1661) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 01.07.2023, 01:02, 01:04; Alf, 01.07.2023, 01:16, 01:19, 01:36, 01:40; Kultur, 01.07.2023, 17:04, 17:04, 17:17, 17:27; 17:27 Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 01.07.2023, 20:17; Kultur, 01.07.2023, 21:12, 22:09 (8885-8897)

If genetic engineering and so-called „artificial intelligence“ are mastering the future, then this is not simply good, because in every history of renewal there have been two sides. And it is no different now and will be no different in the future. Billions of people will disappear, perhaps even all people. A great many other living beings will disappear, if not all of them. According to our economy, consumption is necessary. But machines do not consume. If there is no work for people (but only for machines), then the consumption of these people must be artificially covered, and that does not work in the long run.

And the belief that because one can reach many people in the world with a mouse click, one has something to say in the world, is a great fallacy. „One CAN reach many“ does not mean „one reaches many“. The truth is that one reaches less in the „new world“ than in the „old world“. To one who sends, if the sending is to succeed, belongs one who receives. With so many broadcasts, anyone can quickly and easily decide to simply leave the worst broadcasts unanswered.

In addition, there is censorship, which increases the number of broadcasts that go nowhere, so that as a result there is almost nothing left. Great „new world“! „Brave New World“!

Greetings from Aldous Huxley.

Copied post in another forum.

Herr Schütze wrote:

„The tradition of the basis of abstraction of Occidental culture assumes that consciousness is there before self-consciousness, and therefore self-consciousness cannot be necessary for consciousness at all, but the other way round: consciousness is necessary for self-consciousness. Consciousness comes before self-consciousness.

My criticism of the abstraction basis of Western culture with regard to the concept of consciousness, however, is that it is completely exaggerated to place consciousness at the centre (e.g. of cognition). Before consciousness there was not nothing. There are involuntary life impulses that do completely without consciousness or a similar instance. Consciousness, like soul or spirit, is a waste product of those who whip natural science, and through it technology, forward and throw everything in the way into a dustbin that is supposed to be - supposedly - inside the body.

Through this strategy, not only the world was divided (inner and outer world), but also the human being (inner and outer world of the human being). The philosopher (neo-phaemomenologist) Hermann Schmitz calls this »Welt- und Menschspaltung« (world and human division).“

Even ILP is hardly known by anyone in the world. It is simply lost in the infinitely large web.

Alf wrote:

„I miss Kathrina, Great Again, Sleyor Wellhuxwell, Otto. They haven’t posted here for a long time. Well, I guess that goes for me too.“ ** **

One of them has now posted again after all. Great. I'm very happy again.

Greetings. Good that you (**|**) are posting again.

„»In the anxiety and confusion, the sudden calm in the thought of the foetus that one was.« (Emile Cioran, De l'inconvénient d'être né [Of the Disadvantage of Being Born], 1973, p. 20). - In the neighbourhood of these sentences, which would be enough to consolidate Cioran’s position as the second patriarch of Eurobuddhism - the first was Schopenhauer - the author writes down a remark ....“ (Peter Sloterdijk - translated by me [**]).

So, according to Sloterdijk Schopenhauer was the first patriarch of Eurobuddhism.

„Schopenhauer was the first thinker of the first rank to leave the occidental church of reason.“ (Peter Sloterdijk - translated by me [**]).

My translation: „Mr. Schopenhauer has cancelled his lecture today, because Mr. Schopenhauer has not finished thinking.“

The above sign with the impressive sentence actually hung on the door of a Berlin university where Schopenhauer taught (having a rival in Hegel). At that time, such a text was still possible in the university. Imagine having a professor who cancelled his lecture because he could not finish thinking.

For Schopenhauer, „the most real thing had ceased to be a divine rational-just spiritual being. With his doctrine of the will, the theory of the world's ground leaps over from pious rationalism ... to a recognition of the arational marked by horror and astonishment. Schopenhauer first establishes the non-rational energy and drive nature of being. In this he is one of the fathers of the psychoanalytic century; in the future he could also prove to be a distant patron and relative of a chaos-theoretical and systemic age. The fact that he opened the European doors to the Asian wisdom teachings, Buddhism in particular, with the greatest respect: in the long run, this could be his most important intellectual-historical effect. - It may be that his doctrine of the resignation of the will must sound even more alien to the hunger for life of humanity in today's First World than it did to Schopenhauer's contemporaries ...; but it reminds us even today that the unleashed hunger for life will not be able to solve the problems that its free outlet creates by its further increases. - The sentence could have come from Schopenhauer: Only despair can still save us; of course, he was not talking about despair, but about renunciation. For the moderns, renunciation is the most difficult word in the world. Schopenhauer shouted it against the surf.“ (Peter Sloterdijk - translated by me [**]).

Those who, as you say, even want to exploit the planet Jupiter and will then do so, are also capable of destroying all living beings on a planet-with-life. But it is not important for this topic whether really all living beings will be destroyed, but only that very many will be destroyed, because that can be regarded as very certain.

I can see nothing, nothing at all good in a creature that is not even capable of adapting to nature, but fights it with all means for compulsive, i.e. sick and very evil reasons, in order to exploit it (preferably the whole universe), and prides itself on being the master of the world.

Supposedly everything is done for the masses, and in reality it is exactly the other way round: at the expense of the masses they - these 0.001% of people - want to live. But, as I said, their calculation will not work out.

So when humanity disappears - regardless of whether a few ex-globalists who can then live on in the jungle survive or not (because humanity as we still know it today will no longer exist) -, it is clear who humanity will have to thank for this (only, humanity will no longer be alive then).

Horny for money (and data - because of money).		Man-made space RUBBISH in Earth orbit.		Planet Jupiter and its exploiter (the Jupiterist).

Humanize wrote:

„Machines can and do consume. Your car consumes fuel. Your computer consumes electricity. Factories consume fuel, electricity, parts and supplies, raw materials. Once AI is more ubiquitous these things will be transitioned largely to self-automated systems and you will really see machines consuming for their own sake. Humans might supervise and assist here and there, but the AI-governed machines and corporations, factories, self-driving cars etc. will dominate.“ **

A word twister you are. You call energy use „consumption“, and that is something like saying *„the numbers 1 and 1000 are both numbers, so 1 equals 1000 (1 = 1000)“. A fallacy. Machines do not consume. Consumption refers exclusively to consumer goods. Only word twisters do not understand this. Machines do not consume. They use raw materials, but they do not consume.

It is not my fault that the English language, and therefore its language users, can't really tell the difference between the words „use“ and „consumption“. The meaning of the words „use“ and „consumption“ is not the same. But it is a ready-made meal for fools and word twisters.

You have no idea about economics at all. Raw materials that the machines use are costs for the producer. The consumption I am talking about is the consumption of this manufactured and machine products (in the future: only machine products). These products are not consumed by machines.

The economy as we still know it will therefore come to an end relatively soon. There will only be trade. The globalists are already predicting this (cf. Klaus Schwab, Covid-19 - The Great Reset, 2020). And you can see something positive in that?

