the palace of Versailles syank of piss and shit, because until Marie Antoniette there were no bidets or toilette. The stink overcame the aristocrats, who had to spray a-toilette on themselves to bear it. That did mot mean a lack of exquisite taste it spendour, only everybody did their thing wherever they could go. So high class and taste do not and did not always correspond.“ **

They could not do „their thing“ there. Everyone had a task, a post of service. These servants were adorned with titles of nobility. Everyone was proud to be some servant of the king. Only the king could do his thing. Those servants were mostly from the lower nobility. In fact, the lower nobility was completely impoverished. Everyone from this lower nobility was happy to have an artificially ennobled servant position with the king and was proud of it. That was absolutely decadent. At that time, the nobles did not wash themselves. The whole hygiene was pathetic. That's why it stank so bestially and disgustingly there.

Versailles smells like beast !

7882

I come from a farm. This farm looks a little different today than the following photo shows. I am not going to send a photo from more recent times.

Hof des Vaters meiner Mutter

7883

Topic: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

You already know the question „whether 1 is 0.999... or not“ from the meanwhile very well visited thread „Is 1 = 0.999.... ?“ (**).

I would now like to confront you with another question: Is it correct that for some time now the number 1 may no longer be considered a prime number?

The definition of a prime number is the following one:

„A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers.“

„Greater than one“. Should we question this this part of the definition or not? That's the question.

Wikipedia wrote about the problem of the number 1 and the prime numbers:

Wikipedia wrote:

»Primality of one.

Most early Greeks did not even consider 1 to be a number,[35][36] so they could not consider its primality. A few mathematicians from this time also considered the prime numbers to be a subdivision of the odd numbers, so they also did not consider 2 to be prime. However, Euclid and a majority of the other Greek mathematicians considered 2 as prime. The medieval Islamic mathematicians largely followed the Greeks in viewing 1 as not being a number.[35] By the Middle Ages and Renaissance mathematicians began treating 1 as a number, and some of them included it as the first prime number.[37] In the mid-18th century Christian Goldbach listed 1 as prime in his correspondence with Leonhard Euler; however, Euler himself did not consider 1 to be prime.[38] In the 19th century many mathematicians still considered 1 to be prime,[39] and lists of primes that included 1 continued to be published as recently as 1956.[40][41]

If the definition of a prime number were changed to call 1 a prime, many statements involving prime numbers would need to be reworded in a more awkward way. For example, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would need to be rephrased in terms of factorizations into primes greater than 1, because every number would have multiple factorizations with different numbers of copies of 1.[39] Similarly, the sieve of Eratosthenes would not work correctly if it handled 1 as a prime, because it would eliminate all multiples of 1 (that is, all other numbers) and output only the single number 1.[41] Some other more technical properties of prime numbers also do not hold for the number 1: for instance, the formulas for Euler's totient function or for the sum of divisors function are different for prime numbers than they are for 1.[42] By the early 20th century, mathematicians began to agree that 1 should not be listed as prime, but rather in its own special category as a »unit«.[39]« **

Sieve of Eratosthenes (without 1): Gaussian prime numbers with norm less than 500:
Gaußsche Primzahlen mit der Norm kliener als 500

7884

Topic: Isolated in this Webforum?

Do you think that you could be isolated in this webforum?

You could belong to one of these four groups:
I) An isolated group that does not know about its isolation and wants to drive others into isolation.
II) An isolated group that knows about its isolation and does not want to drive others into isolation.
III) An isolated group that knows about its isolation and wants to drive others into isolation.
IV) An isolated group that does not know about its isolation and does not want to drive others into isolation.

Feel free to come out of the closet.

Please copy the following depiction, fill in your position within one of the four groups and post it.

Vier Felder in einem Feld

Thank you.

 

NACH OBEN 1412) Otto, 10.02.2021, 01:50, 01:58; Kathrina, 10.02.2021, 02:51; Great Again, 10.02.2021, 03:33; Otto, 10.02.2021, 19:02, 20:17 (7875-7889)

7885

Okay, I try to explain what I mean.

Think for instance of a person of the group II who could say the follwuing sentences:

„I think I know some other posters here, so that I can identify with them as a group, and that I can say that my group knows about its isolation and does not want to drive others into isolation. This group is isolated by other groups, intentionally (I, III) and without intention (IV), while my group has no intention to isolate other groups.

I think that intentional isolation is a troll thing because they are the isolators who know about their own isolation and condone it because they think they can win by isolating others. So group I is made up of trolls.“

And this is one of the possibilties for the position of that said person:

Vier Felder in einem Feld

7886

Here is another example:

Vier Felder in einem Feld

An extreme troll of group I.

7887

Well, Otto, I would say that not very many posters will risk to post here or, as you said, will „come out of the closet“ (**|**).

But you have raised an important issue that directly and primarily affects ILP.

Most, if any, will „confess“ to being in Group II. Most of those most will lie.

I will probably „stay in the closet“.

7888

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Wikipedia wrote:

›Primality of one.

Most early Greeks did not even consider 1 to be a number,[35][36] so they could not consider its primality. A few mathematicians from this time also considered the prime numbers to be a subdivision of the odd numbers, so they also did not consider 2 to be prime. However, Euclid and a majority of the other Greek mathematicians considered 2 as prime. The medieval Islamic mathematicians largely followed the Greeks in viewing 1 as not being a number.[35]‹ **

....« ** **

Something seems a little off kilter with that narrative. Why would even the Greeks choose to exclude 1 from the set of numbers?

4 / (7- 3) = nothing?“ **

Because it is Wikipedia.

You are right with your criticism. Especially the Ancient Greeks had a strong interest in 1.

Obsrvr wrote:

„But I guess it is irrelevant now.“ **

Yes, of course.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Wikipedia wrote:

›By the Middle Ages and Renaissance mathematicians began treating 1 as a number, and some of them included it as the first prime number.[37] In the mid-18th century Christian Goldbach listed 1 as prime in his correspondence with Leonhard Euler; however, Euler himself did not consider 1 to be prime.[38] In the 19th century many mathematicians still considered 1 to be prime,[39] and lists of primes that included 1 continued to be published as recently as 1956.[40][41]‹ **

....« ** **

If the definition of a prime number were changed to call 1 a prime, many statements involving prime numbers would need to be reworded in a more awkward way. For example, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would need to be rephrased in terms of factorizations into primes greater than 1, because every number would have multiple factorizations with different numbers of copies of 1.[39] Similarly, the sieve of Eratosthenes would not work correctly if it handled 1 as a prime, because it would eliminate all multiples of 1 (that is, all other numbers) and output only the single number 1.[41] Some other more technical properties of prime numbers also do not hold for the number 1: for instance, the formulas for Euler's totient function or for the sum of divisors function are different for prime numbers than they are for 1.[42] By the early 20th century, mathematicians began to agree that 1 should not be listed as prime, but rather in its own special category as a "unit".[39]

And that seems a little too »Minority Report« for my taste - as though someone wanted a perfect score so they just disqualified anything that didn't fit their narrative - much like »We didn't get caught in too much fraud so let's just say the election was absolutely 'perfect' and disclaim any counter evidence«.

Or perhaps I am just too politically minded.

I think to give a responsible answer we would have to know the purpose in declaring prime numbers at all. Not being a mathematician, I haven't got a clue. The above analyses don't mention the only issue that would count - why anyone would care. And when that happens, it becomes entirely political very quickly - who stood to lose or gain what? And who or what stands to gain now?

Elections used to have purpose. I suspect everyone forgot that too.“ **

Yea. Forget Wikipedia anyway. Just note my question in the op:

„Is it correct that for some time now the number 1 may no longer be considered a prime number?“ ** **

This is actually the only relevant question when it comes to the number 1 and the problem with the prime numbers concerning the number 1 as well.

7889

I am only doing this for others.

Vier Felder in einem Feld       Vier Felder in einem Feld

Vier Felder in einem Feld       Vier Felder in einem Feld

My thought behind all this is that there are four different, more or less isolated groups in this webforum and that this isolation results from the structure of this webforum and the internet in general. The internet is mainly a trollnet.

You know (?).

The other thought behind it is a humorous, satirical one.

You know (?).

7890

I could have also said this:

Vier Felder in einem Feld       Vier Felder in einem Feld

However, this statement is already based on more evaluation than the other statements.

Promethean wrote:

„I dunno about being isolated, but I am a troll. A very good one. I can troll anything man, and troll it well.“ **

Ah, interesting. A troll that doesn't know whether he is isolated. That means: Group III.

Group III is also the fancy group. It is gladly visited. Group III has the least similarity with Group II. If you are not xenophobic, then I give you the advice to become a member of Group II in order to gain experience with Group II, which is the most alien from the point of view of Group III. Good luck!

Promethean wrote:

„But ILP is not unique in its social dynamics. All major forums have regulars that turn the forum into a Facebook alternative over the years... with a few little debates here and there. Same stuff different forum.“ **

This is what I alraedy said:

Otto wrote:

„My thought behind all this is that there are four different, more or less isolated groups in this webforum and that this isolation results from the structure of this webforum and the internet in general. The internet is mainly a trollnet.“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 1413) Great Again, 11.02.2021, 00:02; Kathrina, 11.02.2021, 00:13, 00:39; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.02.2021, 01:59, 02:52; Great Again, 11.02.2021, 03:43, 03:56, 16:19; Kathrina, 11.02.2021, 16:26; Great Again, 11.02.2021, 16:40, 16:46, 16:57, 18:18, 18:28, 19:13; Otto, 11.02.2021, 19:23, 19:33; Great Again, 11.02.2021, 19:40, 20:27; Kathrina, 11.02.2021, 21:48; Great Again, 11.02.2021, 19:40, 20:27, 22:56, 23:34 (7891-7914)

7891

Prime numbers play an important role in information security and especially in the encryption of messages (see cryptography). They are often used in asymmetric cryptosystems such as public-key encryption schemes. Important examples are the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, the RSA cryptosystem used in OpenPGP, among others, the Elgamal cryptosystem and the Rabin cryptosystem. In these, keys are calculated from large, randomly generated prime numbers that must remain secret.

Such algorithms are based on one-way functions that can be executed quickly, but whose inversion is practically impossible to compute with currently known technology. However, new information technologies, for example quantum computers, could change that. The unsolved P-NP problem is related to this. The P-NP problem is an unsolved problem in mathematics, specifically complexity theory in theoretical computer science. The question here is whether the set of all problems that can be solved quickly (P {\displaystyle P} P) and the set of all problems for which one can quickly check a proposed solution for correctness (N P {\displaystyle NP} NP) are identical.

Some species of animals and plants (e.g., certain cicadas or spruce trees) reproduce especially strongly in cycles of primes (say, every 11, 13, or 17 years) to make it difficult for predators to adjust to the mass occurrence.

What I am concerned with in this topic is the answering of the question and the following straight argumentation, whether and why the 1 should be counted again to the prime numbers or not. So basically I am concerned with logic and with straight arguments. It is - as I already said - similar to the question whether 1 and 0.999... are equal or not (I say: they are not).

The more ridiculous than serious argument that „1 is not allowed to be a prime number, because 1 is divisible only by itself and 1“ actually means that 1 is a prime number, because the definition that „a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1“ also applies to 1.

But then it is said that every prime number has two different divisors, but the number 1 has only itself. Yes, but the original definition does not say anything about the separability of the divisors of a prime number, but only that a prime number is divisible only by itself and by 1.

The original definition has been changed so that one can claim afterwards that another definition than the valid one is „too complicated“. In reality, it's the other way around.

7892

Troll !

7893

Neswars wrote:

„Neswars wrote:The Joe Biden administration is blundering America into a World War 3 scenario as tensions rise globally. We are looking at a WW3 in which the regime controlling America does not represent the American people, there is zero national cohesion, and there are no clear objectives except the profit-oriented destabilization goals and petty rivalries of the Oligarchs. Such a war is not winnable for the American government, and could spark a massive bipartisan antiwar movement to challenge the bellicose decisions of the Biden regime.“ **

7894

Sculptor wrote:

„Machines cost money to make, run and maintain. They are not cheaper. Machines work for humans. If the number of humans declines, so do machines. Machines' efficiency relies on econmies of scale. Unless you can manufacture large numbers of machines they are prohibitively expensive. Typically the first machine made on a production line can be a million times as expensive and mass produced ones. If the number of humans declines, then the demand for machines falls below practical costs. What would be the point of a million trains running if there were no humans to travel on them?“ **

Troll. You are as dumb as a stump, thick as a brick.

Not trains are, but only the lovomotive (engine) of each train is a machine. And how much does even a personal computer cost? You have no idea about that either. Machines, not people, make machines. More and more human jobs have disappeared. What about the robots that are now even used in the care sector? What about artificial intelligence in general? Etc. etc. .... No humans are needed, only machines are needed.

Once again you don't know what you are talking about.

The premise of Arminius' claim that machines are cheaper where people work and they can replace them is the observation that people are being replaced by machines. So it is the observation-based fact (i.e., something you obviously have no idea about) that machines have replaced humans and are still replacing humans that has led him to say that machines are cheaper than humans, because if they were not, they would not be replaced by machines, and if they were not replaced by machine, they would not be cheaper than humans.

We can still see machines replacing humans every day and more and more, so Arminius asked the future-oriented question of whether machines will replace all humans. This is really not difficult to understand.

Troll, go play somewhere else!

7895

Greetings, Thinkdr.

Thinkdr wrote:

„In any country, if most all the people there are thriving and happy, the people of other countries around the planet will eventually want to copy that shining example!

So now we have a goal at which to aim ....

What do you say?“ **

I have to disappoint you, because we don't have your goal to work towards. A country where almost everyone is doing well and is happy, the people of other countries on the planet will not necessarily copy this shining example, but will most likely want to conquer it!

There are several ways that lead to the implementation of the conquest of this country. History knows all the examples of this.

I'm sorry.

7896

It can be said that machines even work for free, because they do not demand wages, social security, pensions, increases of all that, and never take sick leave. It is always worthwhile to buy machines even if they are relatively expensive to purchase. Humans cannot compete with machines in the long run.

7897

Meno wrote:

„There are machines as there are human beings is a duplicitous argument that ever was.

The history of machines has, ans is continually narrowing the gap. We just keep talking in terms which dies not accord substance to this, well diversionary tactic.

We diverse because it simply is uncomfortable to fill the gaps that exist between an understandable continuum between then. Projectively, thie desired outcome does not expect the interveneeing variables that ade oresent, since it was not the sought after goal of the very first machine inventions.

The machine men, of the future, with their expanding roles, awereness and autonomy, including self replication, were not present constitutionally, as did men foresaw that possibility.

Here, the matter of defining what remains of 'humanness' is the most pressing importance. At what point can the human production convert to purely non human means?
Or, conversely, can it futuristically predicted that humanness, in the ideologically conceptual sense alone, at some point become an isolated machine production, apart, isolated from the phisycal and sociatal aspects?“ **

These are some of the most important questions here, yes.

And: Will man be able to be a man at all in the future? To answer this question, one only has to observe well and draw the right conclusions from the observation. One of the conclusions is that man should become a machine, because it has been noticed that man as he is biolgically will no longer be usable. This is to be recognized already now. Another conclusion is that, because opponents of this development will be simply murdered, a political movement against it will turn the tables and will be successful with the assertion of the old values.

So all this has to become political in order to be successful. Otherwise, the technical and economic interests will win.

7898

As you have proven here with your unqualified remarks, you have no idea at all about Darwin and Darwinism. If you have read the name „Darwin“, it does not mean that you have „studied Darwin“.

7899

„Sculptor“ is a troll.

7900

And trolling includes lying. What Sculptor says has nothing to do with Darwin, but everything to do with him. He wants attention, and that makes him a troll. Being a stupid troll forces him to lie.

7901

Kathrina wrote:

„WIKIPEDIA wrote:

»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]« **

Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you »Sculptor«.

WIKIPEDIA wrote:

»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]« **

»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):

Kathrina wrote:

»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.« ** **

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.“ ** **

You are right in what you say, Kathrina.

Wikipedia, which you quoted, has also put here even something correct on the internet.

7902

Meno wrote:

„The Darwinistic princle is neither true or false, it is based both on natural and Freudian economy with political contextual determinancy in it's background. The prowess of the ruling intelligentsia will excercise it's power in according fed back channels, and it is known that Darwin was no exception when he invalidated Kammerer's experiment without knowing the results of his final findings.“ **

The later steals from the earlier, the better, the teacher, the master.

Freud stole from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (as Newton from Leibniz, Marx from Hegel and Einstein from Hilbert), and Schopenhauer already anticipated Darwinism. He was the „better Darwin“. But Schopenhauer drew pessimistic conclusions from his philosophy, left the occidental „church of reason“ and became the first European Buddhist.

The line led from Schopenhauer, who preceded Darwin, over Nietzsche to Freud; so Nietzsche and thus also Freud were influenced by Darwin. Nietzsche and thus also Freud were already forced by the zeitgeist (Hegel) into the optimistic direction.

Schopenhauer was right when he stated that consciousness is bodily affective determined. Yet the opposite is also true. Consciousness determines the body affectively.

Darwin, in turn, started from Malthus, and Malthus was an economist. But what you call „Freudian economics“ actually goes back to Schopenhauer. From Schopenhauer's „will“ Freud made „drive“ to cover what he had stolen. It is not much different with the „economy“ behind it.

7903

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»It can be said that machines even work for free, because they do not demand wages, social security, pensions, increases of all that, and never take sick leave. It is always worthwhile to buy machines even if they are relatively expensive to purchase. Humans cannot compete with machines in the long run.«

And they are owned. They can be taken off line for a while with very little expense or even rented out - profit without problems.“ **

Of course.

7904

The original definition was: „A prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1“.

But now the definition is: „A prime number is a natural number that is greater than 1 and divisible exclusively by itself and 1“.

That is cheating!

7905

Group II. Aha.

Promethean is from Group III, and since Group II has the least resemblance to Group III, I suggest you talk more with Promethean to get closer to Group III.

7906

But you can also just as well talk only within your group.

7907

Thank you. I have 100 posts now. That is enough.

Well, I can think about it again. Maybe I will go on. Let's just wait and see. And drink tea!

Great Again

7908

Okay, think this over.

But also think about the fact that after you will have left, only your group members will miss you.

I just remembered: Do you know the thread „People you miss“?

7909

Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced by Malthus.

That Lamarck was in the game, is not contradictory to that at all. But Lamarck's theory is fundamentally different from the one Darwin arrived at via Malthus. As I said: Darwin admitted this.

Darwin was also a theologian (Kathrina has already said that [**|**]). I don't know any theologian who was not also influenced by philosophers. Moreover, Malthus was an economist and demographer, but not a philosopher.

You still have a lot to learn.

7910

Well, it more or less reflects what we have to deal with more and more in modern times: the rulers enforce everything in the way that suits them best, and this is often to the detriment of all other people. The sciences are becoming more and more dependent, the culture as a whole is becoming more and more victimized.

7911

Mags J. wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»The original definition was: ›A prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1‹.

But now the definition is: ›A prime number is a natural number that is greater than 1 and divisible exclusively by itself and 1‹.

That is cheating!« ** **

So what do you think that means or is inferring to?“ **

If I may answer:

It more or less reflects what we have to deal with more and more in modern times: the rulers enforce everything in the way that suits them best, and this is often to the detriment of all other people. The sciences are becoming more and more dependent, the culture as a whole is becoming more and more victimized.

7912

Kathrina wrote:

„Mags J. wrote:

»Great Again wrote:

›The original definition was: 'A prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1'.

But now the definition is: 'A prime number is a natural number that is greater than 1 and divisible exclusively by itself and 1'.

That is cheating!‹ ** **

So what do you think that means or is inferring to?« **

If I may answer:

It more or less reflects what we have to deal with more and more in modern times: the rulers enforce everything in the way that suits them best, and this is often to the detriment of all other people. The sciences are becoming more and more dependent, the culture as a whole is becoming more and more victimized.“ ** **

Agreed.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»That is cheating!« ** **

Isn't that the prevailing morality? - »Thy rules are thus - but not for us.«“ **

Absolutely.