What you advocate is what could be called, with much irony, „Brave New World“, but interspersed with surveillance of which „Big Brother“ can only be envious, and a providence in destiny so that people, like the „Eloi“, sacrifice themselves to the „Murlocks“.

So also greetings from Herbert George Wells and George Orwell.

8896

Natural science celebrated its greatest triumphs in the 19th century, especially in its second half. All Europeans believed in natural science (even the communists!). It is no wonder that in this period someone philosophised about how to bring together natural science, especially physiology, on one side and the will to power and the Übermensch on the other side, but forgot that there is something in man that is even stronger but can never be explained by natural science.

Even during the Enlightenment, there was a similar feeling of elation, which was then greatly dampened during the Romantic and Idealist Period and still is today.

Man is not able to exploit nature because of his will, but because of the leeway he has, because he has his language, because it is human language that gives the leeway through which the situations in which, for example, animals are trapped, can be overcome. Humans create their own situations. Instead of situations, they are trapped in language.

The only time when people were really right in believing in science, by which was meant above all or even exclusively natural science, was during the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Because science was still going up so much at that time - and that always means that you can have high expectations - and no negative effects on life and nature were known. In the 19th century, things had long since changed - despite the huge successes. This is still true today (by „today“ I mean the period from the end of World War 2 to the present day and probably to the future too), although in the meantime the negative side effects have already become huge main effects and science basically does not get any further, but only serves as a slave to technology.

Every philosophy today must also contain a critique of technology and its suppliers. This is especially true for the types of technology that want to biologically change humans. I am not only referring to genetic engineering, but also, and especially, to digital technology. Not long ago, no one could have foreseen the digital revolution, so much is it something really new. Since it has been there, however, the time intervals between the phases of revolution (innovation phases) have been decreasing exponentially.

According to the results of my philosophy or theory or phenomenology - it doesn’t matter, because it’s all language - the reason why man revolts against nature, fights it, is not his will, but his language. The human will is already a product of human language.

Before man spoke, his will was different. He himself was a prehuman at that time. It was only through language that prehuman became human. And human is in addition to be understood here as a person. You become a person when you acquire the language. So human babies up to the age of about 8 months are not yet persons, but also no longer prehumans, because they are already directly descended from humans (despite the fact that they are indirectly [very long ago] descended from prehumans).

Humans in this sense (persons) have a different will than the prehumans (prepersons) had/have. And the human (personal) will is one of the countless products of human (personal) language.

The human being can switch between his objectified factuality mediated by his language and his subjective factuality known from before, from which he has emancipated himself after babyhood and occasionally dives back into it, indeed must dive back into it, by regridifying (resubjectifying). He cannot only objectify, but must also resubjectify again and again. And this resubjectivising also enables him to be speechless (pre-linguistic) again like a baby or prenatal living being (perhaps also similar to an animal or a plant or even further).

The human being cannot go beyond his language. Everything he attempts beyond that remains an attempt, remains his language (thus also the highest, most abstract languages like philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer languages, AI, etc.). He cannot go beyond his language. But he can come below his language. He can come before his language, i.e. into pre-language or even into animal language or non-language. But he cannot get beyond his language.

1662) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.07.2023, 01:00 (8898)

Humanize wrote:

„Heidegger and Marcuse both have lots to say about this“ **

Okay, then marcuse me for not heideggering this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also ask about the essence of technology, which itself is nothing technical. Rather, this essence results from a basic metaphysical position. This is specified as the end point of modern metaphysics. The paradigm of the Cartesian notion of the »ego cogito« becomes the inventory, so that the elaborated, disembodied technology no longer allows the world to be, but makes it thematic exclusively in its preparedness, as a »Gestell« (»Ge-stell«). The uses in their repetitive structure distinguish the technique. This makes the pragmatic dimension of use impossible in the technical paradigm. Dasein is itself included in the technical Gestell.

Technology tends towards the gigantic, towards a growth that is no longer bound to natural resource limits.

Ethical maxims prove to be invalid in view of the autopoietic power of technology.

This philosophy of technology goes beyond a conventional analysis of alienation just as decisively as it goes beyond anthropological or cultural philosophies of technology.

Humanize wrote:

„Is your position that we should somehow slow down or abandon technological progress? There is only one way to do that: somehow initiate WW3 on a truly global and thermonuclear scale. Kill well over half of all humans and reduce what is left to ashes.“ **

No, Jakob.

It is not the technology brakemen, who are as old as technology itself, but today's technology responsible proponents who are decimating humanity and destroying the world. There is not only good in technology, but also much evil. This is an ethical topic, so it has to do with philosophy and with the topic of this thread: „The philosophy of technology and time“.

Those responsible for digital technology and everything related to it are in the process of making humanity disappear and destroying planet Earth and its surroundings, so that within a relatively short time the Earth will be without higher life.

These guilty leaders, who are obviously supported by you, are doing everything they can to shift their responsibility, and therefore their guilt, onto others, especially the white middle class. Along the way, they ruin it, make their wealth their own, and move on to the next intermediate goal - to the final goal: having stolen all the wealth on planet Earth. This means: from the previous relative destruction to total destruction.

That is my position. And not only mine.

Do not pretend that you do not understand that.

1663) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 21.07.2023, 22:02, 22:28 (8899-8900)

Your (**) problem is that you have no arguments and have to resort to tautologies and fallacies.

It is - for example - simply not true that technology is always the solution to the problems created by technology (you say: „technological innovation itself is often the solution to the problems created by technology“ [**], which is false in the long run). Economists believe in something similar: fight debt with debt, and the economy can grow sky-high. The limits to growth are real. This has been proven for a long time.

Physics is the first science to have reached its limits - quantum physics, i.e. first Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory (1900), and then especially and for perfection Werner Heisenberg, the founder of quantum mechanics (1925), proved it (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.). Before 1925, when Heisenberg founded his quantum theory, or - at the latest - before 1927, when Heisenberg founded his uncertainty principle, every physicist dealt with constellations as if they could become independent. However, this way of thinking, culminating in the theory of relativity, reached its limits in quantum physics.

Mathematics, too, has long since ceased to be able to eliminate mathematical problems again and again by finding new mathematical „solutions“. There has been conventionalism ever since.

It is precisely these two sciences - mathematics and physics - on which our entire science is ultimately based, i.e.: without them, the overall science and thus also the basis of abstraction collapses. This collapse has been underway for a relatively long time. Philosophy also belongs to this basis of abstraction (it is a basis of abstraction of a culture, the European, Occidental one). And because ILP is supposed to be a philosophy forum, we should also talk about how philosophy can help with these problems, or whether it just participates or even sets the tone (as it used to be).

Technology will soon also reach its limits. This is represented by the irreparable damage that digital, nano and genetic technology have already caused and will cause in particular.

The reason for the negative side of technology is not technical at all, but the fact that there are certain people who are only interested in power and use technology only as a means to an end (power!). Here there is a relationship to money, which is also only a means to an end (power!) The irreparable damage that they have already done and will continue to do to a much greater extent is therefore not caused by the technology itself, but by the people who determine the technology. So, again, the reason for the negative side of technology is not itself a technical one, but the fact that few people think that it is about their power, their retention of power, their expansion of power and nothing else. Because if they lose their power, they themselves are also lost. That is why these extreme obsessive-compulsive neurotrics are driven, forced to spur on the technicians.

I am not an opponent of technology. Technology has its positive side. Certain people are negative and misuse technology for themselves, for reasons of power, the(ir) will to power. For some time now, they have been finding the human remainder (99.99%) annoying, since it is clear that it will soon no longer be needed, i.e. will be removed: 99.99% - and that means that 0.001% are in the process of sawing off the branch they are sitting on (perhaps that is why they are already looking for a new home outside planet Earth).

It is stupid for a species (here: homo sapiens sapiens) to kick itself out of evolution. And the stupidest thing is when this is intentionally caused by the pack leaders of this species, which until then had been considered by far the most intelligent species.

Humanize? They call it: Humanize. But they mean: Dehumanize! Their motto is: Dehumanize! They also call it: Transhumanize! And I am not in the mood for that.

So, the conclusion from what I have said in this thread is that the problem we have to talk about is not a technical one. The reason for each technique is not a technical one. And the reason for each technical problem is not a technical one - but a human one.

You should not deny these problems, which are related to technology, but have nothing to do with technology in terms of the motive for the crime.

Moreover: Your thread is named „The philosophy of technology and time“ and opened in the subforum „Philosophy“ of the forum „Philosophy“ of ILP („ILovePhilosophy“), and ethics is also part of philosophy.

1664) Alf, 31.07.2023, 01:00, 01:02, 01:08, 01:10, 15:04, 15:18 (8901-8906)

Pink Tones (Nacho Aparicio, Álvaro Espinosa, Cefe Fernández, Toni Fernández, Edu Jerez, Pipo Rodríguez) at Segóbriga Roman Amphitheatre, Spain, playing pieces of music by Pink Floyd, 2016.

Feelings as half-things: Hermann Schmitz’s phenomenology and the „realness“ of medical humanities. - Mathias Wirth. **

Marcuse was also a student and assistant to Heidegger.

„Technik ist eine Weise des Entbergens.“ (Martin Heidegger, Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962, S. 13 **).
Translation:
„Technology is a way of uncovering.“ (Martin Heidegger, Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962, p. 13)

„So ist denn das Gestell als ein Geschick der Entbergung zwar das Wesen der Technik, aber niemals im Sinne der Gattung und der essentia. Beachten wir dies, dann trifft uns etwas Erstaunliches: die Technik ist es, die von uns verlangt, das was man gewöhnlich unter Wesen versteht, in einem anderen Sinn zu denken.“ (Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik, 1953, S. 30 **).
Translation:
„Thus, the Gestell as a skill of uncovering is indeed the essence of technology, but never in the sense of the genus and the essentia. If we pay attention to this, then something astonishing strikes us: it is technology that requires us to think of what is usually understood by beings in a different sense“ (Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik, 1953, p. 30).

Film (**):

„Ich bin nicht gegen die Technik. Ich habe nie gegen die Technik gesprochen. .... Ich sehe in der Technik, in ihrem Wesen nämlich, daß der Mensch unter einer Macht steht, die ihn herausfordert, und der gegenüber er nicht mehr frei ist, daß sich hier etwas ankündigt, nämlich ein Bezug des Seins zum Menschen, und daß dieser Bezug, der sich im Wesen der Technik verbirgt, eines Tages vielleicht in seiner Unverborgenheit ans Licht kommt.“ (Martin Heidegger, im Gespräch mit Richard Wisser, 1969 **). ** **
Translation:
„I'm not against technology. I've never spoken against technology. .... Rather, I see in technology, in its essence that is, that the human is under the influence of the power which challenges him and against which he is no longer free. And here something is indicated: namely, a relation of being to the human. And this relation, hidden in the essence of technology, some day might, in its unconcealment, come to light.“ (Cp.: 1:55-2:00 and 3:05-3:44 **).

Film (**):

„Die Selbstbesinnung ist eben ... dadurch erschwert, daß wir heute nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern in Europa überhaupt kein eindeutiges, einfaches und gemeinsam geteiltes Verhältnis zur Wirklichkeit und zu uns selbst haben. Das ist der große Mangel, in der die westliche Welt steht und ist mit ein Grund der Verwirrungen, der Meinungen in den verschiedenen Bereichen.“ (Martin Heidegger, Gespräch mit dem buddhistischen Mönch Bhikku Maha Mani, 1964 **). **
Translation:
„Self-reflection is just ... made more difficult by the fact that we, today, not only in Germany but in Europe generally, have no clear, common, and simple relation to reality and to ourselves. That is a great problem facing the Western world and is one reason for the confusion of opinions in the different areas.“ (Cp.: 15:03-15:33 **).

Stephan Scharf wrote:

„»There is no clear, simple and commonly shared relationship to reality in the Western world.« (Translated). A very nice summary of the problematic situation in which we still find ourselves today, of course. This was also the reason for my dissatisfaction with academic philosophy during my studies and why I turned to the philosophy of Buddhism/Hinduism afterwards. For it is precisely this philosophy, which is also more of a life practice, that shows people in a very practical way that there is a way to a clear, simple and deep understanding of reality and being. However, this only opens up beyond concepts and thinking. In the pause and stillness of meditation, we realise that in everyday life we live in an illusion of separation between subject and object, that is, we are always dualistic. Here is me, my family, community, nation, party, ideology, etc. trying to separate and assert myself from a (hostile) opposite. What is needed, then, is a common understanding of reality as an inseparable whole for which we are all equally responsible. It is time that we are able to see this foundation as central and indispensable for humanity as a whole as well as for each individual.“ **

Copied post in another forum.

Feminism has done a lot of damage to women.

For as long as feminism has existed (I mean the one we met - there could have been another), most (90-99%) of women have been worse off than ever before. And this will only get worse.

Genderism even goes one step further.

All this is part of the destruction that has been planned for a long time and is gradually being implemented.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Women have more sex than they used to? No! That is a lie that comes from feminist propagandists.

And: Why do women destroy their bodies with tattoos and fat and stress without end? That has made women uglier than ever before!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feminists have many enemies. I name three of the many: one enemy is the real, the normal woman (especially those who are married and have children); another one is the beautiful woman; amother one is of course the man. Against the the real, the normal woman they set the fake, the abnormal, namely their pseudo-self-determination and every kind of otherness; against the beautiful woman they put ugliness and any kind of otherness (many feminists are lesbian); against the men they put the anti-male, the misandry (anti-masculinism), and since they want to get money for their desires or even want to make a career, they have to make the man the biggest enemy in this field.

But they do not realize that it is not they who decide about themselves, but others. That is why they are so „free“ that they choose their lack-of-freedom, their straitjacket, voluntarily.

The history of feminism, at least the history of left-wing feminism, with which we are now only dealing, bears a lot of resemblance to the history of communism.