7914

Mr. J. wrote:

„I miss the people and time before the internet or social media existed.“ **

Can you really remember the time before the internet?

Mr. J. wrote:

„I miss the period of time when people weren't always looking at their cellphones or touch screens. The last twenty something years has been nothing short of a disaster for all of humanity.“ **

I agree with this.

They constantly run into street poles with their cell phones. In their heads, they are actually already machine humans, autistic cyborgs (**|**).

 

NACH OBEN 1414) Great Again, 12.02.2021, 00:09, 00:23; Kathrina, 12.02.2021, 00:47, 00:59, 02:26, 02:49; Great Again, 12.02.2021, 03:23; Otto, 12.02.2021, 03:46; Great Again, 12.02.2021, 03:55; Great Again, 12.02.2021, 03:59; Kathrina, 12.02.2021, 14:18; Great Again, 12.02.2021, 14:40, 14:53, 15:23; Kathrina, 12.02.2021, 18:43; Great Again, 12.02.2021, 14:40, Kathrina, 12.02.2021, 20:46, 20:52, 21:06, 21:41, 22:08, 22:19; Otto, 12.02.2021, 23:15, 23:40, 23:40 (7915-7939)

7915

In my home country there was never an „unregulated pay phone“ (**), but always regulated phones and regulated pay phones. In the last decades before the internet, hardly anyone had to walk to the pay phone. Well, the thing with the small change is true. But it was worth it to me. You could regulate that very well.

Think about the many sick brains of today, whose owners walk around like autistic cyborgs. In comparison, I prefer to be nostalgic and very happy. I am very happy. Do you think that the young startled chickens are happy too? Really?

7916

You (**) are arrogant, have no idea at all about what you are talking about. I have evidence that Darwin really said what I quoted. He even said it in one of his major works. You have no idea, but you always talk big.
You are a troll, as has been said many times, not only by me.

And your pseudo-argument about the language barrier is more than ridiculous.There were already translators at that time, even more than today, because today there are machines for it (but you have no idea about that!). Darwin knew also non-English texts, and that by means of translation, you fool.

It is useless to discuss with trolls.

I should not have fed this stupid troll.

7917


Great Again wrote:

„Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced by Malthus.

That Lamarck was in the game, is not contradictory to that at all. But Lamarck's theory is fundamentally different from the one Darwin arrived at via Malthus. As I said: Darwin admitted this.
Darwin was also a theologian (Kathrina has already said that [**|**]).“ ** **

Yes, and finally there is not much left of Darwinism than a theology. Considering nature as a selector - and Darwin has done that (also he has admitted that) -, means considering nature as God or God as nature. And at that time this was nothing special. There was the insanely rising natural science, there was romanticism, idealism, realism, naturalism, impressionism. Darwin was also just a typical „child of the 19th century“.

Theologians, by the way, have always been interested in philosophy. The first philosophical topics were even without exception theological. Moreover, „theology“ and „theory“ are related to „theo“, thus: to God. This is still the case today, but fewer and fewer admit it. Darwin was a theologian. That is a historical fact.

If theology is underestimated today, it is not my fault.

Do not forget that „Sculptor“ is illiterate. He is not capable of reading properly. Of course, he has also not read that you, Great Again, did not speak at all about Darwin having stolen from Germans, but only that Newton had done it (**|**).

7918

Kathrina wrote:

„Arminius,
James,
Alf,
Moreno.“ ** **

I forgot about the female side:

Kriswest,
Pandora,
Arcturus Descending.

7919

Phoneutria wrote:

„I have never replied to sculptor as Inoticed that every posts of his is nothing but provocation. I hope in time people here will learn not to dignify sculptor with a reply he deserves nothing but your complete indifference.“ **

You are absolutely right with what you said about that stupid troll „Sculptor“.

Besides, isn't his name an insult to you, because you really are a sculptor, as you once said?

7920

Unfortunately, I was the first in this thread to respond to him.

Okay, I am done with this stupid troll.

The maxim is: Do not feed trolls!

7921


Otto wrote:

„Okay, think this over.

But also think about the fact that after you will have left, only your group members will miss you.

I just remembered: Do you know the thread »People you miss«?“ ** **

Yes.

I know someone who fits the following position exactly:

Vier Felder in einem Feld

7922

Are you sometimes in contact with this poster?

7923

Yes, but not often. The contact is just too annoying.

7924

But think of my advice: „Get closer to Group III“ (**|**).

7925

I said that Darwin was a theologian. It is true that he was a theologian. Newton was also a theologian. There were and are many theologians. I did not say that Darwin disregarded any method. I did not say that in a word.

7926

This is what Kathrina said and what I supported:

Copied post in another thread.

The troll has no evidence, because he has no knowledge about Darwin and Darwinism.

Now can we get back to the real question of this thread instead of always dealing with trolls?

7927


Obsrvr wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»It is absurd to say this. The work that Darwin published was in accordance with the scientific method. I don't think being of scientific mind or method alters whether a theory is theology (virtually the same word - for a reason).« **

Phoneutria wrote:

»In nature there isn't a driving consciousness, or a will, or a mind, whatever have you, that is clearly present in most creation myths, particularly true of the christian belief.

I don't think consciousness is required in theology - it is just most common - for commoners.

It's appearing that Great Again is the most educated concerning the history of all of this.

Answering the title question logically requires knowing the very precise definition of »Darwinistic Principle«.“ **

Thank you.

You got it. Also, you understood to point out what Arminius was about with his question as the title of this thread (**|**).

7928

When the machines will have used up resources, a time will have passed. They need silicon. Where can silicon be found? Valley? (Look at my avatar.) Seriously, everywhere on this planet. And there is also a lot of it on this planet. But how much longer, if the machines become more and more? But will they become more and more? How many? How big? They have become smaller and smaller. Will they be much smaller on average in the future than they are today? I think so, yes, they will.

A. M.

7929


Obsrvr wrote:

„The problem I see is that it is like saying that Romulus Augustulus is still the emperor of Rome.“ **

Yes, Romulus Augustulus is still the emperor. But the king of Neverland, Homunculus, has been paid to steal the emperor's crown and remain in power as interim emperor until the new emperor, Romulus Homunculus the 0th, can be proclaimed.

Obsrvr wrote:

The USA is now a defunct nation with a globalist appointed Magistrate acting as a Prime Minster (beholding only to Parliament/Congress) pretending to be a President of a republic.

Those in power control your military, your CDC, and your Media. Trying to reestablish a republic could be a very very serious problem - regardless of who the President actually is.

Almost all of those in charge knew the election was rigged and that O'Biden didn't really win. They are still in charge. And they still don't care. And they are now even more bold toward dispensing with any rebellion at any cost - they truly do not care how many people they murder (else the whole COVID thing would never have happened).

It would be great if the USA could rise from its graven state, but -- extremely unlikely. Mr Trump really did perform some true miracles, but that one seems a bit out of reach even for him. I'm sure there is a way -- but ....“ **

Would you describe what has been going on in the US for some time as a civil war? I mean a civil war comparable to the first or second one of those civil wars of the Ancient Romans (133-30). These wars were fought mostly outside Rome. They were private wars. And they were always about money, because money is a means of gaining, maintaining, expanding power. So money works like violence, blood, war.

7930

To which comment is your comment referred to?

I just continued a satire and then asked a question.

7931

No.

You (**) refer to your own (subjective) opinion. That is your right. But you have criticized me for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal opinion, because all I have said is that theology - understood as theology (not as the corrupt system it has become) - does not violate scientific methods.

That can't be so difficult to understand.

Language? Oh yes, science and philosophy as well as art are nothing without language! Just because it seems today that everything has nothing to do with language does not mean that it really has nothing to do with language.

Are you Sculptor?

I'm just asking.

7932

Did you (**) win a prize with your conspiracy theory back then?

7933

You can't threaten me!

You have not spoken on the topic even once, you've always just said your very subjective opinion. Then I asked you something and you immediately became abusive.

7934

I think a lot has changed since 2017, not only in the US, but even around the world, on the internet, so here at ILP as well. Many posters seem to be much more nervous than they were before.

7935

Do you have an explanation for the phenomenon that most of those who habitually comment in the philosophical subforum „Religion and Spirituality“ seem to be less nervous than most of those who habitually comment in the other philosophical subforums?

7936

Mags J. wrote:

„A question, if I may, before I reply.. why are/do the groups, have to be isolated? From ...?“ **

If I may answer.

I think that the four groups do not actually have to be but are isolated from each other, because they have isolated themselves from each other and keep doing it. Some do it, as Otto wrote, with intention, the others do it without intention.

7937

Oh ...!

Good evening. I apologize for my lateness (*puts the work bag on the table*).

Mags J. wrote:

„A question, if I may, before I reply.. why are/do the groups, have to be isolated? From ...?“ **

Well, Kathrina has already explained it quite well, as I have seen.

Kathrina wrote:

„I think that the four groups do not actually have to be but are isolated from each other, because they have isolated themselves from each other and keep doing it. Some do it, as Otto wrote, with intention, the others do it without intention (see: ** **).“ ** **

The reason for the isolation of the groups is an ancient one. People want to separate themselves from other people. It's about recognition, respectableness, power. Since all the barriers associated with the concrete counterpart of a person or group no longer exist on the internet, this isolation becomes even more apparent.

No good news? I know, you'll make the best of it.

7938

Kathrina wrote:

„Do you have an explanation for the phenomenon that most of those who habitually comment in the philosophical subforum „Religion and Spirituality“ seem to be less nervous than most of those who habitually comment in the other philosophical subforums?“ ** **

Yes, I have.

This commentators belong mostly to group IV (**|**).

7939

Does anyone here want to deny that these groups exist?

I don't think so.

Have a nice evening.

 

NACH OBEN 1415) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 13.02.2021, 00:59; Great Again, 13.02.2021, 02:09; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 13.02.2021, 02:44; Great Again, 13.02.2021, 15:51; Otto, 13.02.2021, 23:59 (7940-7944)

7940

I voted „yes“, although I am not for a big control, as you can imagine.