1665) Hubert Brune, 03.08.2023 (8907)

Ja, Herr Shirsh (**), ich kenne Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), habe ihn allerdings nicht persönlich, sondern ausschließlich über die Buchstabenkombinationen kennengelernt. Wiener ist nicht der "Vater der Kybernetik", sondern hat den Begriff „Kybernetik“ geprägt, ist also eher der „Vater des Begriffes der Kybernetik“. Auf meiner Webseite „Informationstheorie“ (2001 ff.) ist zu lesen, daß das deutsche Wort „Kybernetik“ zurückgeht „auf das griechische Wort kubernhthV (kybernetes) und umfaßt - mathematisch gesprochen - die Theorie der Algorithmen, der Informatik, befaßt sich aber auch ganz allgmein mit den unterschiedlichsten Themen aus Wissenschaft und Technik, vor allem mit der Medizin, z.B. mit den Mechanismen der Reizleitung und der Gehirnfunktionen, wobei sie versucht, Übereinstimmungen zwischen mechanischen und elektrischen Regelsystemen und den Nervensystemen von Lebewesen festzustellen (vgl. Abbildung). Eines ihrer spektakulärsten Forschungsziele ist die „Denkmaschine“. In Deutschland wurde eine Studie des Philosophen Gotthard Günther (1900-1984) besonders einflußreich: Das Bewußtsein der Maschinen (1960). Das philosophische Interesse für die Kybernetik rührt daher, daß diese die Möglichkeit eröffnet, den Begriff „Zweck“ rekursiv zu begreifen: Der Zweck eines komplexen Systems, etwa auch eines Lebewesens, ist es selbst. Ein Zweck bräuchte keine vom System getrennte Instanz mehr, die ihn setzt. Wenn das auch für menschliche Zwecke gilt, gewinnt die Autonomie der Person und damit ihre Verantwortung für ihre Handlungen sehr stark an Bedeutung.“ (Hubert Brune, Informationstheorie, 2001 ff. **).

Es geht tatsächlich eben auch um die Praxis. Es war Konrad Zuse (1910-1995), der den ersten Computer der Welt baute, und an dieser dargestellten Praxis ließ sich das, was Kybernetik genannt wird, besonders gut ablesen. 1940 war Zuse mit dem Bau seines ersten Computers der Welt fertig. Er hat ihn von 1987 bis 1989 - also als 77-79-Jähriger (!) - aus dem Gedächtnis heraus noch einmal gebaut, weil der erste beim Bombenholocaust zerstört worden war. Die Bombenholocaustianer wußten eben ganz genau, was, wen und wieviel sie treffen mußten.

1673 war die erste funktionierende Rechenmaschine, eine Addier- und Multipliziermaschine, fertig. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz hatte sie gebaut. Von 1673 bis 1940, als der erste Computer fertig war, gebaut von Konrad Zuse, vergingen also immerhin 267 Jahre. Von 1940 bis 1990, als Tim Berners-Lee auf einem NeXT-Computer die grundlegenden Konzepte (das Protokoll HTTP, das Format HTML, Client- und Server-Software) entwickelt hatte und die erste Website des Internets (WWW) am 20. Dezember 1990 verfügbar machte, vergingen nur noch 50 Jahre.

1666) Alf, 04.08.2023, 01:03, 16:08 (8908-8909)

Mags J. wrote:

„Why this guy isn’t worried about AI, and what I’ve been saying for the last few years [... stated in the first 2.5 minutes of the video].“ **

However, such statements do not make the problem disappear.

You may say: „I have nothing against weapons.“ But I say to you: „You mean weapons as such, yes, they are harmless as such, because they only become dangerous when they are used. But who uses them? The owner! And if there are only a few owners of weapons, then they can use the weapons to keep other people under control.“ It is the same with AI. Replace „weapons“ with „AI“. AI is owned by very few (too few!) people. These people have illegally usurped patents and licenses and then forbade all other people to have patents and licenses in this area. In this criminal way, the very (too) few AI owner have bcome able to control, enslave all other people through AI.

Do you know what it means to have a chip in your brain? This chip is programmed to control you in any (any!) direction. You can no longer control yourself.

The very (too) few AI owner want to digitize the whole planet, thus also each animal and each human.

Heidegger, who was also not against technology, warned against the misuse of technology by man as early as the 1930s, and indeed since he had established (1934) what National Socialism was really all about.

Since 1917/1933, three isms (titanomachia) competed with each other for a humanly disguised world domination: the National Socialism of Germany, the Americanism of the United States, and the Bolshevism of the Soviet Union. At first it seemed as if National Socialism would win, then, because Germany lost the 2nd World War against the allied Americanism and Bolshevism (both benefited greatly from German technology), National Socialism fell out of the competition for the time being, and it looked as if Bolshevism would win, but it lost the Cold War against Americanism and also fell out of the competition for the time being, so that it seemed as if Americanism would have won the competition of the three for world domination, but we have known at least since the beginning of the financial crisis (1998, especially 2007/2008) that Americanism has not triumphed either, but the privatism of a few who - quite privately - secured world power, and money helped them to do so, but also digital technology, both of which are also connected to each other - privately, of course. In the said financial crises and most recently in the corona crisis, privatism clearly showed its world domination.

For Heidegger, the competition of the three said isms for world domination was only a consequence of the Occidental metaphysics of technology, of Machenschaft (poorly translated into English as „machination“), and that also means: of the will to will, of the absolute subjectivity, which abuses technology for only itself, its power.

Ned Ludd may have said: „I am not against the steam engine as such, but whoever has power over the steam engine can also tell me what to do and what not to do. So I am destroying the steam engine, even though I have nothing against the steam engine as such, but only against its owners.“

History repeats itself and yet does not repeat itself.
_____________________________________________

We have an universe that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a technology that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a science that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a money that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have an economy that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a policy that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a civilisation that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a liberalisation that is supposed to grow to infinity.
We have a re-/education that is supposed to grow to infinity.
And so on.
We have an inner world that is supposed to grow to infinity too.

Have you noticed anything?
__________________

Wikipedia wrote:

„Hoffman notes that the commonly held view that brain activity causes conscious experience has, so far, proved to be intractable in terms of scientific explanation. Hoffman proposes a solution to the hard problem of consciousness by adopting the converse view that consciousness causes brain activity and, in fact, creates all objects and properties of the physical world. To this end, Hoffman has developed and combined two theories: the »multimodal user interface« (MUI) theory of perception and »conscious realism«.“

It is true that the widespread view that brain activity causes conscious experience has so far proven to be intractable in terms of scientific explanations. BUT: The reverse view is also wrong. In fact, it is even more wrong. It is as wrong as nothing can be more wrong.

The ism behind the idea that consciousness causes brain activity and actually creates all the objects and properties of the physical world is called solipsism. What is commonly understood by reality cannot be a reality created by consciousness. Denying what is commonly understood to be reality does not change this. Either there is reality or there is not reality. Hoffman says that reality does not exist and that reality exists - that statement is a contradiction, so it is false. He says that reality is only feigned by consciousness, thus that there is consciousness, that consciousness is reality (he calls it »conscious realism«) - and that statement is a circle, so it is false too.

It is as if Hoffman has separated the subject/object dualism in such a way by passing off the subjective as the objective that creates the objective. But then it would only be the subjective again. Only now you can also call it the objective. But what does Hoffman gain from an epistemological point of view? Nothing. On the contrary. He outs himself as a solipsist who hides solipsism behind an apparent objectivity, supposedly created by a subject.

This is not changed at all by the fact that Hoffmann calls the subject »consciousness« (also wrongly called »spirit« or »soul«/»psyche«) and »reality« or »realism«.

Hoffman has no solution to offer, but only makes the problem much bigger.

Counterthesis to Hoffman’s „thesis“ (which is not new at all). I am now doing a thought experiment by putting forward the thesis that reality exists, but consciousness does not exist (and neither do the other, partly older candidates: spirit, soul/psyche). Where should the consciousness be? Show me! Where should the spirit, where should the soul, where should the psyche be? At least not in the body. But not outside the body either. Show me! You can't. In other words, the consciousness does not exist, at least not in the way tradition tries to inculcate it in us. We should no longer call it consciousness, but just knowledge - like before. Knowledge is basically like consciousness - with one difference: it lacks the typical modern assumption of being an instance, a thing, an object in order to hand it over to technology. We don’t need an instance, a thing, an object for what we call knowledge. It is simply knowledge, and it is based on language, whether semiotic, linguistic, philsophical, mathematical or otherwise scientific!

The personal situation replaces the closed private inner world of psychologistic-reductionist-introjectionist objectification in all its guises, not only the soul/psyche but also consciousness.

It was the mistake of the theorists of consciousness to assume a consciousness with numerical multiplicity of many contents of consciousness and their arrangement, instead of an ambivalently manifold consciousness which, in infinite indecision between simplicity and multiplicity, is very well able to have many individual subjects or objects at the same time and to distinguish them sharply. A model of the body has been projected from the external world into an internal world that does not exist, with all the individual contents of consciousness as particles or figures in it, the mind that Hume compared to a theatre.

And now Hoffman even wants consciousness to be the only remaining reality? This is an even greater solipsism than the old one already was. Solipsists belong in the closed ward of the madhouse.

Hoffman should rather have dealt with the question of being, as did the one who can be heard and seen in the following film (**).

Again: I am now doing a thought experiment by putting forward the thesis that reality exists, but consciousness does not exist (and neither do the other, partly older candidates: spirit, soul/psyche). Where should the consciousness be? Show me! Where should the spirit, where should the soul, where should the psyche be? At least not in the body. But not outside the body either. Show me! You can't. In other words, the consciousness does not exist, at least not in the way tradition tries to inculcate it in us. We should no longer call it consciousness, but just knowledge - like before. Knowledge is basically like consciousness - with one difference: it lacks the typical modern assumption of being an instance, a thing, an object in order to hand it over to technology. We don't need an instance, a thing, an object for what we call knowledge. It is simply knowledge, and it is based on language, whether semiotic, linguistic, philsophical, mathematical or otherwise scientific!

And: We don’t need no re-education either!

„Diese totale Weltbeherrschung ist erstens eine Fiktion, und zweitens ist sie auch prinzipiell unmöglich. Denn wenn ich recht habe mit meinem inzwischen schon mehrfach formulierten Beweis dafür, daß es keine Sache gibt, von der sämtliche Bestimmungen einzeln sind. Wenn alle Bestimmungen einzeln wären, dann wäre alles unbestimmt, jede Bestimmung unmöglich.“ (Hermann Franz-Heinrich Schmitz, in: Hermann Schmitz im Gespräch - über Logik, 6. Juni 2010 **).
Translation:
„This total domination of the world is firstly a fiction, and secondly it is also impossible in principle. For if I am right in my proof, which has already been formulated several times, that there is no thing of which all determinations are single. If all determinations were single, then everything would be indeterminate, every determination impossible.“

„Dieses Denken der Vollendbarkeit der Digitalisierung beruht auf dem Grundsatz der durchgängigen Bestimmung, den Kant eingeführt hat, der besagt, daß jedem Etwas von jeder beliebigen Bestimmung entweder diese zukommen muß oder diese fehlen muß. Das ist nicht der Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten. Denn der Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten muß mit der Unentschiedenheit und der Spältigkeit umgehen. Man muß nur den Gegenstandsbereich weit genug fassen, dann bleibt der anwendbar, nur eben auf das Zweifelhafte, in seiner Zweifelhaftigkeit. Das kann man aber durch leichte Umformulierung erreichen. Dieser Grundsatz der durchgängigen Bestimmung, der ist falsch. Und das wäre das Axiom der durchgängigen Digitalisierbarkeit und Zersetzbarkeit der Situationen. Das wäre der Grundsatz .... Und da dieser Grundsatz falsch ist, ist die Digitalisierung nicht zur absoluten Perfektion zu bringen. Jede Sache hat Bestimmungen, die nicht einzeln sind.“ (Hermann Franz-Heinrich Schmitz, in: Hermann Schmitz im Gespräch - über Logik, 6. Juni 2010 **).
Translation:
„This thinking of the completeness of digitalisation is based on the principle of continuous determination introduced by Kant, which says that every something of any determination must either have it or lack it. This is not the theorem of the excluded third. For the theorem of the excluded third must deal with the indecision and the sparseness. One must only define the subject-matter broadly enough, then it remains applicable, only to the doubtful, in its doubtfulness. But this can be achieved by a slight reformulation. This principle of universal determination is wrong. And that would be the axiom of the universal digitalisability and decomposability of situations. That would be the principle .... And since this principle is false, digitalisation cannot be brought to absolute perfection. Every thing has determinations that are not single.“

1667) Alf, 28.08.2023, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:04, 01:07, 01:08, 01:09, 01:10; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 28.08.2023, 17:13, 17:36, 18:26, 18:29 (8910-8922)

Humanize wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Diese totale Weltbeherrschung ist erstens eine Fiktion, und zweitens ist sie auch prinzipiell unmöglich. Denn wenn ich recht habe mit meinem inzwischen schon mehrfach formulierten Beweis dafür, daß es keine Sache gibt, von der sämtliche Bestimmungen einzeln sind. Wenn alle Bestimmungen einzeln wären, dann wäre alles unbestimmt, jede Bestimmung unmöglich.“ (Hermann Franz-Heinrich Schmitz, in: Hermann Schmitz im Gespräch - über Logik, 6. Juni 2010 **).
Translation:
„This total domination of the world is firstly a fiction, and secondly it is also impossible in principle. For if I am right in my proof, which has already been formulated several times, that there is no thing of which all determinations are single. If all determinations were single, then everything would be indeterminate, every determination impossible.“