In the US, everyone seems to be fighting everyone (as in Hobbes' time in England) - the differences are in the technical and economic possibilities as well as in the composition of the society and the age of the culture. In the USA skin colors fight against one skin color, upper and lower class against middle class, women against men, young against old, atheists and non-Christians against Christians, left against right, „progressives“ against conservatives, homosexuals and transsexuals against heterosexuals. (Soon also machines against humans? Or again animals against humans?). Although, no because we are doing so well, everybody is fighting everybody.
But this is not unique to the US, it is true wherever there are Westerners. This is not a coincidence. In the USA it is - at the moment in any case - only worse than in the other nations of the West.

The internet „promised“ so much in the beginning and not only failed to deliver on any of that promise but brought more and more autism, asociality, lack of independence, dictatorship, censorship, prohibition, banning.

The reason why almost no moderation can be found here is that almost no one wants to have and show responsibility out of fear. Maybe Carleas is already in prison? For us (is he like Jesus on the cross?)?

The fear goes around.

7941

The best books I've read: Various books on history.

The worst book I've read: No one.

7942

Topic: What book are you reading right now?

Buch

I am reading (for the second time): Gaius Julius Caesar, „Works“.

CaesarCaesarforum

7943

Machines are rational. So they would only produce as many machines as they need.

The western-modern people have been reducing also for some time the number of their population. Machines are a western invention, originate from western rationality.

So the machines will also reduce their number.

7944

We all have intentions, the only question is in which situations we have them.

I would say, (a) you (**) are neutral, as you should be as a moderator, which you were in former times, or (b) you try to touch all groups equally, which is also quite moderator-like, or (c) you are, if you do not know about the isolation of your group and want to drive others into isolation, in group III, namely very close to the other groups, or (d) you are, if you do not know about the isolation of your group and do not want to drive others into isolation, in group IV, namely very close to the other groups. (Note: The fact that you have said you „take a troll over a sock-puppet“ [**] is in your case indicative of group III, not of group IV, because group IV is free of trolls.)

Vier Felder in einem Feld      Vier Felder in einem Feld      Vier Felder in einem Feld      Vier Felder in einem Feld

 

NACH OBEN 1416) Kathrina, 14.02.2021, 00:06, 00:39; Great Again, 14.02.2021, 00:29, 16:06, 23:59 (7945-7949)

7945

Gracility (e.g. of human hands) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.

Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.

Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.

So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.

7946

Ancient Rome - short, simplified interpretation of what happened in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC..*

The construction of the Roman state could not suffice in the long run for the domination and administration of the growing world empire. Moreover, the prosperities that streamed into Italy from the plunder of wars and the exploitation of Rome's supremacy, and the sunny influences of the quite different Hellenistic world on Rome, which was still quite simple around 200 A.D., brought about internal and moral changes that greatly affected not only the ancient Roman state mentality, but the entire internal structure of Roman life.

The competition of cheap overseas grain from taxation and the influx of money in the Roman upper class, which had to seek investment primarily in landed property, and other related developments worked in the direction of the shrinking of the peasant middle class of the Roman citizenry. This, with the shrinking of the legions' recruiting base and, at the same time, ever-increasing military tasks, directly touched the foundations of Roman rule and conjured up other clearly visible dangers. The reform attempt of the Gracchi, who wanted to counteract this development by resettling peasants on available state land, failed for various reasons and, with its side effects, led to the outbreak of civil war-like processes (and thus civil wars in general) and a disastrous tension between the estates of the Roman people.

Marius drew from this situation the other conclusion, for the formation of the army needed for the colonial war against Jugurtha in North Africa and then against the Germanic threat in the north and in the west, no longer to resort to conscription of the middle classes of the Roman people, but to form his army by recruitment. In order to be successful, Marius had to offer the recruits not only a short-term military service, but also a kind of life position. The recruits thus became professional soldiers with at least twenty years of service, who then also demanded to be provided for somehow for their further life after their discharge. It is natural that these new professional soldiers came primarily from the proletariat, which, moreover, streamed to Rome in ever-increasing numbers from Germania, Gaul, North Africa and the Hellenistic states, and according to established Roman ideas, this immediately had further consequences.

One of those consequences was that the bonds between the soldiers and the commander became closer and closer. Another consequence was that with this ominous aggravation of the internal political antagonisms, the interest of the leading class in Rome shifted completely to these personal power struggles (private wars!) and intrigues, and they no longer paid sufficient attention to the developments in the external sphere of Rome's power and let them drive to real catastrophes like the domination of the whole Mediterranean Sea by the pirates and the conquest of Asia Minor by Mithridates with the murder of all the Romans in the country (at least 80000; cp. „Vesper of Ephesus“).

Here, the most serious mistake of the republican Roman leadership took its revenge on Rome itself, the lack of interest in the provinces, which one as a lower subject country did not really think had to worry about and in which one therefore allowed to happen, about which one did not really think to have to care about as an subject country and in which one therefore let happen what then led to the fall of the republic itself. The unrestricted power and self-importance of the Roman imperial leaders in the provinces, which did not directly affect Roman citizens and therefore did not seem to be particularly disturbing, had the consequence that the great military leaders in the provinces and on the borders of the Roman Empire were able to act almost freely and, in the wars they led, created the great armies and turned them into tools of their policy, with which they could conquer Rome from the provinces.

* Roman civil wars: 133-30 BC.

(From: Ernst Meyer, Einführung in die antike Staatskunde, 1968, S. 218-220; translated by me).

Please compare, taking into account, of course, the differences owed to occidental modernity.

7947

Kathrina wrote:

„Gracility (e.g. of human hands) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.

Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.

Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.

So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.“ ** **

Yes. As you know, many developments came together in one development, so to say.

Entwicklung
**
„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:
    1. Exogenous (environmental changes with corresponding necessities for adaptation).
    2. Endogenous (further development of certain organs, atrophy of others).
    3. 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.“ ** **

7948

Yes, the number 2 is also a problem. Either we allow the number 1 to be a prime number again, or we also take the number 2 out of the prime number set and say: „Within the whole positive number set, the number 2 can only be divided by itself and by 1, because there is only one positiv number which is smaller than 2“. So then the new definition would be: „A prime number is that integer positive number which is greater than 2 and divisible only by itself and 1“. In this case, the prime numbers would begin with the number 3.

This would lead to other problems. So we should leave it at the first definition, so that 1 and 2 are prime numbers: „A prime number is that integer positive number which is divisible by itself and 1“.

7949

Thank you, Thinkdr (**).

George Bernard Shaw also said that he wanted to kill useless humans.

History is about future too. We should learn from history because of the future.

 

NACH OBEN 1417) Kultur, 17.02.2021, 00:11; Otto, 17.02.2021, 00:58; Great Again, 17.02.2021, 02:38; Kultur, 17.02.2021, 17:30; Great Again, 17.02.2021, 19:35, 19:47, 19:50, 19:47 (7950-7956)

7950

Topic: The Rise and Fall of Cultures.

Spengler. Culture morphology.

Kultur (Avatar)
Cultures are beings similar to organisms and their course resembles that of the seasons. Cultures go through winter, spring, summer, autumn and possibly again a new winter or even a new seasonal cycle on the whole with smaller differences, smaller „amplitudes“. Two examples can be seen in my avatar. (1) The first example shows the development in a larger framework from the first cave drawings to the present and can be called „Metaculture“; its likely most prominent signs are: (a) painted pictures, (b) first writing, (c) first vowel writing, (d) first „running pictures“ (movies). (2) The second example shows one of the „High Cultures“ (according to Spengler eight in number): the occidental culture; for its time span, however, I do not estimate about 1000 years like Spengler did, but about 2000 years. The sequence can be seen in my avatar from left to right and from top to bottom.

Oswald Spengler (translated [**]).

„Cultures are organisms. World history is their total biography. The immense history of the Chinese or ancient culture is morphologically the exact side piece to the small history of the individual human being, an animal, a tree or a flower. This is not a demand for the Faustian view, but an experience. If one wants to know the everywhere repeated inner form, the comparative morphology of the plants and animals has long prepared the method for it.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. 140 (translated [**]).

From the Film „Linear History and Vulgar Optimism“:

„Spengler made the astonishing claim, that he had introduced a »Copernican« model of history. History is not linear, but rather the organic rise and fall of High Cultures. Modern Man believs in the idea of »progress«, the idea that history moves along a linear path of moral, political, social and technolgical improvement. The final state of this »improvement« will be, the Modern Man believes, an utopia of peace, equality, freedom, material abundance and security. Nature will no longer be able to constrain man. It is the Faustian longing for boundless infinity. Culture is an organic process with stage of birth, maturity and ultimately death. Western culture's boundless optimism lies within Christianity. The idea of progression of time towards a final, perfect heaven and earth. This feeling of progress was rationalized, naturalized and secularized in the Enlightenment. For Modern Man his religion is Enlightenment ideology. He believes that the holy trinity - equality, Democracy and Materialism - will lead inevitably to utopia on earth, despite evidence to the contrary. His faith in them is absolutely certain. Pacifism will not »save« mankind. Equality will not »save« mankind. Science will not »save« mankind. Capitalism will not »save« mankind. There is nothing that will usher in an utopia for man and this world. Utopian ideals are perfect and static. Life is change. When an entire society chases after utopian fantasies, it is a sign of old age. Every culture/civilization, no matter how formerly great, has ended / will end. Fairy tales of heaven on earth through tolerance and understanding are foolish dreams. A people must insist on its own existence, no one else will.“

„Spengler was quite conscious of this clash of orientations in the West. He knew that men are generally disdainful of experience and that, driven by limitless and uncontrolled hope, they like to conceptualize the future in terms of what they consider the desirable rather than the likely course of events. In counterpoint to these, in his view, irrational trends, he remarked that optimism is naive and in some respects even vulgar, and that it surely stands for cowardice when one is afraid to face the fact that life is fleeting and transient in all its aspects. These thoughts touch a major motif in Spengler's philosophy which critics tend to ignore, namely the recognition of the place of tragedy in the Occidental cultural world. Tragic modes of experiencing life can only evolve there, where the individual human being is presumed autonomous in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, and where he is therefore vulnerable to the agony of having to make choices between conflicting interests and commitments.“ **

Oswald Spengler (translated [**]):