„Dieses Denken der Vollendbarkeit der Digitalisierung beruht auf dem Grundsatz der durchgängigen Bestimmung, den Kant eingeführt hat, der besagt, daß jedem Etwas von jeder beliebigen Bestimmung entweder diese zukommen muß oder diese fehlen muß. Das ist nicht der Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten. Denn der Satz vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten muß mit der Unentschiedenheit und der Spältigkeit umgehen. Man muß nur den Gegenstandsbereich weit genug fassen, dann bleibt der anwendbar, nur eben auf das Zweifelhafte, in seiner Zweifelhaftigkeit. Das kann man aber durch leichte Umformulierung erreichen. Dieser Grundsatz der durchgängigen Bestimmung, der ist falsch. Und das wäre das Axiom der durchgängigen Digitalisierbarkeit und Zersetzbarkeit der Situationen. Das wäre der Grundsatz .... Und da dieser Grundsatz falsch ist, ist die Digitalisierung nicht zur absoluten Perfektion zu bringen. Jede Sache hat Bestimmungen, die nicht einzeln sind.“ (Hermann Franz-Heinrich Schmitz, in: Hermann Schmitz im Gespräch - über Logik, 6. Juni 2010 **).
Translation:
„This thinking of the completeness of digitalisation is based on the principle of continuous determination introduced by Kant, which says that every something of any determination must either have it or lack it. This is not the theorem of the excluded third. For the theorem of the excluded third must deal with the indecision and the sparseness. One must only define the subject-matter broadly enough, then it remains applicable, only to the doubtful, in its doubtfulness. But this can be achieved by a slight reformulation. This principle of universal determination is wrong. And that would be the axiom of the universal digitalisability and decomposability of situations. That would be the principle .... And since this principle is false, digitalisation cannot be brought to absolute perfection. Every thing has determinations that are not single.« ** **

Nonsense like this is why no one cares about philosophy.“ **

Well, these sentences that I wrote last even contradict at least partially the sentences I wrote before. But good. That's life. Full of contradictions. It is important to educate them where possible and to pick them up.

But: Nonsense? You do not know what you are talking about. What you say, without knowing it, is equivalent to demanding that philosophy must become mathematics or another science. But if philosophy is mathematics or another science, then philosophy is no longer philosophy. That is logical. Have you understood that at least to some extent?

Again: Nonsense? No, it is completely thought-out philosophy. Completely because it does not only start from the human being and also not only from the adult human being, as philosophy has done almost exclusively in the past. Philosophy is on the retreat because those of its disciplines that have become corrupt prevent that it can get beyond or back to certain issues, e.g. to the simplest things, as phenomenology/existential-philosophy/fundamental-ontology and the new phenomenology have been doing as exceptional philosophical disciplines of the time since the beginnig of the 20th century. So there were and are exceptions. In other words, the philosophy is still attractive. Its only problem is that it is not as powerful as those who misuse science (also parts of philosophy) and technology.

So if the exceptions of philosophy will have perished (whenever that will be in the future), then and only then philosophy as a whole will also have perished (thus not before).

Heidegger was right when he said that philosophy was at an end and that he called his philosophy only thinking. It was clear to him that the question to which he had devoted himself for so long could be answered by technology, because Sein (being) could be revealed through the technology of Dasein (being there, existence, man).

When philosophy will have been completely absorbed into the scientific disciplines (just as all scientific disciplines have previously detached themselves from philosophy), then philosophy will have completely disappeared. But until then, we will keep going. Without resistance, but with calmness.  –  But what if thinking will also have disappeared by then?

The restriction of the domain of the numerical manifold in the general manifold puts a stop to the hypertrophy of the Pythagorean thought that everything is equal to number or is ordered according to number, measure and weight, and thus to the ever stronger attempt in life to give number dominance over thinking - culminating in the cry for digitalisation - which can refer thinking back to the foundations of manifoldness.

That is philosophy!

If philosophy were mathematics, then it would follow numerical manifoldness alone, i.e. it would be something like numerism, which always confirms mathematics and fights or ignores philosophy.

So it is exactly the opposite of what you say without knowing it.

Philosophy would no longer be philosophy if it were mathematics.

I have nothing against philosophy becoming mathematics, but then no one should complain, as you seem to do, that „no one cares about philosophy“ (**).

As I said, I am not against technology either. Quite the opposite. So I am not against digitalisation either. Quite the opposite. Perhaps technology does indeed conceal the revelation of being, which is thus revealed through technology, as Heidegger put it. That is the good, pleasant and perhaps even making very happy aspect of technology. So again: I am not against it.

But I am against the misuse of technology and therefore also against the misuse of digital technology - just as Heidegger and others were against the misuse of technology. This abuse was and is a fact. You should not deny it either. I have already written about it at other places.

Humanize wrote:

„If a thing is lacking then it has a total lack, but cannot be totalizable in its necessary totality under domination because it cannot be totally determined as lack, which indetermination follows the rule of co-occurring difference-reduction which makes it impossible in principle to know if that which is lacking is determinable in so far as being that which is lacked, or if it must be indeterminate by a more complete continuous application of theoretically decomposable situations. That which is indeterminate is not impossible but in theory is almost impossible in principle when no thing is determinable as single from all angles. The impossibility of the decision to identify the lack as continuous impossible determination leads to a universal reformulation of applicable completeness in thinking, which is itself wholly indeterminate upon the cusp of a theoretical total domination which is in itself totally impossible. Therefore I am smart and u are dum case closed gg no re ups pay me bithc.“ **

That is really nonsense! It is not just about the lack, but about the fact that something does not always have to be single, but can also be manifold, and not only numerically manifold, but also non-numerically manifold.

You are simply insulting because you are incapable of reasoning. You do not argue at all, but rely on the effects that the insults can produce. You only ever show that you are dumb.

Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination as a precondition of the supposedly possible digitalisation of the world means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what digitalisation is?

The all-determining people who pretend to know that the world can be totally digitalised should first prove it, but they are not capable of proving it. But conversely, those who are more modest can know and do know that the world can never be completely digitalised.

It is not possible to determine each thing individually, whether it is alive or not, whether it exists or not or no longer or not yet.

Everyone only has to remember his or her childhood to know how interwoven everything can be, that there are subjective facts as well as objective ones, that there is non-numerical manifoldness, and that BEFORE numerical manifoldness. For animals and also human infants there is no numerical manifoldness yet.

And: Everyone is a different person today than everyone was yesterday, and everyone is a different person tomorrow than everyone is today. Only on the one hand everyone is himself, on the other hand everyone is in fact a different person from phase to phase. Everyone can observe this in himself.

And once again:

The problem with technology is not technology itself, but the misuse of technology.

The transhumanizers are not in control of technology, but technology is in control of the transhumanizers. The transhumanists who want to abolish humans risk abolishing themselves as well.

That is the true entropy!

The ghosts you once called, you can no longer get rid of.

So, to be clear again: the problem is not the technology, but the misuse of technology by a few humans.

8920

https://imgur.com/gallery/GATYvZu

Alf wrote:

„»Technik ist eine Weise des Entbergens.« (Martin Heidegger, Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962, S. 13 **).
Translation:
»Technology is a way of uncovering.« (Martin Heidegger, Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962, p. 13)

»So ist denn das Gestell als ein Geschick der Entbergung zwar das Wesen der Technik, aber niemals im Sinne der Gattung und der essentia. Beachten wir dies, dann trifft uns etwas Erstaunliches: die Technik ist es, die von uns verlangt, das was man gewöhnlich unter Wesen versteht, in einem anderen Sinn zu denken.« (Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik, 1953, S. 30 **).
Translation:
»Thus, the Gestell as a skill of uncovering is indeed the essence of technology, but never in the sense of the genus and the essentia. If we pay attention to this, then something astonishing strikes us: it is technology that requires us to think of what is usually understood by beings in a different sense« (Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik, 1953, p. 30).