„Since Newton, the assumption of constant mass — the counterpart of constant force — has had uncontested validity. But the Quantum theory of Planck, and the conclusions of Niels Bohr therefrom as to the fine structure of atoms, which experimental experience had rendered necessary, have destroyed this assumption. Every self-contained system possesses, besides kinetic energy, an energy of radiant heat which is inseparable from it and therefore cannot be represented purely by the concept of mass. For if mass is defined by living energy it is ipso facto no longer constant with reference to thermodynamic state. Nevertheless, it is impossible to fit the theory of quanta into the group of hypotheses constituting the »classical« mechanics of the Baroque; moreover, along with the principle of causal continuity, the basis of the Infinitesimal Calculus founded by Leibniz is threatened (1). But, if these are serious enough doubts, the ruthlessly cynical hypothesis of the Relativity theory strikes to the very heart of dynamics. Supported by the experiments of A. A. Michelson, which showed that the velocity of light remains unaffected by the motion of the medium, and prepared mathematically by Lorentz and Minkowski, its specific tendency is to destroy the notion of absolute time. Astronomical discoveries (and here present-day scientists are seriously deceiving themselves) can neither establish nor refute it. »Correct« and »incorrect« are not the criteria whereby such assumptions are to be tested; the question is whether, in the chaos of involved and artificial ideas that has been produced by the innumerable hypotheses of Radioactivity and Thermodynamics, it can hold its own as a useable hypothesis or not. But however this may be, it has abolished the constancy of those physical quantities into the definition of which time has entered, and unlike the antique statics, the Western dynamics knows only such quantities. Absolute measures of length and rigid bodies are no more. And with this the possibility of absolute quantitative delimitations and therefore the »classical« concept of mass as the constant ratio between force and acceleration fall to the ground — just after the quantum of action, a product of energy and time, had been set up as a new constant.

(1) See M. Planck, Entstehung und bisherige Entwicklung der Quantentheorie (1920), pp. 17, 25.

If we make it clear to ourselves that the atomic ideas of Rutherford and Bohr (2) signify nothing but this, that the numerical results of observations have suddenly been provided with a picture of a planetary world within the atom, instead of that of atom-swarms hitherto favoured; if we observe how rapidly card-houses of hypothesis are run up nowadays, every contradiction being immediately covered up by a new hurried hypothesis; if we reflect on how little heed is paid to the fact that these images contradict one another and the »classical« Baroque mechanics alike, we cannot but realize that the great style of ideation is at an end and that, as in architecture and the arts of form, a sort of craft-art of hypothesis-building has taken its place. Only our extreme maestria in experimental technique — true child of its century — hides the collapse of the symbolism.

(2) Which in many cases have led to the supposition that the »actual existence« of atoms has now at last been proved — a singular throw-back to the materialism of the preceding generation.

Amongst these symbols of decline, the most conspicuous is the notion of entropy, which forms the subject of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The first law, that of the conservation of energy, is the plain formulation of the essence of dynamics — not to say of the constitution of the West-European soul, to which nature is necessarily visible only in the form of a contrapuntal-dynamic causality (as against the static-plastic causality of Aristotle). The basic element of the Faustian world-picture is not the attitude but the feed and, mechanically considered, the process, and this law merely puts the mathematical character of these processes into form as variables and constants. But the Second Law goes deeper, and shows a bias in nature-happenings which is in no wise imposed a priori by the conceptual fundamentals of dynamics.

Mathematically, entropy is represented by a quantity which is fixed by the momentary state of a self-contained system of bodies and under all physical and chemical alterations can only increase, never diminish; in the most favourable conditions it remains unchanged. Entropy, like force and will, is something which (to anyone for whom this form-world is accessible at all) is inwardly clear and meaningful, but is formulated differently by every different authority and never satisfactorily by any. Here again, the intellect breaks down where the world-feeling demands expression.

Nature-processes in general have been classified as irreversible and reversible, according as entropy is increased or not. In any process of the first kind, free energy is converted into bound energy, and if this dead energy is to be turned once more into living, this can only occur through the simultaneous binding of a further quantum of living energy in some second process; the best-known example is the combustion of coal — that is, the conversion of the living energy stored up in it into heat bound by the gas form of the carbon dioxide, if the latent energy of water is to be translated into steam-pressure and thereafter into motion. It follows that in the world as a whole entropy continually increases; that is, the dynamic system is manifestly approaching to some final state, whatever this may be. Examples of the irreversible processes are conduction of heat, diffusion, friction, emission of light and chemical reactions; of reversible, gravitation, electric oscillations, electromagnetic waves and sound-waves.

What has never hitherto been fully felt, and what leads me to regard the Entropy Theory (1850) as the beginning of the destruction of that masterpiece of Western intelligence, the old dynamic physics, is the deep opposition of theory and actuality which is here for the first time introduced into theory itself. The First Law had drawn the strict picture of a causal nature-happening, but the Second Law by introducing irreversibility has for the first time brought into the mechanical-logical domain a tendency belonging to immediate life and thus in fundamental contradiction with the very essence of that domain.

If the Entropy theory is followed out to its conclusion, it results, firstly, that in theory all processes must be reversible — which is one of the basic postulates of dynamics and is reasserted with all rigour in the Law of the Conservation of Energy — but, secondly, that in actuality processes of nature in their entirety are irreversible. Not even under the artificial conditions of laboratory experiment can the simplest process be exactly reversed, that is, a state once passed cannot be re-established. Nothing is more significant of the present condition of systematics than the introduction of the hypotheses of »elementary disorder« for the purpose of smoothing-out the contradiction between intellectual postulate and actual experience. The »smallest particles« of a body (an image, no more) throughout perform reversible processes, but in actual things the smallest particles are in disorder and mutually interfere; and so the irreversible process that alone is experienced by the observer is linked with increase of entropy by taking the mean probabilities of occurrences. And thus theory becomes a chapter of the Calculus of Probabilities, and in lieu of exact we have statistical methods.

Evidently, the significance of this has passed unnoticed. Statistics belong, like chronology, to the domain of the organic, to fluctuating Life, to destiny and incident and not to the world of laws and timeless causality. As everyone knows, statistics serve above all to characterize political and economic, that is, historical, developments. In the »classical« mechanics of Galileo and Newton there would have been no room for them. And if, now, suddenly the contents of that field are supposed to be understood and understandable only statistically and under the aspect of probability — instead of under that of the a piori exactitude which the Baroque thinkers unanimously demanded — what does it mean? It means that the object of understanding is ourselves. The nature »known« in this wise is the nature that we know by way of living experience, that we live in ourselves. What theory asserts (and, being itself, must assert) — to wit, this ideal irreversibility that never happens in actuality — represents a relic of the old severe intellectual form, the great Baroque tradition that had contrapuntal music for twin sister. But the resort to statistics shows that the force that that tradition regulated and made effective is exhausted. Becoming and become, destiny and causality, historical and natural-science elements are beginning to be confused. Formulas of life, growth, age, direction and death are crowding up.

That is what, from this point of view, irreversibility in world-processes has to mean. It is the expression, no longer of the physical, but of genuine historical, inwardly-experienced time, which is identical with destiny.

Baroque physics was, root and branch, a strict systematic and remained so for as long as its structure was not racked by theories like these, as long as its field was absolutely free from anything that expressed accident and mere probability. But directly these theories come up, it becomes physiognomic. »The course of the world« is followed out. The idea of the end of the world appears, under the veil of formulas that are no longer in their essence formulas at all. Something Goethean has entered into physics — and if we understand the deeper significance of Goethe's passionate polemic against Newton in the »Farbenlehre« we shall realize the full weight of what this means. For therein intuitive vision was arguing against reason, life against death, creative image against normative law. The critical form-world of nature-knowledge came out of nature-feeling, God-feeling, as the evoked contrary. Here, at the end of the late period, it has reached the maximal distance and is turning to come home.

So, once more, the imaging-power that is the efficient in dynamics conjures up the old great symbol of Faustian man's historical passion, care — the out-look into the farthest far of past and future, the back-looking study of history, the foreseeing state, the confessions and introspections, the bells that sounded over all our country-sides and measured the passing of Life. The ethos of the word time, as we alone feel it, as instrumental music alone and no statue-plastic can carry it, is directed upon an aim. This aim has been figured in every life-image that the West has conceived — as the Third Kingdom, as the New Age, as the task of mankind, as the issue of evolution. And it is figured, as the destined end-state of all Faustian »nature« in entropy.

Directional feeling, a relation of past and future, is implicit already in the mythic concept of force on which the whole of this dogmatic form-world rests, and in the description of natural processes it emerges distinct. It would not be too much, therefore, to say that entropy, as the intellectual form in which the infinite sum of nature-events is assembled as a historical and physiognomic unit, tacitly underlay all physical concept-formation from the outset, so that when it came out (as one day it was bound to come out) it was as a »discovery« of scientific induction claiming »support« from all the other theoretical elements of the system. The more dynamics exhausts its inner possibilities as it nears the goal, the more decidedly the historical characters in the picture come to the front and the more insistently the organic necessity of destiny asserts itself side by side with the inorganic necessity of causality, and direction makes itself felt along with capacity and intensity, the factors of pure extension. The course of this process is marked by the appearance of whole series of daring hypotheses, all of like sort, which are only apparently demanded by experimental results and which in fact world-feeling and mythology imagined as long ago as the Gothic age.

Above all, this is manifested in the bizarre hypotheses of atomic disintegration which elucidate the phenomena of radioactivity, and according to which uranium atoms that have kept their essence unaltered, in spite of all external influences, for millions of years and then suddenly without assignable cause explode, scattering their smallest particles over space with velocities of thousands of kilometres per second. Only a few individuals in an aggregate of radioactive atoms are struck by destiny thus, the neighbours being entirely unaffected. Here too, then, is a picture of history and not »nature,« and although statistical methods here also prove to be necessary, one might almost say that in them mathematical number has been replaced by chronological.