Film (**):

»Ich bin nicht gegen die Technik. Ich habe nie gegen die Technik gesprochen. .... Ich sehe in der Technik, in ihrem Wesen nämlich, daß der Mensch unter einer Macht steht, die ihn herausfordert, und der gegenüber er nicht mehr frei ist, daß sich hier etwas ankündigt, nämlich ein Bezug des Seins zum Menschen, und daß dieser Bezug, der sich im Wesen der Technik verbirgt, eines Tages vielleicht in seiner Unverborgenheit ans Licht kommt.« (Martin Heidegger, im Gespräch mit Richard Wisser, 1969 **). ** **
Translation:
»I'm not against technology. I've never spoken against technology. .... Rather, I see in technology, in its essence that is, that the human is under the influence of the power which challenges him and against which he is no longer free. And here something is indicated: namely, a relation of being to the human. And this relation, hidden in the essence of technology, some day might, in its unconcealment, come to light.« (Cp.: 1:55-2:00 and 3:05-3:44 **).“ ** **

He was right.

The essence of technology is itself nothing technical.

Ernst Jünger's concept of the worker also plays a key role in the generation of this concept of technology. Or? The technical understanding of the world also means securing existence and growth. Calculative thinking is then reduced to the cybernetic operation of distinguishing between 0 and 1.

Another sad story.

Supposedly, this is the largest military force and the largest economic power in the world (!): ** (**).

I can't believe it!

Very sad!

Or Detroit: ** (**).

It is the same sad picture all over the USA.

USA = Third World Country: ** (**).

USA = United Slums of America.

1668) Great Again, 29.08.2023, 16:06, 16:24, 16:44, 16:53, 16:59 (8923-8927)

One of your (**) problems is that you have no idea about genetic engineering.

A vaccine based on genetic engineering changes your genetics. If it did not, then it would not be a vaccine based on genetic engineering.

Your body will react to the genetic information of the vaccine you got as long as your genetics are in you, that is: as long as you live (and in some parts of your body even beyond death).

Humanize wrote:

„Currently the WHO is pushing not just transgenderism on children but also pedophilia. They want to sexualize children in schools and make sure kids are having sexual experiences with no age limit.

See what I mean about viewing these organizations with suspicion? Then consider that the normie norm mass of humanity willingly puts their faith and trust in such groups. And you can't even shake them out of their fantasies, they will fight you to the death to protect their own servitude to literal rapists, pedos and mass murderers.“ **

Humanize wrote:

„Mags J. wrote:

»Humanize wrote:

›Currently the WHO is pushing not just transgenderism on children but also pedophilia. They want to sexualize children in schools and make sure kids are having sexual experiences with no age limit.‹ **

The back-lash has finally begun -States, banning the sexualisation and grooming of children in schools and the illegality of non parental-informing on their own child’s health and well-being matters.

How could they get away with it for so long? How many children fell victim to their madness?« **

Oh sure some few little ban attempts here or there, like that will solve anything. These pedos control all the institutions. They also control the culture now, especially among the upcoming generations. You think a few states trying to ban some sexual content in schools is going to change anything? These bans will probably be overturned by the supreme court anyway, citing "the civil and human rights of all people, regardless of age, to liberating and meaningful sexual experiences of their choosing" or something like that.

Just wait, things are moving quickly now.“ **

Humanize wrote:

„Humanity is a tragedy. The good in humanity is deeper than the evil, but it is also cowardly and disorganized.

There is a logical asymmetry between good and evil. Evil has a natural advantage over good in so far as evil doesn't need excuses, reasons or motive-force to act in ways that further its own ends even in the face of resistance. Whereas good does, because good is actually concerned with trying to navigate situations properly and avoid violating moral rules or abusing the truth. Evil just doesn't care. Not caring is like a superpower. Good needs to understand this, not so we can act in the same way, but so we can further increase our own will and motive-force and so we can continually develop our own counter-agents against the techniques of evil. Otherwise, if good continues to live in merely contented lazy cow-like ignorance evil will continue to have the upper hand.“ **

Yup.

Evil is always one step ahead of good.

You can compare this with the criminal and the police in a good community. The criminal is always one step ahead of the police. It can't be any other way, except in societies that are already dominated by evil, because in those societies evil is considered good and good is considered evil. Here, evil reigns absolute.

Neuralink.com wrote:

„Our Mission:
Create a generalized brain interface to restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs today and unlock human potential tomorrow.“ **

Is this good or evil?

The only good presidents of the United States were those who were killed.

Tab wrote:

„Question I've wondered about off and on.

First of all, that old chestnut, the sins of the fathers. Or to bring it up to date more, do the children of monsters bear any responsibility for the actions of their parents? Or the grandchildren?“ **

No.

Tab wrote:

„My opinion is no.“ **

You are absolutely right.

Tab wrote:

„Second of all, the Fermi paradox. If life in the universe is inevitable, given the odds, where is it all? One of the solutions, little USA officially declared green men notwithstanding, is that we, humanity, are all alone in the big empty universe, the only beacon of sentience in the void.

Our road from replicator molecule floating in the soup, to the tik tok contributing conscious entities that we are is a very very low probability one, and the odds only get worse the more you research our evolutionary path.

The "alone" hypothesis is very reasonable.“ **

The Fermi paradox is quite irrelevant.

Tab wrote:

„Right now the earth's population is probably more divided economically that it has been at any point in history. And while capitalism continues, and democracy continues to fall prey to finance, it will only become more so.

Throw in AI drone swarm armies up for sale to the highest bidders, finite resources and energy and cutting to the chase, and things don't look all that great if you're not firmly in the 1% club. Or maybe even the 0.01% club to be honest.“ **

It is a 0.0001% club!

Tab wrote:

„There's 8 billion of us, so 0.01% is still 80 million people.“ **

No.

1% = 80 million. So: 0.01% = 800000.

You should take mathematics more seriously!

The hard core of the 0.01% club is again 0.01%! So in relation to the 8 billion, it is only 0.000001%. This 0.000001% = 80.

And of this hard core, only one person will remain as a universal dictator.

Your task: Calculate the percentage for one person out of 8 billion persons!

„Compare that with the roughly 200 million around 2000 years ago. A viable baseline to rebuild a species.“ **

200 million = 2.5%.

If you want to have 0.01% of 8 billion, then it is 800000, as I said, and in order to find the amount in history, you have to go back even further, namely to the Stone Age.

Tab wrote:

„One of the few things I believe in is the importance of intelligent life in the universe, without something to notice existence, does anything exist? I don't mind even if the source of that intelligence is human, or artificial. Just so long as something is intelligent, aware, curious.“ **

The answer to the question of the other intelligent life in the universe is also quite irrelevant. Either the others are more intelligent than we are: then they are not interested in us or only in the way we are today about animals and plants. Or they are just as intelligent as or less intelligent than we are: then they are not able to visit us, just as we are currently unable to visit them either.

Tab wrote:

„To whit, if the worst comes to the worst in the next century, and there is a massive die off of humanity, and only the children of the very worst of us, the greediest, the most callous, survive to inherit what's left... Or if only silicon or quantum chips are left to wonder about the stars.“ **

These are the worst of all times.