With ideas like these, the mythopoetic force of the Faustian soul is returning to its origins. It was at the outset of the Gothic, just at the time when the first mechanical clocks were being built, that the myth of the world's end, Ragnarok, the twilight of the gods, arose. It may be that, like all the reputedly old-German myths Ragnarok (whether in the Voluspa form or as the Christian Muspilli) was modelled more or less on Classical and particularly Christian-Apocalyptic motives. Nevertheless, it is the expression and symbol of the Faustian and of no other soul. The Olympian college is historyless, it knows no becoming, no epochal moments, no aim. But the passionate thrust into distance is Faustian. Force, Will, has an aim, and where there is an aim there is for the inquiring eye an end. That which the perspective of oil-painting expressed by means of the vanishing point, the Baroque park by its pint de vue, and analysis by the the term of an infinite series — the conclusion, that is, of a willed directedness — assumes here the form of the concept. The Faust of the Second Part is dying, for he has reached his goal. What the myth of Götterdammerung signified of old, the irreligious form of it, the theory of entropy, signifies today — world's end as completion of an inwardly necessary evolution.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. 540-547 (translated [**]). ** **

7951

Therefore I said, „(a) you (**) are neutral, as you should be as a moderator, which you were in former times, or (b) you try to touch all groups equally, which is also quite moderator-like“ (**|**); but since September/October 2019 you are no moderator anymore:.

Moderators of ILP

Therefore I offered you two alternatives (**|**). „There are more people in a group than people who think they are not in a group.“ (An old and famous philosopher). Even this one is in a group:

„I Own the world“
„I Own the world“

7952

Obsrvr wrote:

„Thinkdr. wrote:

»Those who aspire to do philosophy would best be careful not to be too-rigidly oriented in the past (as he quotes Shaw - ).« **

And those who have aspiration for the future would best be careful to not ignore the past.“ **

Yes, for sure.

7953

It is the rejection of life in a group, especially the rejection of what holds the group together. This rejection goes as far as the rejection of one's own identity.

Infertility and Decay.

And now from the fact that existence becomes more and more rootless, the wakefulness more and more tense, finally that phenomenon emerges, which was prepared in silence long ago and now suddenly moves into the bright light of history to put an end to the whole spectacle: the infertility of civilized man. This is not something that could be understood with everyday causality, for example physiologically, as modern science has naturally tried to do. Here is a thoroughly metaphysical turn to death. The last man of the world cities does not want to live any more, certainly as an individual, but not as a type, as a multitude; in this total being the fear of death expires. That which afflicts the true peasant with a deep and inexplicable fear, the thought of the extinction of the family and the name, has lost its meaning. The continuation of the related blood within the visible world is no longer felt as the duty of this blood, the lot of being the last is no longer felt as a doom. Not only because children have become impossible, but above all because the intelligence, which has been increased to the utmost, no longer finds reasons for their existence, they remain absent.“ (Translated by me.)

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 678-679 (**).

According to Spengler, the civilization of a culture is its downfall and the time after that, if it still exists, i.e. the petrification, the freezing, the solidification in winter. When the culture becomes civilization, its urbanites begin to reject the community, all tradition and history, even the parents. And in the end, the culture/civilization consists almost entirely of city dwellers (except the most faithfully country people). The individual culture/civilization member just wants to be himself, not a member of his culture/civilization anymore.

Peter Sloterdijk said something about this too in almost all of his books, but especially in his 2014 published book „Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ („The terrible children of modern times“ - there is no English translation of the book yet, as far as I know), which I consider to be the best of his books. He says that in the course of history there are (a) at first few, (b) then already some more and (c) afterwards very many „terrible children“, who all fight their history, i.e. their origin, their tradition, their belonging to a culture, history, homeland, family etc.. The curve for the number of „terrible children“ in history suddenly rises exponentially.

Sloterdijk's division of culture into three evolutionary or historical stages - „early culture“, „high culture“, „late culture“ (this understood in the sense of Gehlen) -, which is often found in his books, does not coincide with the division which Spengler prefered in his philosophy of culture and history and which I prefer in my philosophy of culture and history. That which I call the human „primitive culture“ or „hunter-gatherer culture“ lasting until the invention of writing, i.e. lasting for a very long time, he calls „early culture“; that which I call the human „metaculture“ (see my last post [**|**]) or „historical culture“ (consisting of eight „historical cultures“ / „high cultures“), he calls „high culture“, which according to him lasts from the time of the invention of writing either (a) up to the „axis time“ (Jaspers) or (b) up to the late Middle Ages resp. to the beginning of modern times or even to the French Revolution; the time after that is still a time of „high culture“ (now almost civilization, „late culture“) according to my theory of culture, but for Sloterdijk it is the time of „late culture“ (understood in the sense of Gehlen - as already said). **

7954

„In the meantime, humans have only ever changed the world in different ways; the important thing is to save it.“ ** **

7955

Today's people are very fearful people. This is also the main motive in this case (**): people are afraid that their website will not be found and feel like someone who disappears into infinite vastness of the universe.

7956

Until now, machines have only done what is rational.

 

NACH OBEN 1418) Great Again, 18.02.2021, 00:08 01:36, 02:05, 02:31 (7957-7960)

7957

Mathematicians are the ones among scientists who are the least corrupt (well, some people say that mathematics is not a science at all), but scientists want money, and that is why they have been bought more and more.

7958

The worship of the number 1 can culturally work like a taboo. Ancient Greeks believed that everything is uniform, abyssal, delimited (everything also in the aesthetic sense). The number 1 means „unit“.

Since the conquests of Alexander the Great, the special role of the 1 declined in Ancient Greece.

7959

Obsrvr wrote:

„Isn't it more likely that it is the word »unit« that means 1?“ **

Yes, it is also the case that children first learn the word „one“ and then the number „1“. But in the beginning, they can't separate the two. For children, „one“ and „1“ initially mean the same. It is only later that they come to understand the difference. And that's probably how it was with the Ancient Greeks - on a higher level of course - in their early times.

7960

You could understand the meaning of the word „one“ before you could understand the meaning of the number „1“.

Young children know very early what words are, but they separate the numbers - as numbers (and no longer as words) - from the words a bit later, when they begin to count with their fingers (counting, firstly accompanied by speaking, later no longer). When they have learned to count, they are fit for arithmetic and therefore for mathematics lessons - not before.

When a culture begins, it's not much different, but the level is higher (after all, it's mostly adults). The question is, whether and which words are holy or not, and later eventually, whether and which numbers are holy or not. It depends on the conditions of the early culture (which people and which environment).

 

NACH OBEN 1419) Kultur, 19.02.2021, 00:01; Great Again, 19.02.2021, 00:13; Kathrina, 19.02.2021, 00:22; Otto, 19.02.2021 00:38, 01:08, 01:33, 01:50, 02:00, 04:20; Great Again, 19.02.2021, 13:03, 13:07, 13:51, 14:30, 18:28, 18:51, 21:26, 22:02 (7961-7977)

7961

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»It is the rejection of life in a group, especially the rejection of what holds the group together. This rejection goes as far as the rejection of one's own identity.

»Infertility and Decay.

And now from the fact that existence becomes more and more rootless, the wakefulness more and more tense, finally that phenomenon emerges, which was prepared in silence long ago and now suddenly moves into the bright light of history to put an end to the whole spectacle: the infertility of civilized man. This is not something that could be understood with everyday causality, for example physiologically, as modern science has naturally tried to do. Here is a thoroughly metaphysical turn to death. The last man of the world cities does not want to live any more, certainly as an individual, but not as a type, as a multitude; in this total being the fear of death expires. That which afflicts the true peasant with a deep and inexplicable fear, the thought of the extinction of the family and the name, has lost its meaning. The continuation of the related blood within the visible world is no longer felt as the duty of this blood, the lot of being the last is no longer felt as a doom. Not only because children have become impossible, but above all because the intelligence, which has been increased to the utmost, no longer finds reasons for their existence, they remain absent.« (Translated by me.)

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 678-679 (**).

According to Spengler, the civilization of a culture is its downfall and the time after that, if it still exists, i.e. the petrification, the freezing, the solidification in winter. When the culture becomes civilization, its urbanites begin to reject the community, all tradition and history, even the parents. And in the end, the culture/civilization consists almost entirely of city dwellers (except the most faithfully country people). The individual culture/civilization member just wants to be himself, not a member of his culture/civilization anymore.

Peter Sloterdijk said something about this too in almost all of his books, but especially in his 2014 published book »Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit« (»The terrible children of modern times« - there is no English translation of the book yet, as far as I know), which I consider to be the best of his books. He says that in the course of history there are (a) at first few, (b) then already some more and (c) afterwards very many »terrible children«, who all fight their history, i.e. their origin, their tradition, their belonging to a culture, history, homeland, family etc.. The curve for the number of »terrible children« in history suddenly rises exponentially.

Sloterdijk's division of culture into three evolutionary or historical stages - »early culture«, »high culture«, »late culture« (this understood in the sense of Gehlen) -, which is often found in his books, does not coincide with the division which Spengler prefered in his philosophy of culture and history and which I prefer in my philosophy of culture and history. That which I call the human »primitive culture« or »hunter-gatherer culture« lasting until the invention of writing, i.e. lasting for a very long time, he calls »early culture«; that which I call the human »metaculture« (see my last post [**|**]) or »historical culture« (consisting of eight »historical cultures« / »high cultures«), he calls »high culture«, which according to him lasts from the time of the invention of writing either (a) up to the »axis time« (Jaspers) or (b) up to the late Middle Ages resp. to the beginning of modern times or even to the French Revolution; the time after that is still a time of »high culture« (now almost civilization, »late culture«) according to my theory of culture, but for Sloterdijk it is the time of »late culture« (understood in the sense of Gehlen - as already said).« (**) ** **

It explains why »pagani« was used as a derogatory term to describe those who had not abandoned their Indo-European traditions and spiritual beliefs.....and which identity is characteristic of urbanites?“ **

That can be said.

Satyr wrote:

„Haven't read that Sloterdijk book.“ **

Maybe there will be an English translation soon. Sloterdijk is known throughout the West.

Satyr wrote:

„Suffice it to say that memes/cultures follow the same cycles as genotypes/phenotypes. A peak of maturity followed by a slow decline into old age, vulnerable to parasites, viruses and all kinds of diseases. Language corrupts thought, and like genetic mutations, eventually leads to death. As a man declines into old age he loses contact with reality, falling increasingly inward.“ **

Almost everything is language. It not only influences thinking, but thinking itself is also language. Language is everything that one can produce and take in signs, no matter whether it is about seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling. Today this is mostly called „communication“, but I continue to call it „language“. We cannot get around language. It accompanies us constantly. We use it. We would have to become lifeless in order to no longer perceive it, to no longer realize it, to no longer use it.

7962

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»You could understand the meaning of the word „one“ before you could understand the meaning of the number „1“.

Young children know very early what words are, but they separate the numbers - as numbers (and no longer as words) - from the words a bit later, when they begin to count with their fingers (counting, firstly accompanied by speaking, later no longer). When they have learned to count, they are fit for arithmetic and therefore for mathematics lessons - not before.

When a culture begins, it's not much different, but the level is higher (after all, it's mostly adults). The question is, whether and which words are holy or not, and later eventually, whether and which numbers are holy or not. It depends on the conditions of the early culture (which people and which environment).« ** **

Okay - I think i can see where you are going with this.

I see these things a little differently. I know that people think in different ways - I am referred to an an »analytical reductionist«.“ **

Everyone must reduce analytically in his life, but everyone must also observe in his life. This is also how science came into being. According to the theory/practice duality, the purely theoretical (related to philosophy) and the experiment have come into being. If science would not be corrupt through and through in the meantime - like e.g. also politics - then it would still appreciate this duality.

Obsrvr wrote:

„An analytical reductionist is someone who reduces issues down to their basic concepts. We discern the »conceptual« or the »divine« - the abstract concept involved - the angels, demons, devils, and gods. And we tend to be able to easily understand the simple logic of what we each say as being exactly true or false or just too vague to be certain about. We tend to all agree very much on anything we have much education about. We learn from each other very quickly. And when I read about what people like Plato, Aristotle, and even Jesus have said - it all seems almost too obvious to mention.“ **

So, as I already indicated above, I am also an analytical reductionist and an observer. What I have written about language development in children is based more on observation than on analytic reduction, but from this one can not conclude that I prefer observation to analysis or even analytic reduction.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Similar things happen with other kinds of minds - they see the »sense« all of the others of »like minds« are trying to explain. They see it instantly - whether it actually makes any real sense or not. That is why observers are chosen by their mind-type. - so they can relay what the intention really was to those concerned with whatever they said (dogs can't see color) - much like a language interpreter but more like a thought interpreter.

So when you ask of the difference between the number 1 and word or concept of one - I have to scratch around to try to discern any difference. To me it turns out to be merely superficial semantics. And now that you have raised this issue of social beginnings I have to believe that with Plato, Hebrews, and the like - it was the same.“ **

Do you have children?

If you observe young children intensively while they are learning the language (including the numbers, which are not separated from the words in the beginning), you will quickly realize that this development and acquisition is anything but superficial (I even believe that this learning is the greatest ever in a human life). Children have the same great „aha“ experience when they can separate the numbers from the words. It corresponds to the difference of word and concept, of more concreteness and more abstractness, of more practice and more theory.

Obsrvr wrote:

„I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind.“ **

I did not say that they „become another kind“, I said that they give themselves a culture, that is something that has to do with them and their environment, and that from now on they will shape more differently than before.

A child does not „become another kind“ by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.

Obsrvr wrote:

„It seems much more likely to me that in the mix of minds they had when they started, a type of Darwinian interaction caused dominance of a variety of types of cultural norms and ideas. And through time, different aspects of those norms got more or less attention by others who could identify with them. Often they form identifiable groups.“ **

Yes, and that does not contradict what I said.

What do you think about the following statement of Niklas Luhmann: „Evolution is the transformation of improbability of origin into probability of preservation“ („Evolution ist die Umformung von Entstehungsunwahrscheinlichkeit in Erhaltenswahrscheinlichkeit“)?

Obsrvr wrote:

„And those groups, like the soap bubbles foaming up from the stream of life's splashing issues, interact and role around each other rising, growing, and at times bursting while they form the world of mankind.

And in this vein of number vs concept and original prime vs new age - to us analytical reductionists - it is all just - »a rose by any other name« ( - but get your bloody words straight).“ **

Yes, that is the point. Get your words straight!

7963

ILP has changed a lot since I went on my well deserved break („vacation“) on December 27 2017 after my then last post (**|**). The majority is now with the morons, retards, trolls. On top of that, moderation is almost non-existent.

*Sigh*.

7964

The one who owns the world also owns the groups contained in it.

7965

I was once a world-famous astronaut and often lived in a space capsule and a landing module (thanks for all this, Wernher von Braun). Later, I changed my identity, my gender too and married Obama's husband (thanks for all this, Barack).

Landemodul „Eagle“

7966

„Evil tongues“ claim that AI developers have lost control over AI.

7967

My school would be y exclusively private. As it looks at the moment, the state only causes damage.

7968

Kathrina, I miss you.

Rolling Stones (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watt, Ron Wood, Bill Wyman), „Miss You“, 1978.

7969

From his (**|**) point of view, that's how it is!

Do you feel insulted?
And if so, why?
Sorry.

7970

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»I am also an analytical reductionist and an observer.« ** **

I immediately observed that about you. **

Thank you.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»What I have written about language development in children is based more on observation than on analytic reduction, but from this one can not conclude that I prefer observation to analysis or even analytic reduction.« ** **

You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?“ **

Yes, I have.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Do you have children?« ** **

I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).“ **

Stepchildren or all other children - it doesn't matter, it's „only“ a matter of observing them intensively and drawing the right conclusions from the observation. I have always observed a lot and intensively, also and especially children, most of all and most intensively my own children.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»If you observe young children intensively while they are learning the language (including the numbers, which are not separated from the words in the beginning), you will quickly realize that this development and acquisition is anything but superficial (I even believe that this learning is the greatest ever in a human life). Children have the same great ›aha‹ experience when they can separate the numbers from the words. It corresponds to the difference of word and concept, of more concreteness and more abstractness, of more practice and more theory.« ** **

Now I am suspecting you have been referring to a different distinction between 1 and »one« than what I was thinking. Perhaps if you could describe more exactly that distinction.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of »Map vs Terrain«. I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.“ **

Who said that „everyone began with any confusion about that“?

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Obsrvr wrote:

›I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind.‹ **

I did not say that they ›become another kind‹, I said that they give themselves a culture, that is something that has to do with them and their environment, and that from now on they will shape more differently than before.

A child does not ›become another kind‹ by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.« ** **

We could have a philosophical discussion about that. **

Yes, with pleasure.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»What do you think about the following statement of Niklas Luhmann: ›Evolution is the transformation of improbability of origin into probability of preservation‹ (›Evolution ist die Umformung von Entstehungsunwahrscheinlichkeit in Erhaltenswahrscheinlichkeit‹).« ** **

A well stated focus of one aspect of evolution.

Luhmann struck me as one of those myopic global elitists - in his case way over focused and saturated with the extreme details of communication within a society without ever giving regard to the rest of what a society is (of course the big tech internet world fawns over him). It is like someone describing a human in extreme detail as a complex nervous system - never giving credit to the heart, meat, digestion, and bone (never mind the actual impetus of the life it is). To me he just seemed like another myopic globalist too consumed with glee about one way to get there without regard as to why or whether anyone should - far too much »how«, not whole in »what«, and not nearly enough »why« (I keep feeling like these are spoiled children in need of growing up - but perhaps another topic).“ **

Maybe we should discuss that in another thread. Luhmann was first a lawyer, then a sociologist (with a strong urge towards theory/philosophy). I mentioned him in the context of evolution/history, not in the context of child development, although one can also make connections between these two, but that was not my intention.

Now perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread, although I would actually prefer to continue talking about the topic we are talking about now.

7971

Fever is a condition of increased core body temperature with a disproportion between chemical heat production and physical heat release, which usually occurs as a concomitant of defense against invading viruses, living microorganisms, or other substances recognized as foreign, and as a concomitant of certain, especially malignant tumors, trauma, or more rarely in the context of otherwise caused inflammatory processes.

7972

Machines depend on the instruction given to them by their builders (the humans), and in the case of machines with so-called artificial intelligence, this instruction is programming.

At first, of course, these instructors were only humans, but later the machines were instructed to give instructions to other machines and, again later, also to organisms.

7973

Are you (**) not able to draw conclusions yourself?

The machines saw Mags an decided to become irrational.

7974

Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

So we have for instance:
(1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) „nature“ as a selector for the „natural selection“.
(2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the „sexual selection“.
(3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the „kin selection“.
(4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the sector for the „social selection“.

Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduce oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.

7975

Greetings.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain prupose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.“ **

If you define a horse as a being that usually lives on the moon (because you may have seen such a being on the moon), then that definition is false (a false definition!), until people agree that it needs to be changed.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„They obviously changed it, so the only question is why and whether they are justified in doing so.

I can't answer that question because like Obsrvr I do not understand the purpose of prime numbers.

Nonetheless, this:

Wikipedia wrote:

»If the definition of a prime number were changed to call 1 a prime, many statements involving prime numbers would need to be reworded in a more awkward way. For example, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would need to be rephrased in terms of factorizations into primes greater than 1, because every number would have multiple factorizations with different numbers of copies of 1.[39] Similarly, the sieve of Eratosthenes would not work correctly if it handled 1 as a prime, because it would eliminate all multiples of 1 (that is, all other numbers) and output only the single number 1.[41] Some other more technical properties of prime numbers also do not hold for the number 1: for instance, the formulas for Euler's totient function or for the sum of divisors function are different for prime numbers than they are for 1.[42] By the early 20th century, mathematicians began to agree that 1 should not be listed as prime, but rather in its own special category as a ›unit‹.[39]«

Seems to be an answer.

What's your objection?“ **

The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be „unfavorable“ for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Just ask yourself why a number according to the definition (!) should be a prime number or not a prime number. The old definition for the prime numbers had existed for more than 2000 years.

7976

If there were always only any, „free-floating“ definitions, then it would be as if there were also only any, „free-floating“ meanings. If neither terms needed a definition nor words a meaning, then we could not create any theories, do any philosophy, not even talk to each other, because we would then be exposed to something like the „Babylonian confusion of languages“. Everybody thinks and says what everybody wants - well and good, but this must also have limits, because one must at least still know the meanings.

Why is it not okay to define a prime number as it was defined earlier: „a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1“, thus without the new addition of „greater than 1“?