Does it matter?“ **

What?

1669) Great Again, 10.09.2023, 21:19, 22:01, 22:44 (8928-8930)

You (**) want to calm yourself and others, and you obviously belong to the denial system, the unteachable deniers of reality, who, on top of that, consider themselves „optimists“, as all reality deniers, all cowards do.

Poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, and other signs of Third World are everywhere in the United States, in all cities, in every city.

In 2019, for example, the official rate of poverty in the United States was 17.8% (see excerpt from the film [**]), and with the number of unreported cases together, it was even far higher, moreover, this number has continued to rise exponentially since then.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2pfmFM0nC8&t=78s •

The US emipre has been declining, crashing and cracking since about 1970.

„Denial is never a good idea.“ „We have to stopthe denial and face what is going on.“ - Richard Wolff.

Economics professor Richard Wolff on the decline of the US empire and the denial of the US: ** .

You will probably also deny this statements of this economics professor, won't you?

Like I said: You belong to the reality deniers.

Like a little child who closes the eyes to a danger because it is not supposed to be there, not supposed to be real, with the eyes closed.

You do not see the extent of poverty, so it is not there, is not real to you.

But your (**) answer has nothing to do with my statement, because mine is not that evil is more or faster or more successful, but merely that evil is one step ahead of good, and that also means, for example, that it is also then a step ahead of good if it is wrong; in other words, if evil does not also act very intelligently, it loses out to good, but this does not mean that good is now ahead of evil, but only that it has defeated evil, although evil remains one step ahead - what evil makes of it is a different question in each case.

It is the possibility that evil is in fact always one step ahead of good. Whether evil wins, I did not say at all. Evil makes not seldom more mistakes than the good, but is nevertheless because of the said possibility in the advantage. The good does not have this possibility.

When evil makes a mistake and good knows about it, evil is also one step ahead, but this time in a way that is unfavorable to evil. This is the chance for the good to defeat the evil, for example by luring the evil into a trap.

Evil is one step ahead of good: this means, therefore, that evil always has the possibility of defeating good, but is always on the verge of failure, because in reality the false is often more on the side of evil and the true often more on the side of good, which in turn means that evil is one step ahead of good even when it comes to making mistakes.

In other words: good must constantly fight evil with increasing intelligence!

If the good does not do this, it has lost.

So there is a duty that is only given to the good. It must constantly fight against evil in order to assert its right to exist.

With evil, it's the other way around. It avoids all duty and takes every right, also, even especially, then if (a) good does not do its duty or (b) evil makes a mistake.

Good is in the world even when evil is is one step ahead in the world. It is inferior only if it does not fight against evil. The battle of good is the boomerang that evil hits when it makes a mistake. If good does nothing, then evil wins.

Note: Truth and falsehood are not to be confused with good and evil.

And this does not change the fact that evil is always one step ahead of good. The step that evil can take earlier says still nothing about whether evil wins or loses.

The good people never know what the evil powerful ones intend to do. But the evil powerful ones always know exactly what they are going to do.

The good judge or the good policeman can never know in advance what the evil criminal will do. But the evil criminal knows exactly what s/he is going to do.

The criminal knows it, even though this criminal has just been locked up in jail.

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Devil's motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise ..., until it is too late to choose otherwise.« **

Mephisto's motto:

»Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.«
(»I am part of that power // That the evil ever wants [to do], and ever does the good.«)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64 (**) -.

“ ** **

The content of your text is quite coherent.

I would only like to add something, and that is something about the motives for the elimination of the male human being or its feminisation, which is the transition to this elimination and - by the way - also means the elimination of the woman.

Because all this (see also below: A, B, C) is not only directed against the men, but also against the women, i.e. feminization ultimately means: disappearance of humans. This is also what the word „transhumanism“ of the globalist Klaus Schwab stands for.

A) Technical motives.

The technology is so far advanced that it makes the human being superfluous for the world rulers, since these want to hold on to the power and can this only, by extending it ever faster ever further. For this they need money (best, because perhaps even more important, also: data):

B) Economic motives.

To achieve the above, it is necessary to minimize costs, etc., i.e. basically: to eliminate competition. As competitors on the high level only men come into question, and first of all the middle class white men of the Occident. So, in addition to reducing costs and the like, political measures are thought up and then practiced to make the man disappear. This is also about reproduction:

C) Demographic motives.

Demographic motives are also needed to get rid of men as competitors. The reproduction rate must be strictly limited or even made to disappear. In any case, no more male offspring should be able to be conceived. Some, namely the few selected women may then still have children in an artificial way, but no more in a natural way (unless they belong to the globalistic „Morlocks“, world rulers).

1670) Great Again, 20.09.2023, 21:00, 21:07, 22:44 (8928-8930)

Gloominary wrote:

„Globalism/globalization/the NWO is an ongoing process.“ **

That is not correct.

Globalization is a process („isations“ are always processes); globalism is something like a goal to which globalization should lead and has already led, i.e. globalization has come to its end (I would say: since about 1990/2000); NWO is pretty much the same as globalism - with the difference that NWO is an order, while globalism is the ideology or rather an idealism of it. is an idealism for it, and a rather nihilistic one, which assumes that our globe can and will be regulated to infinity by data and money alone, that there can and will be an order for this globe regulated to infinitely small and infinitely large.

Gloominary wrote:

„Even France has expressed interest in joining BRICS.“ **

( )

Gloominary wrote:

„A lot of people who hate America and/or its government and what's it's been doing around the world, bombing countries left and right are looking forward to the demise of American hegemony, but the globalists invented modern Russia, India and China, built them up into what they are today, they dominate them too.“ **

Yes, of course. Just as they have always dominated the USA.

Gloominary wrote:

„And so BRICS is no real alternative to American/globalist hegemony, just the next phase in globalist hegemony.“ **

Not the next phase, but the reinforcement, the supplement, just to their completion (see above: definition) needed antithesis, i.e. antithesis in the Hegelian sense. In this way they can now finally dominate the whole globe in such a way as it corresponds to a reality which is indeed characterized by contradiction. They also have to control the contradiction. In this way, the opponent becomes a harmless pseudo-opponent. Whether this calculation works out, however, is questionable, because contradiction (resistance) forms again and again, unless one controls also the brains to 100%, e.g., by nano and genetic engineering (chip in the brain etc.).

Gloominary wrote:

„All these fools talking about this conflict between the west and east, it's all nonsense, just like the fake conflict between woke and poopulism is.“ **

Oh, these conflicts do exist, but they are managed conflicts (as I described above). Every opponent (every contradiction) shall be managed, thus: controlled.

Bob wrote:

„Creation makes creator (**) isn’t ... correct, but a »creation« implies a creator.“ **

Yes. The statement „creation makes a creator“ is nonsense because it violates the grammatical rule of the well-formed sentence and thus also logic.

If, for example, the producer produces his product, this does NOT mean that the product produces its producer.

Such phrases are allowed in lyrical language, but not in prosaic language.

That's easy. Those who do not understand this do not understand much else.

For me, the authors of such sentence constructions try to prepare humans for the transformation from humans to transhumans (whatever that is: it is what comes after th end of humans).

==>