I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the „mathematical reasons“ are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

7977

I guess it will come about that machines will be the teachers, that machines will teach people.

 

NACH OBEN 1420) Great Again, 20.02.2021, 00:09, 00:15; Kultur, 20.02.2021, 02:10, 02:32, 02:42; Great Again, 20.02.2021, 00:09, 00:15; Kathrina, 20.02.2021, 16:48; Great Again, 20.02.2021, 16:59, 17:58, 18:58; Kultur, 20.02.2021, 23:41, Kathrina, 20.02.2021, 23:59 (7978-7988)

7978

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Obsrvr wrote:

›I immediately observed that about you. **

Thank you. « ** **

I was glad to have seen it (although it tempts me even further into spending way too much time responding on this board - taking away time from my wife, work, and wealth commitment - and drawing me into the world of philosophy - strictly forbidden by my wife ().

Great Again wrote:

»Obsrvr wrote:

›You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?‹ **

Yes, I have.« ** **

Well don't hold back mate (unless it would reveal something about you best not revealed - as it would in my case - nothing illegal but a lot of fuss, complication, and confusion).

Great Again wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

»Great Again wrote:

›Do you have children?‹ ** **

I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).« **

Stepchildren or all other children - it doesn't matter, it's ›only‹ a matter of observing them intensively and drawing the right conclusions from the observation. I have always observed a lot and intensively, also and especially children, most of all and most intensively my own children.« ** **

If you are merely talking about observing children up close - since university and not counting the childlike adults I too often encounter - then - no I haven't.

Great Again wrote:

»Obsrvr wrote:

›There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of 'Map vs Terrain'. I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.‹

Who said that ›everyone began with any confusion about that‹?« ** **

I was just wondering if that was the kind of thing you have been referring to.

Great Again wrote:

»Obsrvr wrote:

›Great Again wrote:

'A child does not ´become` another kind' by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.' ** **

We could have a philosophical discussion about that. **

Yes, with pleasure.« ** **

It would involve »what it is that defines and distinguishes a thing or group or society or government or ...« and related to the Ship of Theseus (an issue my wife simply cannot grasp - or cares to).

Magnus Anderson wrote:

»There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain purpose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.« **

Not so fast, mate.

It is easy to think that merely changing a public definition helps simplify matters, so why not. But society is far more complicated than that - and in some seriously bad ways - to elucidate -
• In the new USA they are even trying to redefine a »domestic terrorist« and »hate speech« as anyone who doesn't agree with the socialist party narrative.
• They have redefined »socialist« as »democrat« - its opposite.
• They tried for years to redefine »equality« as »equity« but recently gave up on that.
• They have redefined »racist« and »white privilege« as »being white« or »relating to anything from white Europe« - obviously a racist definition.
• They have redefined »social justice« as »communist equity«.
• They have redefined »Communist Agenda« as »Black Lives Matter«.
• They have redefined »Antifa« as »Fascism in the name of Socialist Authoritarianism«.
• They have redefined »science« as »socialist preferred agenda«.
• They redefined »socialism« as »having compassion for the under privileged« - usually its opposite.
• They seem to have redefined »Darwin's Selection Principle« as »any natural changes« (and anti-God communist agenda).
• They redefined »COVID death« as »dying with any minute trace of COVID-19 detected on the body«.
• They redefined »essential worker« as »the privileged class and anyone they favor«.
• Long ago they redefined »God« to mean »a conscious all powerful creator, overseer, and manipulator of events«.
• They redefined »build back better« as »utterly destroy the USA and its constitution in favor of global domination and authoritarianism«.
• They redefine older movie narratives keeping the same title - »rewriting history«.
• And I am sure many more - all with deception at heart.
Notice that it the socialists/communists (sometimes including religions) doing all of this altering of words to manipulate the population toward their agenda.

But even getting out of the political manipulating arena there are more redefinings that are based in deception -
• They have redefined »reality« to mean »subjective belief«.
• They have redefined »philosophy« to mean »promoting doubt«.
• They redefined »particle« in science to mean »any quanta of energy that we can measure« - to justify »Quantum Theory«.
• They redefined »bending« to mean »appears to bend from a distance« - to justify Relativity Theory.
• They redefined »time travel« to mean »anything returning to a former state« - to justify funding.
• They redefined »a calculated possibility« as »an existent alternate reality« - to justify Multi-universe Theory.
• They redefined »the limit of a sum« as »the sum« - (1 = 0.999...).
• They redefined »logical« to mean »what a person might normally think«.
• All of those pointed out by James S. Saint - I'm sure there are many more (I am not a science or maths geek).
• And it seems that they have redefined »prime number« so as to justify using favored formula from prominent people.
My point is that all of these redefinings going on in high and far away places are intentional deception to accomplish a justification for an already chosen agenda - having nothing to do with any effort to be more logically correct or simplifying the language - often quite the opposite.

So as to that »why not« - there is a very good reason why not - to reduce social manipulation and deception - especially in science and politics.

Great Again wrote:

»The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be »unfavorable« for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.« ** **

Exactly.

Redefining words directly implies maleficence that undermines the confidence much needed in society and contributes to global authoritarianism (because no one can do anything on their own any more).

Great Again wrote:

»I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the ›mathematical reasons‹ are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!« ** **

I agree.“ **

Thank you.

You have got your words straight.

7979

Mags J. wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Are you (**) not able to draw conclusions yourself?« ** **

Why do you ask?“ **

Maybe ... just for fun?

Mags J. wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»The machines saw Mags an decided to become irrational. « ** **

Oh.

I’ll certainly decide to be irrational ... for the right man.“ **

I am also sure about that. Love gives wings.

Howsoever. Good luck.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Mags J. wrote:

»I’ll certainly decide to be irrational ... for the right man.« **

You must know my wife.“ **

7980

Would you say that your theory about genes and memes is based on Dawkins?

7981

Aeon wrote:

„Holy Roman Catholicism was never officially beaten or overcome, historically.

The closest that such a loss occurred, to the Southern European civilization, was the fall of Constantinople, when Arabian Turks began their invasion of Europe from Asia. However this was rebuked many times from 1500--2000AD, and rebuked significantly and perhaps finally with the end of World War 1 and end of the Austrian-Hungary Empire. Since then, Turkey still retains a lingering inferiority complex to Europa, full of envy and admiration for Nazi-Germany's conquest of Europa.

Again to repeat the earlier point, the assassination of JFK was the stiff, hardline rejection of Roman Catholicism entering the United States.

However we may see yet another Roman Catholic become US President at this rate, since US Anglo-Puritan-Protestant power is severely waning. Motivated religious sentiment, sectarianism, and organization will pick up the slack where Political Secularists are losing their own political power and wealth. This is considered in mind of the strongly Catholic Hispanic population throughout America which are not as easily feminized, and still retain much Masculinity/Conquistador bloodlines.“ **

Was Kennedy not rather killed for reasons that had to do with the monetary system?

7982

The so-called „Hungarian Revolution“ was not a revolution but an insurrection.

7983

We only need such people and machines that are capable of finally eliminating communism (including the communist ILP).

7984

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

So we have for instance:
(1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) ›nature‹ as a selector for the ›natural selection‹.
(2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the ›sexual selection‹.
(3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the ›kin selection‹.
(4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the sector for the ›social selection‹.
« ** **

I agree with all of that.

Great Again wrote:

»Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduce oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.« ** **

Having said that, I think you might be interested in James S. Saint's theories concerning the survival priority vs. reproduction. He was, in my opinion, a superb rational theorist when it came to defining your words properly, understanding metaphors, and the questions of »why it is« - including -
• Why the universe exists at all
• Why light travels that particular speed
• Why gravity does what it does
• Why positive and negative particles »attract«
.
.
.
• Why species-preservation (reproduction) is only an aberrant consequence self-preservation
• MIJOT - the highest priority and purpose within all living beings (my favorite )
You might be interested in a book that Mithus on this board wrote/edited (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) concerning James' theories and thoughts. He was a big proponent of Nullius in Verbe.

He pointed out that cell reproduction was one strategy of survival by surrounding the cell with a harmonious environment constructed of replications of itself (creating the environment rather than being the subject of it - perhaps the opposite proposed by Darwin). He extended that strategy to include human reproduction and societal reproduction (such as a democratic country wanting to spread democracy for the survival its own democracy). When it comes to choosing between Darwin or Hegel - I'll choose James every time. **

I have just contacted Mithus.

7985

Some excerpts from the first page of this thread with the honorable name „James S. Saint“ as the title:

Encode Decode wrote:

„I have been wondering for a while now where James is.“ **

Mithus wrote:

„Me too. I miss him here.“ **

Meno wrote:

„I also miss Arminius. **

Or maybe its not an odd coincidence that they are both missing at the same time, they appeared to share views in a very supporting manner.“ **

Zero Sum wrote:

„Hope he is doing alright.“ **

....

Zero Sum wrote:

„I know that James was an older man [70's?] and we're all wondering if he has died passing on from this world. That's at least what me and Wendy are thinking anyways. If he has passed on from this earthly realm I hope he found peace in what this world could not offer him. We never agreed much on anything philosophically but he was an interesting man that was strong in his convictions where I respected that. RIP James S Saint.

»Death is the last greatest adventure for us all.«

We younger generations will carry the torch that you dropped fighting against the New World Order James.“ **

Mithus wrote:

„I sincerely hope that he merely takes a break from ILP because he has something better to do than posting here.“ **

Zero Sum wrote:

„That's what I thought also originally but we're talking about a man that before his disappearance was on here more than any other member concerning hours of interaction. I'm thinking it is for the worse.“ **

....

Chakra Superstar wrote:

„Fixed hasn't been here for hours.

I think he's dead.“ **

It's not such a typical page of a typical ILP thread, is it?

It's kinder, friendlier, gentler, more honorable, more reflective, more contemplative, more likeable (and at the end also a bit funnier) than the overwhelming majority of all ILP threads.

Thank you, folks.

7986

No female friends and no male friend? But you feel better, as you say. Mabe you should not Change anything then, should you?

To get back more to the topic of this thread: The amount of commands doesn't matter to machines.

7987

Happy birthday, Satyr.

7988

He means his Darwinian God!

Darwin

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN