421) Arminius, 06.04.2014, 00:01, 00:19, 01:23, 02:48, 18:08, 18:22, 21:02 (869-875)

869

Here comes the text of Jethro Tull's „Locomotive Breath“ and my interpretation according to my topic (=> original post [op]):

The situation of the „all-time-loser“ is pretty similar to the situation of the mass of the male human beings (never fear because I am not a feminist!), or even the entire human species, not only when we think of the economical crises, but also and especially of the technical or engineering crises which have been increasing rapidly since the beginning of modern times, especially the beginning of occidental modern times.

The „all-time loser“ is not able to defeat the „all-time winner“ forever, but he is able to defeat him temporarily. We are able and have to fight the entropy, elsewise we are dead.

The development of technology/technique, the so called „progress“, is not stoppable, if there is no „handle“ which means no better or even best way of human life, and which assumes a philosophy of life, a life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie). If we don't find again or recover the right „handle“ in order to live, then there is „no way to slow down“, and we are lost.

We don't have to believe in „modern“ rulers who play God. We have to pay attention to our lives, to our families, therefore to our children, to the demographic development (the fertility rates shouldn't be too low, as currently in Europe, North America, in parts of Latin America, in parts of Aisa, and Australia, and shouldn't be too high, as currently in Africa, in parts of Asia, and in parts of Latin America). We don't have to believe in „progress“ because there is no progress in comparison to our lives. Outside of our lives there is only the same development as every time. We have to believe in our lives (existences) without paying too much attention to things which are too far away from us.

James S. Saint wrote:

„There actually are two proven facts involved concerning this subject;

A) Cold air, even if only via air conditioning, does cause the mind to think more clearly, less emotionally for a variety of reasons.

B) Barren environments, whether by snow, rocks, or desert inspire more careful strategic thinking also know as "analytical philosophy".

And when you have a barren but hot climate, you get more emotional bound strategic thinking as found in the Middle East. Logos is more common in colder barren climates and Pathos more in barren hot climates. Both have been scientifically proven..“ **

Thank you, James.

It's just what I said before (at least 13 times!): ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

This „boy“ can not understand what science, techniques/technology, economy, politics, etc., and last but not least philosophy mean. He is wrong. „It's likely the reverse of what he's saying.“ - Antithesis, formerly known as Eyesinthedark (**).

The „show“ of this „boy“ was over before its beginning.

James S. Saint wrote:

„People think of intelligence in two basic forms; living and non-living.

Intelligence refers merely to the ability to »problem solve«. But that implies the awareness of a »problem«. A simple calculator can be said to have intelligence. Its imbued »problem« is simply to respond to the buttons pressed and display the result of an algorithm. The fact that it can do that in a variety of ways and complexities is what earns it the right to be credited with intelligence. Of course, that would be non-living intelligence.

When an entity has algorithms specifically aimed toward self-sustaining, especially with the capability of discovery and adaptability, it is called a »living intelligence«. The "problem" inherently instilled within it is simply survival, self-maintenance. The number, complexity, and specificity of the algorithms form the degree and type of intelligence, which can be vastly varied.

Intelligence merely requires memory, stimulation algorithms, senses, and servos. The speed of their functioning plays a large role in the type and degree of intelligence also. If something has 2 times my memory, 2 times my number and/or complexity of algorithms, and 2 times my processing speed, it can be said to have 2x2x2 = 8 times my intelligence. Of course which algorithms it has versus which ones that I have can make a huge difference. So that figure is not a very good measure. But if it has the memory of the NSA's new system in Utah, capable of storing every electronic transaction taking place throughout the world for 100 years without degradation and merely a few simple algorithms for access and analysis, it can be said to be greatly more intelligent than I am.“ **

One could also say that such agencies and corporations (giant companies) are kinds of superorganisms (systems of organisation), they „live“ because they are systems of variation, reproduction, and of interest in self-organisation and reproduction - like organic systems, assuming that they are sane and fit (competent). These superorganisms (systems of organisation) have more power (in every case), more intelligence (many organic systems and many anorganic systems work always together) etc., so they are „x“-times more „survivable“ than organic systems. And I think that someday in the future these superorganisms (systems of organisation) will merely consist of anorganic systems (machines), thus no more organic systems.

And if organic systems are not needed anymore, then ... (? ?) ....

Therefore my thread (**|**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Realize that the physical universe contains absolutely no geometric forms at all. Geometric forms are entirely a cartoon image within the mind and can never exist in the physical world expect as an average over an infinite amount of time.

There are cyclic motions, such as a electrons and planets orbiting. But even those are not as simple as thought and taught. An electron does not follow any specific path. It is guided by the precise field surrounding it (of which is it actually made). It never really takes the exact same course in all of its uncountable orbits.“ **

I know that, James, but it is just my favourite model - not more. Geometric forms are also used as models or patterns. Mathematics can make happy, but not as much as music because music is the best. Now mathematics and music are reminding me again of Pythagoras and some posts: ** ** ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The development of technology/technique, the so called ›progress‹, is not stoppable, if there is no ›handle‹ which means no better or even best way of human life, and which assumes a philosophy of life, a life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie). If we don't find again or recover the right „handle“ in order to live, then there is ›no way to slow down‹ (**), and we are lost.

We don't have to believe in ›modern‹ rulers who play God. We have to pay attention to our lives, to our families, thus to our children, to the demographic development (the fertility rates shouldn't be too low, as currently in Europe, North America, in parts of Latin America, in parts of Aisa, and Australia, and shouldn't be too high, as currently in Africa, in parts of Asia, and in parts of Latin America). We don't have to believe in „progress“ because there is no progress in comparison to our lives. Outside of our lives there is only the same development as every time. We have to believe in our lives (existences) without paying too much attention to things which are too far away from us.« ** **

That pretty much sums up what I say and am all about.

And it leads to »Anentropic Molecularisation«, small groups of anentropic harmony specifically designed to ensure the longest period of joy possible (which in itself instigates progress, technologically, psychologically, and philosophically).“ **

Can you tell us more about the „anentropic molecularisation“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, something else interesting. I just went through some of the mathematics of the all of this and discovered something disturbing.

The worship of wealth/power is exactly what WILL and must lead to the formation of a physical »Black Hole«. Machines are designed for the purpose of increasing global wealth/power. At a certain point, the ambient mass of wealth becomes so great that it spontaneously forms a new center of mass similar to the original (socially perceived as a rebellion). The combination of the two very quickly inspires the formation of a third which exponentially increases the formation of others. The machines and eugenics efforts get fed more and more the whole time, not merely replacing organic life, but becoming more and more efficient at ensuring maximum power concentration, absorbing energy. And there is no greater concentration of power than a black hole in the entire universe. The machine world is merely an interim state.

The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system. The God-wannabes WILL destroy not only all life on Earth, but the entire Solar system (as bizarre as that seems).

Life is an anentropic force in nature, intentionally gathering power. There is nothing else in the universe that gathers power such as to form a Black Hole other than mere probability of accidental mass aggregation, except life - organic life.“ **

Interesting, James, very interesting because you are comparing or even parallelising or analogising social developments with physical developments - and that's what I often do as well. But then I read this words: „The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system.“ (**) With these words you are going very far, aren't you. Too far? Because that seems indeed „bizarre“ (**). You are saying: „Life is an anentropic force in nature“ (**). I challenge you by saying: Life is an antientropic force in nature.

Bob wrote:

„I see a huge problem in the so-called »sexual revolution« .... This is also a lack of empathy ....“ **

I absolutely agree.

The so called „sexual revolution“ is a means to an end. But does the end always justify the means? And what is the end (about) ?  Well, this end is anarchy, chaos, war, civil war caused by too much „humanised“ „will to power“ („Wille zur Macht“ - Friedrich W. Nietzsche), by to much „civilisation“, especially by so called „individualism“, „socialism“, „welfare“, „revolutions“ (incl. „sexual revolutions“, „feminism“, „genderism“, „gayism“, „pederastyism“, etc.), etc..

That’s hell.

875

Helper wrote:

„Here's the reference for the electron's cycle as being 150 attoseconds.

Now, 250 million year, approximately, is the time it takes for the Milky Way disc to rotate once.

So, since their diameters are 10^22 (approx) meters and 10^-9 (approx) meters, then, obviously, the approximate ratio is 10^31.

Okay, 225 milion years = 7.9 X 10^15 seconds and 150 attoseconds = 1.5 X 10^-16 seconds.

So, by division, we get 5.3 X 10^31 ....“ **

Well done, but my question refered to your pictures, namely: what do the points symbolise? Electrons? Galactic arms? ** **

And by the way this pictures too:

Help me, Helper!

Thank you.

422) Arminius, 07.04.2014, 00:03, 02:28, 03:09, 18:56, 23:13, 23:32 (876-881)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Too far? Because that seems indeed ›bizarre‹.« ** **

Well, that was my first thought too. But then I did the math. I can't argue with the math/logic. When Man uses machines to inspire the use of machines, power/money to inspire more power/money, psychology and physicality begin to merge. And Man is doing that in blind lust. Since Man can now produce anti-matter, new atoms and molecules, and mini-black-holes for the sake of weaponry to be used for sake of more power/money, he will keep concentrating that power/money.

There are currently individuals who could buy the USA out of debt and still have trillions of dollars left over. But they don't do that because they are using the USA to gain and concentrate even more money/power. They seriously don't care how many millions of people they murder in wars, all for sake of money. They are currently selling robots and androids based on the fact that they are cheaper labor than people. They are replacing solders with drones and androids. They are replacing engineers, doctors, and even psychologists with artificial intelligence. And guess what those androids need most in order to compete with the other androids - concentrated energy/power. More and more and more, the blind lust for centralized globalist power with no end in sight.“ **

I know all that facts very well.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What used to be merely social power, »wealth« has already become a direct issue of concentrated physical power. Chernobyl wasn't enough to stop them from continuing. Japan wasn't enough to stop them. But in creating concentrated matter, they don't get to try, try, and try again. Once a black hole gets formed (to be used as a weapon) there is only two ways to stop it; isolate it very, very quickly, or within milliseconds use a nuclear weapon to destroy it. How many times will they have to do that before they don't succeed? It only takes once, then nothing can stop it, nothing at all. Yet they are still trying.“ **

It's just a logical consequence that they want „a black hole“ to get „formed (to be used as a weapon)“. We won't have to wonder, if it will happen. Do you know anything about CERN and the curious search of the Higgs-particle? Why was this CERN built in Switzerland, but paid by the EU, which means: paid by Germany (Switzerland is no member of the EU)?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You are saying: „Life is an anentropic force in nature“ (**). I challenge you by saying: Life is an antientropic force in nature.« ** **

„Okay, what is your argument for that?“ **

Firstly there is a lingustic difference between the prefix „a“ and the prefix „anti“ because the meaning of the prefix „a“ is similar to the maeaning of the adverb „not“, and the meaning of the prefix „anti“ is similar to the adverb „against“. Secondly physicans don't say any word about „anentropy“ because they really don't know enough about the beginning and about the end of the universe. Thirdly the word „anentropy“ is given, thus it must make sense to use it in - for example - philosophical way, especially in a metaphysical way, as you do with your concept of „anentropic harmony“, but in this sense the meaning of „entropy“ and „antientropy“ as a physical concept remains outside of the metaphysical concept of „anentropy“. So in my sentence (see above **) the word „antientropic“ is used as a physical concept.

Every organic system („life“) has to struggle for its life, thus for itself, by antagonising the entropy. The entropy is at last the winner anyway, but temporarily life defeats the entropy by the charge (expenditure) of energy, and this „temporary fight against the entropy“ is what we call „life“. My argument follows more or less the concept of „life“ which physicists have, but I don't argue always in this way. If I did, I were more religiously or ideologically than scientifically and philosophically orientated, but I am more scientifically and philosophically than religiously or ideologically orientated.

Anentropy means „not entropy“, „non-entropy“, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the „antagonist of entropy“, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life.

An interessing question is, whether a living being is able (capable, competent) enough to be completely anentropic. I negate because a living being isn't able to be completely entropic. If a living being were able to be completely entropic, it would be dead, and if a living being is dead, it is no living being anymore, its time is over. Life is not able to be completely organised (100% order) and also not able to be completely chaotic (100% chaos).

Helper wrote:

„The points represent where an electron or a galactic arm would go if it were part of a disc that is both spinning and precessing. In both the above pictures (**|**), the disc spins once every time it precesses once - in the Benzene animation, the disc spins once every time it precesses twice.“ **

So the answer is: YES, the points represent electrons and galactic arms.

Thank you, Helper.

Obe wrote:

„May not anentropic processes limit the entropic ones?“ **

Of course they may, I would merely use a different word. Instead of „anentropic“ I say „antientropic“ in order to clarify.

What I tried to make clear is that the antagonist of entropy is not or can not be anentropy, but antientropy. My arguements were linguistical and physical ones, when I said: „Life is an antientropic force in nature“ (**), and „there is a linguistic difference between the prefix »a« and the prefix »anti« because the meaning of the prefix »a« is similar to the maeaning of the adverb »not«, and the meaning of the prefix »anti« is similar to the adverb »against«“ (**), and „anentropy means »not entropy«, »non-entropy«, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the »antagonist of entropy«, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life.“ (**). It's always a question of definitions, of concepts, thus of linguistics, and physics with its methods can affirm (verify) or negate (falsify) this definitions, concepts, etc..

The word „antientropy“ and the word „anentropy“ may often be used synonymically, but if so, we have a linguistcal problem, and with the utmost probability also a physical problem.

I think, James and I use the same concept of the antagonist of entropy, but we use different words. And because we can merely speek by using speech (language) we have to do it linguistically. At times we have to make clear what is meant, if we want to undertand each other exactly and give or take as much as possible information.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Firstly there is a lingustic difference between the prefix „a“ and the prefix „anti“ because the meaning of the prefix „a“ is similar to the maeaning of the adverb „not“, and the meaning of the prefix „anti“ is similar to the adverb „against“. Secondly physicans don't say any word about „anentropy“ because they really don't know enough about the beginning and about the end of the universe. Thirdly the word „anentropy“ is given, thus it must make sense to use it in - for example - a philosophical way, especially in a metaphysical way, as you do with your concept of „anentropic harmony“, but in this sense the meaning of „entropy“ and „antientropy“ as a physical concept remains outside of the metaphysical concept of „anentropy“. So in my sentence (see above) the word „antientropic“ is used as a physical concept.

Every organic system („life“) has to struggle for its life, thus for itself, by antagonising the entropy. The entropy is at last the winner anyway, but temporarily life defaets the entropy by the charge (expenditure) of energy, and this „temporary fight against the entropy“ is what we call „life“. My argument follows more or less the concept of „life“ which physicists have, but I don't argue always in this way. If I did, I were more religiously or ideologically than scientifically and philosophically orientated, but I am more scientifically and philosophically than religiously or ideologically orientated.

Anentropy means „not entropy“, „non-entropy“, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the „antagonist of entropy“, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life.

An interessing question is, whether a living being is able (capable, competent) enough to be completely anentropic. I negate because a living being isn't able to be completely entropic. If a living being were able to be completely entropic, it would be dead, and if a living being is dead, it is no living being anymore, its time is over. Life is not able to be completely organised (100% order) and also not able to be completely chaotic (100% chaos).« ** **

Good argument.

How does one say, »anti-entropic« in German?“ **

One says „anti-entropisch“ or „antientropisch“ („sch“ is as spoken as „sh“ in English, and as a morpheme of adjective forms „isch“ is like „ic“ or „ish“ in English). This word is not often used - both in German and in English.

When I use „X“ and „Anti-X“ I may sometimes refer to Hegel’s „Dialektik“ in which the „Thesis“ and the „Antithesis“ as the Thesis' antagonist lead to a „Synthesis“.

In our „case“ we perhaps have to find the „Synthesis“ of entropy and antientropy. But I don't know whether the physicists agree to that.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If something is growing, the word »anti-entropic« is proper because it is doing the exact opposite of what entropy would dictate.“ **

That is exactly what I mean.

It is a process. If we try to find out which is stronger or weaker, higher or lower, we have to halt or break this process artificially because in reality it is always a process - until its end which is unknown because we don't know, whether, and if yes, when and how the universe ends, and we also don't know very much about black holes, even nothing about its interior.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But what if it isn't growing, but neither is it shrinking? What if it is merely not changing size? That would be »void of entropy« = »anentropic«.“ **

That's absolutely correct.

James S. Saint wrote:

„A sub-atomic particle neither grows nor shrinks. It is stable in its size relative to its ambient. If its ambient changes, it changes just enough to compensate and then is stable again. Thus it is »anentropic«.“ **

Yeah.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But if the ambient gets too extremely dense.“ **

- AND of course too extremely HOT! -

James S. Saint wrote:

„The particle will be inspired to grow beyond stability and continue growing and growing.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„At that point ....“ **

- WHICH point, James? -

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is no longer anentropic, but anti-entropic. But we no longer call it a »particle«, but rather a »Black Hole«, forever growing.

With life, you have been taught that life seeks to expand indefinitely, to simply replicate its DNA. But has that really been true? It is true that the DNA replicates. But note that after an adult body has been formed, the body stops growing. While it was growing, it was alive and anti-entropic. And when it stops growing, it is merely anentropic at best. But would you say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive? Is everyone over 30 dead?“ **

I would not say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive. When he has stopped growing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic. The point of „stop growing“, as you said, is - unfortunately or fortunately (who really knows?) - nearly a static point, isn't it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The DNA is not replicating in order to be anti-entropic and fill the universe with itself, but rather it replicates itself merely as a means to surround itself with something compatible with itself in an effort to stop entropy, to be void of entropy. It is not trying to accumulate more. It is trying to stop losing any more. When any living thing senses that it is no longer being defeated by entropy, it stops growing automatically. That is conceptually why the body stops growing. It reaches a limit of benefit wherein more growth wouldn't help.“ **

That's right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Of course this is in the form of biochemical reactions, but evolution has arranged them to cause that effect, »stop growing when it is no longer of anentropic benefit«.“ **

Okay, but „evolution“ is a word which is conceptually very much spreaded. Nevertheless I agree.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thus the DNA process is actually an anentropic process, not really an anti-entropic process, except during growth against continued entropy.“ **

After growth the process is „not really an antientropic process“ because the entropic process is stronger (entropy »wins« at last), but nevertheless after growth the antientropic process doesn't end, but is merely weaker, the end of antientropy is death. Anentropy means (linguistically) the absence of entropy, but antientropy needs entropy because of fighting against it. Anentropy is more than less a metaphysical concept, you can't hardly prove it physically.

So I don't wonder that your concept of „anentropic harmony“ is a metaphysical concept.

Anentropy is more or less an ideal. One can or shall reach or attain it, if one is able to remain in the state of timelessness or eternalness. So it reminds me of the Buddhistic concept of „nirvana“.

Where something is, there is entropy, and even there, where nothing is, will be soon entropy.

Exceptions prove the rule.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Life on Earth merely keeps expanding because it is always being attacked (by human design). It can't find its anentropic state. Societies that find peace, stop growing automatically. Overpopulation ends simply by finding harmony. No one needs to be killed off. That process is automatic and natural. The fear of overpopulation is specifically to justify specific people being killed off, »The Unchosen«.“ **

That is true.

The first impression that one of the naive believers (e.g. the naive believers in progress) has is that „peaceful societies grow“. No! They do NOT grow. They stop growing and shrink automatically.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Because societies don't find sufficient anentropic cause to keep individuals alive, the individuals get replaced by continued DAN replication (or these days by androids). If they had found the cure to aging, and all other entropic effects, people would automatically stop reproducing any more than the environment required.

When I speak of »Anentropic Harmony«, I am referring to a momentous harmony that does not keep growing, but is stable against entropy. It is in harmony with its surroundings as well as being in harmony within its »body«. All need to grow has been exactly compensated. It is ecologically balanced. And it chooses to grow only when the environment demands growth in order to remain stable. It is very much like the anentropic sub-atomic particle, not the anti-entropic Black-hole.“ **

You can be „anentropic“ then - and only then -, if you are in a void or static state or condition.

I think, in the matter we are agreed, we merely differ in concepts, definitions, thus words, exactly: lexemes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, something else interesting. I just went through some of the mathematics of the all of this and discovered something disturbing.

The worship of wealth/power is exactly what WILL and must lead to the formation of a physical »Black Hole«. Machines are designed for the purpose of increasing global wealth/power. At a certain point, the ambient mass of wealth becomes so great that it spontaneously forms a new center of mass similar to the original (socially perceived as a rebellion). The combination of the two very quickly inspires the formation of a third which exponentially increases the formation of others. The machines and eugenics efforts get fed more and more the whole time, not merely replacing organic life, but becoming more and more efficient at ensuring maximum power concentration, absorbing energy. And there is no greater concentration of power than a black hole in the entire universe. The machine world is merely an interim state.

The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system. The God-wannabes WILL destroy not only all life on Earth, but the entire Solar system (as bizarre as that seems).

Life is an anentropic force in nature, intentionally gathering power. There is nothing else in the universe that gathers power such as to form a Black Hole other than mere probability of accidental mass aggregation, except life - organic life.“ **

Do I have to add my last four main questions?

Arminius wrote:

„Will machines enslave human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines?“ ** **

I add two main questions:

Will a physical „black hole“ be caused in James’ sense (see above)?
Will that physical „black hole“ absorb our earth or even our entire solar system?

James S. Saint wrote:

„You will find that I have only small concern over what physicists agree on (in modern English a »physician« is a medical practitioner).“ **

Thank you. Einstein was the „familiy doctor“ of my father till 1933, when he became the „familiy doctor“ of your father.

423) Arminius, 08.04.2014, 01:15, 18:26, 22:30, 23:56 (882-885)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»When he has stopped growing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic. The point of "stop growing", as you said, is - unfortunately or fortunately (who really knows?) - nearly a static point, isn't it?« ** **

A »static point«? So you are saying that anyone over 30 is static and although alive, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, merely fading away and nothing more?“ **

No. Over 24! .... All jokes aside. We are using different words for the same concept. I was saying: „When he has stopped growing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Living anti-entropic entities can learn how to not over-use the anti-entropy and thus they can become anentropic, having conquered both entropy and anti-entropy and can apply either as needed in order to continue being stable, anentropic.

Thus Anentropy is »stronger« than both entropy and anti-entropy. It is the balancing of the two, a synthesis and symphony of harmony.“ **

That is why I said before: „When I use „X“ and „Anti-X“ I may sometimes refer to Hegel’s »Dialektik« in which the »Thesis« and the »Antithesis« as the Thesis' antagonist lead to a »Synthesis«. ** **

In our „case“ we perhaps have to find the „Synthesis“ of entropy and antientropy. But I don't know whether the physicists agree to that.

James S. Saint wrote:

„As you say;

Arminius wrote:

»Anentropy is more or less an ideal.« ** **

»More«, not »less«. And doable even today. People die today ONLY because of the way homosapians are managed.

Arminius wrote:

»Where something is, there is entropy, and even there, where nothing is, will be soon entropy.« ** **

And where something is, there is anti-entropy, and even there, where »nothing« is, will be soon anti-entropy.“ **

That is what I also say.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Chosen have already separated themselves to live in their »Utopia«. They have already »ascended« into their Ivory Tower. It is only a matter of time before they replace the rest of the population with machines. But are they being socially anti-entropic or anentropic? They are socially anti-entropic and thus will cause a cataclysm that even they, with all of their wealth and glory cannot do anything to stop. So in the »end«, if Anentropia is not chosen as a means to live (rather than the Pyramid), anti-entropic forces are going to win = »Black-hole«. There is no greater anti-entropic entity in the entire universe than a Black-hole, perhaps the destiny of every organic civilization. They simply do not know how to stop and be truly anentropic (else they would be doing it out in the world).

In The Matrix film series, you see the battle between the Oracle and the Zionists vs the Architect and the machines. In the end, who wins? They settle on a truce, a pseudo-anentropic state. But in reality, although that began a new day, a new age, it is not the real end of the story.

What do you think happens to a truce between the eternally dying and the eternally living? A pyramid requires constant anti-entropic forces to maintain its form. And thus must constantly be fighting entropic forces, always gaining more power to win a battle that can never be won except by the annihilation into a Black-hole floating in space.“ **

Do you actually use the words „anti-entropy“ and „anti-entropic“ because I used them before, or do you use them anyway, usually when it comes to the topic „anentropic harmony“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you actually use the words ›anti-entropy‹ and ›anti-entropic‹ because I used them before, or do you use them anyway, usually when it comes to the topic ›anentropic harmony‹?« ** **

Anti-entropic was the my first thought concerning the MCR, »Maximum Change Rate«, which spawns the sub-atomic particle to grow. And anti-entropic is what it is. So I started to say that a sub-atomic particle was anti-entropic, but something seemed wrong with that. Then I realized that the particle itself, although formed because of anti-entropy, is not anti-entropic, but merely void of entropy.

I couldn't find a word for that other than merely »stable«. But the word »stable« didn't really relay the deeper truth of it, that it was stable because of the detailed, finer anti-entropy countering the entropy. So I chose to form and use the word »anentropy« so as to relay that its stability was very directly tied to an issue of entropy, but opposing the common promoted notion that entropy is ever present and always wins. It doesn't win when it comes to sub-atomic particles or anything that functions on the principle of the MCR

Anentropy meant to me that when riding a bike, one neither leans too much to the right (anti-entropy) nor too far to the left (entropy). The objective is to remain stable, balanced and thus be able to sway and steer without falling, defeating demise, failure, death - anentropic.

So online, I emphasis »anentropy« and when asked by someone who doesn't know anything about the issue at all, I just give the short (not pedantically accurate) response, »It just means anti-entropy« because to those who only believe in entropy as the god of all nature, it really does mean the necessary presence of an anti-entropic force of some kind. But because you got into the finer meanings involved, I have been discussing anti-entropy vs anentropy ... with you.

So yes, if you had not mentioned anti-entropy, neither would I have.

But now that you have, I think we can agree. Anentropy is the goal-state, the ideal. Most others have been programmed to believe only in the omnipotence of entropy (a seemingly necessary thought in socialism; »because of the omnipotent god Entropy«, »the Devil«, »the terrorist«, YOU NEED US!!!"). Well, something is certainly needed, but it doesn't seem to be the same »us« as is promoted. What is needed is balance, stability, Anentropy throughout ... Antentropia.“ **

So much the better that I have mentioned „antientropy“. Therefore I thank myself, but all the more I thank you for your respond.

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If machines are cheaper than human beings, then machines replace human beings.

Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

....

What do you think?« ** **

You've just concluded a premise. That's not how logic works. You need to defend the premise: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Then from that and p, q is your conclusion.

However, assuming that such a thing were possible, a machine that could completely replace a human being would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than the cost of procreating and raising a human being. And there are many machines that can't do so, yet are still more expensive. So p is false, at the moment.

Why would machines replace human beings? They replace many actions that human beings have to do, and make possible many new things. What's the value in a machine that simply replaces a human being?“ **

That is known anyway. It is generally known that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.

Besides:

Please read the WHOLE text of my original post:

„Will machines completely replace all of the human beings?

Logical implication:

p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p --› q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.

Truth table for a logical implication:

We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

But will all human beings completely replaced by machines? All human beings? All? And completely replaced? Completely? By machines? Machines?

What do you think?“ ** **

The fact that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things is given in my original post by the sentence, which reminds on that fact, thus defends the first premise (p) you mentioned, it defends the first premise (p) AND the second premise (q): „We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.“ (**|**|**). At first I wanted to write it clearly in the op, but than I thought, I don't have to because this here is an internet forum and not an university logic lecture.

Only Humean wrote:

„However, assuming that such a thing were possible, a machine that could completely replace a human being would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than the cost of procreating and raising a human being. And there are many machines that can't do so, yet are still more expensive. So p is false, at the moment.“ **

No, p is NOT false (cp. the most of the posts in this thread). And also at the moment p is not false. Read for example what James S. Saint wrote:

„But then again:

James S. Saint wrote:

»You need more Asimo to clean up high tech catastrophes. (**). But for how long will Asimo need you any more? People become and remain jobless as long as people don't need people, any more. The easiest way to use Science to control a population is to do away with it. Technology provides all of the ways to get that done, quietly and efficiently.«

Already replacing people. Japan as a 200% debt/GDP. So they are replacing their people with more economic machines, doing the same task. In the West, especially the USA, robots are now being sold based upon their economic operation being far superior to humans. Even pizza delivery is now being instigated via air-drones.“ **

That's interesting, isn't it?

But nevertheless: I'll do it. Only for Only Humean:

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.

Only Humean wrote:

„Why would machines replace human beings?“ **

NOT „would“, they DO!

AGAIN: Because machines are cheaper and easier to control and easier to organise (machines do NOT rebel) and so on.

Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

Only Humean wrote:

„The question is whether machines will completely replace human beings.“ **

That’s the question because that’s the topic of my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). In that sentence one has to focus on the word „completely“ or/and on the word „all“ - both words are not used because of the tautology, but because of the fact that machines are able (a) to replace completely and (b) to replace all human beings.

Only Humean wrote:

„I don't see much advantage to designing a machine that can watch TV in the evenings, or support a football team. Machines will take over more tasks from people, and specialise in different ways, but there's little value in creating a mechanical human that can do any more than function in a way that real humans appreciate.“ **

There are more and especially more interesting reasons given. Maybe there's less value in keeping humans alive or in designing humans who can do any more than function in a way that machines appreciate.

424) Arminius, 09.04.2014, 01:44, 03:54, 04:52, 09:32, 17:58, 20:14, 21:13 (886-892)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Only Humean wrote:

»250 years ago ....« **

250 years ago, overpopulation, antinatalism, and eugenics weren't being promoted. Nor had the Zionists arranged for Solomon's all mighty temple of ultimate power. Nor was the UK, the UN, China, and the USA actively lusting for world globalization through environmental and economic dependency. Nor could they reduce the size of energy cells to microscopic. Nor could they create a computer with 100 times the intelligence of a human, that fits into your watch. Nor intelligent cars to convey things automatically through busy traffic. Who needs truck drivers? Cabs? Driver licenses, actors, police, farmers, solders, doctors, accountants, lawyers ....

Nothing fights a drone better than an android. And self-replicating androids are already in the works.

The major churches know that The Chosen have already been chosen and you are but those left behind, unneeded and unwanted.“ **

Even when it comes to thinking about that what will be in 250 years, the stupid mass of people obeys the mainstream, although the risks and dangers of techniques (technologies), engineering, machines etc. have been becoming more and more obvious since about 225 years, or since about 125 years, at least since about 25 years. There have been being many critiques and disbelief about that since the end of the 18th century, and they have been increasing! But all these critiques and disbelief have also being managed, organised, controlled, especially since the last 2½ decades, since gobalisation (globalism) broke through.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

„Here's an interesting quote from Wiki ...:

»According to Santayana, Nietzsche considered his philosophy to be a correction of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. In his Egotism in German Philosophy, Santayana listed Nietzsche’s antithetical reactions to Schopenhauer.

The will to live would become the will to dominate; pessimism founded on reflection would become optimism founded on courage; the suspense of the will in contemplation would yield to a more biological account of intelligence and taste; finally in the place of pity and asceticism (Schopenhauer’ s two principles of morals) Nietzsche would set up the duty of asserting the will at all costs and being cruelly but beautifully strong. These points of difference from Schopenhauer cover the whole philosophy of Nietzsche.

These emendations show how Schopenhauer’s philosophy was not a mere initial stimulus for Nietzsche, but formed the basis for much of Nietzsche’s thinking.« **

Hope it is useful.“ **

I think this is quite right. Nietzsche was as antithetical to Schopenhauer as Marx was to Hegel. Until Marx' death Marx had been a pupil of his teacher Hegel, and until Nietzsche's death Nietzsche had been a pupil of Schopenhauer. Interesting is the question who was or is synthetical to Hegel („Thesis“) and Marx („Antithesis“) and who was or is synthetical to Schopenhauer („Thesis“) and Nietzsche („Antithesis“).

Put in the right name:

Hegel („Thesis“) + Marx („Antithesis“) = . . . . . . . . . („Synthesis“).

Schopenhauer („Thesis“) + Nietzsche („Antithesis“) = . . . . . . . . . („Synthesis“).

Good luck!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« ....“ **

No, he said „panpsychic“ (**), but I don't know, whether he meant „pan-psychotic“ ....

Moreno wrote:

„People will choose to become machines.“ **

They will not know what they choose, decide, do, speak, think, but it will always look like as if .... So they will not really choose etc., but because they will also not know anything about choice etc., they will perhaps look like happy people, for example like „die letzten Menschen“ („the last men“) in Nietzsche’s „Zarathustra“: „»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« - sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“  —  „»We have invented the happiness« - say the last men, and blink.“

Isn't it justifiable or warrantable to fight against the forces which cause the „last men“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is predicted that in only a few years Google's »Authentication«/identification pill (a pill to shallow that sends a resonant signal throughout your body to inform machines of who you are) will be required by law or circumstance. And also a voice/mind reading tattoo.

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p606pEEHsW0 -

Not to mention the upcoming Google Glass, for video hypnotic control.“ **

That is absolutely horrible, a mix of „Frankenstein“, „Last Men“, „Time Machine“, „Brave New World“, „1984“, and „New World Order“.

And in the end of the film (=> 3:17 till end) there is a white baby shown. A white baby! Alive! A white baby who is alive! Sensational! Unbelievable!

One has to become a cynic to bear the cynicism of the civilised barbarians.

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.« ** **

Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.“ **

One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.

Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).

Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.

In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the „evolution“ of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called „progress“ and the so called „revolutions“) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).

James S. Saint wrote:

„And then there is the internal nanobot stage.

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncXjBih6mcw -

Note the very serious yet ignored distinction between a mechanism that might allow you to live longer (strictly for multimillionaires) versus a mechanism that constantly surveils you and feeds you subliminal, suggestive information.“ **

If these people are really „forever living people“, then they will longer exist than the machines, assuming that they will sufficiently early leave this planet, but therefor they will need the machines or - until then - they will have become mechanical human beings (NOT human mechanical beings, BUT mechanical human beings), such as cyborgs, equipped with nano-chips, nanobots (powered by ...[put in the right name]...), and so on.

The „forever living people“ can not really be forever living people, if they can not except or eliminate any accident and so on.

So I will have to ask again (**|**|**|**):

Will machines enslave human beings?
Will machines bring the death of all human beings?
Or will the human beings stop creating machines?
Who will longer exist: human beings or machines?

Will a physical „black hole“ be caused (in James' sense **) ?
Will that physical „black hole“ absorb our earth or even our entire solar system?

425) Arminius, 10.04.2014, 00:46, 20:51 (893-894)

Sauwelios wrote:

„Lizbethrose wrote:

»I don't know a whole lot about Nietzshe's philosophy as I've said many times. I've tried to read him but I give up because he seems to change the meanings of his words from page to page. German and English are very rich languages with a lot of undertones and nuances. (Handschusheheimerland Strasse, for example, means the street to the glove/mitten maker's home, translated literally. But a lot depends on the gender of the nouns and the declension of any verbs, once the nouns are separated out of the whole. Handschuhe means shoes for the hands--I can't remember if it's masc. or neuter. Deutschland, Germany,--uber alles in der Welt--over (superior, greater, leading) alles (all, all countries) in der (masc) Welt--Germany is the greatest (country) in the entire world. Sounds normally patriotic, doesn't it? Until it took on other meanings.)

All of which is to say Nietzshe's 'will to power' is difficult to accurately translate--now matter how good the translator. Even if we lived in 19th century Germany it would be difficult to understand because it's used in more than one way.« **

Der in the phrase in der Welt is not masculine, but feminine; not nominative singular masculine, but dative singular feminine, to be precise. (Handschuhe is plural, by the way; the singular, Handschuh, is masculine.)

The phrase der Wille zur Macht literally means „the will to the might“; but the second „the“ should be left out, just as in die Wirklichkeit, „in reality“, not „the reality“; and the German Macht is broader than the English „might“, which is why „power“ is indeed the best translation in this context.

What is it exactly that »depends on the gender of the nouns and the declension of any verbs, once the nouns are separated out of the whole«?“ **

I think the question how to understand Nietzsche's Wille zur Macht („will to power“, „will to the might“ ) can mainly be answered by his personal and philosophical development, and - last but not least - by his language use, and his language was of course German. Nietzsche was a philologist, a poet, and of course a philosopher.

By the way: the German word zur is a composition which includes two words: the prepostion zu („to“) and the article der („the“), in this case der is not masculine, but feminine because of dative singular. Thus der Wille zu( de)r Macht is „the will to the might (power)“.

Philosophically Nietzsche was a pupil of Schopenhauer, and this fact should not be confused, if it is said there were two or three or even four or five stages in Nietzsche's life:

(1) childhood and youth,
(2) from his youth till his „terminated contact“ with Wagner,
(3) from his „terminated contact“ with Wagner till his „Zarathustra“,
(4) from his „Zarathustra“ till his collapse,
(5) from his collapse till his death.

Philosophical interested people interpret (probably correctly) the time from the 2nd till the 4th stage as the main stages in Nietzsche's philosophical life. The most Nietzscheans say that the „terminated contact“ with Wagner was the most important change in Nietzsches life, but that's wrong. This „terminated contact“ wasn't as much a terminated contact as it is often interpreted.

And we don't have to forget Nietzsche's desease because Nietzsche had been ill since a certain time. Probably was this one of the main reasons for his success - he himself often mentioned it, and many of his philosophical explanations based on medical, physiological, especially immunological, and of course psychlogical aspects. He won or gained more or less of these aspects because of his pain, I think.

Nietzsche was perhaps a pan-immunologist, a pan-immunological philosopher, in any case a „life-philosopher“ (Lebensphilosoph) who had learned by his teacher: the „life-philosopher“ (Lebensphilosoph) Schopenhauer.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The intelligence of the people; the managers, engineers, and employees, is being replaced by remote machine intelligence.“ **

That's one of the reasons why I was saying in my last post that there is not only a correlation between machines and fertility, but also a correlation between machines and intelligence (**), although the difference is that the first correlation appears earlier than the second correlation, but both appear, and always appear (you can be sure).

James S. Saint wrote:

„The people become merely humanoid drones.“ **

This is was is said by „Wikipedia“ about „drones (bee)“:

„The drones' main function is to be ready to fertilize a receptive queen. Drones in a hive do not usually mate with a virgin queen of the same hive because they drift from hive to hive. Mating generally takes place in or near drone congregation areas. It is poorly understood how these areas are selected, but they do exist. When a drone mates with his sister, the resultant queen will have a spotty brood pattern (numerous empty cells on a brood frame). This is due to the removal of diploid drone larvae by nurse bees (i.e., a fertilized egg with two identical sex genes will develop into a drone instead of a worker).

Mating occurs in flight, which accounts for the need of the drones for better vision, which is provided by their large eyes. Should a drone succeed in mating he soon dies because the penis and associated abdominal tissues are ripped from the drone's body after sexual intercourse.

Honey bee queen breeders may breed drones to be used for artificial insemination or open mating. A queen mating yard must have many drones to be successful.

In areas with severe winters, all drones are driven out of the hive in the autumn. A colony begins to rear drones in spring and drone population reaches its peak coinciding with the swarm season in late spring and early summer. The life expectancy of a drone is about 90 days.

Drones do not exhibit typical worker bee behaviours such as nectar and pollen gathering, nursing, or hive construction. While drones are unable to sting, if picked up they may swing their tails in an attempt to frighten the disturber[citation needed]. Although the drone is highly specialized to perform one function, mating and continuing the propagation of the hive, it is not completely without side benefit to the hive. All bees, when they sense the hive's temperature deviating from proper limits, either generate heat by shivering, or exhaust heat by moving air with their wings-behaviours which drones share with worker bees. In some species drones will buzz around intruders in an attempt to disorient them if the nest is disturbed.

Drones fly in abundance in the early afternoon and are known to congregate in drone congregation areas a good distance away from the hive.“ **

AND AFTER THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO BED.

And here you said about ants and bees (incl. drones):

„If you were an ant or bee, there would be nothing wrong with being programmed to perform a very specifically designed task. Drones serve a great purpose.

But drones are preprogrammed to be blind to anything that might inspire them to be anything different than their programming, thus they are not inventive. And you don't program drones to be particularly self-valuing. The willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the social order is great ... for the social order.“ **

Okay, that was said in a different thread (**), but it suits also in this thread.

There is a high probability that people will become humanoid or „cyborgoid“ bees.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The people dare not think for themselves. Yet they are not aware that they are not thinking for themselves.“ **

And in the not so very far future they will be a kind of cyborgs without any awareness of what happened in the past, what happens in the presence, and what will probably happen in the future because they just do what they are told, advised, ordered, commanded to.

The history of thinking must be written soon, since there is not many time left for that because the thinkless time will sooner begin than the most today's people „think“.

And here is said:

„Destroy the species. That is the design intent.“ **

If even a species destroys itself, then it can not be false to assume that machines will perhaps longer exist than the species „homo sapiens“ who created them.

426) Arminius, 11.04.2014, 00:08, 04:46, 05:18, 05:43, 05:49, 21:30, 23:14, 23:43, 23:52 (895-903)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Putting Science in the hands of women means putting it in the hands of serpents, insidious liars and power mongers. That is why it is promoted so much, just like putting women in charge of everything else; politics, education ....“ **

So putting science in the hands of women (**) means: destroy the species. That is the design intent (**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« ....“ **

Arminius wrote:

„No, he said »panpsychic« (**), but I don't know, whether he meant »pan-psychotic« ....“ ** **

Gib wrote:

„Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

»A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade's tradition.

Wasn't what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits.« **

Oh God! It's not what I wanted! I'm fucking crushed!

(What is pan-psychotic?)“ **

Hello, Gib.

Please do not confuse the word „panpsychotic“ with the word „panpsychism“!

Obe wrote:

„It has to do with panning reality, and becoming totally disillusioned about what's out there, thereby turning psychic energies into a closed, rather than an open system. De Sade turned his mascochistic , self torture into an outward directed theatre of cruelty.“ **

Hello, Obe.

Well done!

@ Gib

De Sade is not the only example for „panpsychotic“.

Gib wrote:

„Oh great, now I have to figure out what »panpschotic« is.

Is that like a »pan-Scottish« ? Like what would happen to the world is the Scots took over?“ **

„Pan-Scottish“ and „panpschotic“ are a little bit related. Though I didn't mean „panpschotic“, but „panpsychotic“ (read my post again, please!).

Regards.

Gib wrote:

„Pan-psychic means universal mind--as in, the mind of the universe.“ **

Although my first language is not English, I would say that the word „mind“ means basically and thus mostly „spirit“ / „ghost“ („Geist“ is the German word for that), but „psyche“ means basically and thus mostly „soul“ („Seele“ is the German word for that). So „pan-psychic“means more „universal soul“ than „universal mind“.

But maybe the English language has cast off many Old-English words and especially their meanings, so that nowadays „pan-psychic“ may be interpreted in that way, which you prefer, Gib. But I prefer the other interpretation.

Next lesson: „pan-psychotic“!

End of night shift. I have to go to bed now. What's the time in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Gib?

Regards.

James S. Saint wrote:

„In English,

the prefix »pan-« generally means »wide spread« or »all encompassing«.
Mind = the functioning of a neural network or brain, »psyche«.
Spirit / Ghost (»Geist«) = Behavior, activity, energy of.
Soul = fundamental architecture, design, function, definition or purpose.“ **

In German, it is a little bit different:

„Pan“ = „allumfassend“ (“all encompassing“), „überall verbreitet“, „weit verbreitet“ („wide spreaded“), „whole“, „entire“, „complete“, „full“ etc..
„Geist“ = „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, “sense“ etc..
„Seele“ = „soul“, „pysche“, and in some sense: „mind“ (=> „Geist“).

So if I retranslate, I get:

»Mind« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Spirit« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Ghost« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Soul« = »Seele«, »Psyche«.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Psychotic = mentally disturbed, abnormally disconnected with reality.“ **

Not „mentally“ (at least not necessarily), but of course psychically.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So »Pan-Psychotic« would mean »wide spread, all encompassingly disconnected with reality« ....“ **

Yes, but - of course - psychically disconnected with reality.

It is possible to be psychically disconnected with reality and nevertheless be mentally connected with reality. When psychiatrists and psychotherapists speak about „psychosis“, „psychotic“, and so on, the mind is included, and when they speak about „neurosis“, „neurotic“, and so on, the mind is not or less included. I know that they think so, but I think that they are probably wrong because a psychotic is not necessarily disconnected with reality (think of the borderline psychotic and the borderline syndrome).

Gib wrote:

„In English, the word »psyche« means »mind«.“

Unfortunately!

Gib wrote:

„And I personally wouldn't distinguish between mind and soul--true, they do connote different notions, but as far as their referents are concerned, I think they refer to the same object.“ **

Maybe in English - unfortunately -, but not in other languages, especially in German. In German there is a possibility to say - and thus: to think too - it in BOTH meanings. And that is an advantage, a benefit, a gain, a plus, thus a chance to choose is given by the language, so one can speak and think more differently. (By the way: there are two languages in history which are made for thinking: Ancient Greek and German.)

So if we have a look on Nietzsche’s biography again, we may add his „psychography“ and his „mindography“ and put them into his five stages:

(1) childhood and youth, (A) no psychic symptoms of disease, (I) no mental symptoms of disease,
(2) from his youth till his „terminated contact“ with Wagner, (B) little pyschic symptoms of disease, (II) no mental symptoms of disease,
(3) from his „terminated contact“ with Wagner till his „Zarathustra“, (C) psychic symptoms of disease, (III) little mental symptoms of disease,
(4) from his „Zarathustra“ till his collapse, (D) much psychic symptoms of disease, (IV) mental symptoms of disease,
(5) from his collapse till his death, (E) very much psychic symptoms of disease, (V) much mental symptoms of disease.

I think, Nietzsche was able to put all his physical / bodily pain, his bodily symptoms as semiotic signs into linguistic and philosophic terms, axioms, theorems etc., and when he later tried to do the same with his psychic symptoms he could not do it in the same way, and when he at last tried to do the same with his mental symptoms he collapsed because mental symptoms as signs are too much like linguistic and philosophical signs.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Language and thinking tend to affect each other. So is German Science what it is because of the language, or is the language the way it is because of the thinking? And did Science form the thinking or did the thinking form Science into the particular form that it took. It could have taken a different form and yielded the same results.“ **

The relationship between language and thinking is obvious, they affect each other. What effects the most, is an interesting question, but it is very difficult to answer.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Measuring is what made Science succeed and that could have been from any language as long as it included detailed math.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is hard for me to separate »psyche« from »mind«. And »soul« doesn't even come into the picture, for me.“ **

Yes, and that's not only, but very much because of the English language, which is your first language.

Gib wrote:

„What's the time here? It's 8:05 AM. But I'll bet it's hours after you last posted, so that doesn't answer your question. I'd look at the timestamp on your post and tell you it was 5:49 AM when you posted, but judging by the timestamp on my own posts (5:25 AM for my most recent one) I can tell you that's inaccurate. From what I understand, ILP is a British website, so that's probably the timestamp of the server.

Where do you live anyway?“ **

I live in Germany. The timestamp for your post shows „4:27 pm“. So you are 8 hours „back“.

So you are - chronologically - as far from me as the Japanese are.
And the Japanese are - chronologically - as far from you as I am.

Wow!

James S. Saint wrote:

„I am Texan, English is my second language.“ **

But Texan is not a language, but a dialect of a language, and that language is - of course - the English language. Or is it by now and again the Spanish language (catchword: immigration) ?

427) Arminius, 12.04.2014, 02:51, 03:10, 04:12 (904-906)

Moreno wrote:

„Differences in languages do affect how one Thinks, especially given that one gets the Culture at the same time one gets the language, and the Culture sets tendencies and limits and biases.“ **

Therefore it is a plus, if the meanings of words are stretchable and refer to the language they hisorically belong to. Too many influences by foreign languages are probably advantaged when it comes to the so called "lingua franca", but in other cases they are more disadvantaged.

Moreno wrote:

„Differences in languages do affect how one Thinks, especially given that one gets the Culture at the same time one gets the language, and the Culture sets tendencies and limits and biases.“ **

Yes. English has been more and more a „lingua-franca“-language since England became an empire. That was the price. The Englishmen lost parts of their language and language tradition and won or gained a lot of vocables from foreign languages. They lost culture and won civilisation, especially in an economical and political way. A „lingua franca“ (Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Latin, Modern English) has always been very useful for international economy and of course other international affairs.

Moreno wrote:

„English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side, hence a huge range of registers and adjectives, at least compared to other languages that are more singular in their roots.

One could even argue that the difference in grammar between English and German leads to tendencies in thinking .... Different thoughts ...

but not more in one.“ **

That’s right. But not only „English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side“, other Germanic languages as well. English is as well a Germanic language as the other Germanic languages, but these have less foreign influences than English has. And that's the point.

If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc..

@ James S. Saint

At that time Ancient Hebrew had an advantage over the neighbouring languages, but when the Greek, who were the first ones with vowels, put the vowels into their alphabet, it was like a „language revolution“ because the Greek language got not only a different quantity, but also and very especially a different quality. This different quality gave the Greek language a level, which never before had been reached.

And after that the Greeks stopped the borrowing of lexemes from other languages and kept their language clean. Well done, Greeks.

When it comes to to strengthen a culture communication is not the most important thing of the language, but Information is the most important thing of the language, of science etc.. Communication is more (but not most) important when it comes to civilisation in order to get the information, which is neverthelless most important. Elsewise communication is talk, only talk. .... Talk, talk, talk ....

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes. English has been more and more a »lingua-franca«-language since England became an empire. That was the price. The Englishmen lost parts of their language and language tradition and won or gained a lot of vocables from foreign languages. They lost cultue and won civilisation, especially in an economical and political way. A »lingua franca« (Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Latin, Modern English) has always been very useful for international economy and of course other international affairs.« **

It didn't lose parts, it gained. It has a larger vocabulary than German.“ **

It did lose parts. Of course. Very much. Look into your dictionary! And I also said: it gained (cp. vocabulary). Though not the quantity, but the quality is important when it comes to culture. When it comes to civilisation - okay -, it seems to be the reverse -, but civilisation is not what a culture starts with. A culture starts as culture. That what we nowadays call civilisation is perhaps in later or even latest times of a culture more important. A civilisation is not a „motor“ for a rising development, but for the organisation of a declining development, of the decadent times.

Amongst others, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler argued in a very similar way as I do.

Moreno wrote:

„And you'll have to demonstrate somehow why it does not work for, say, philosophy, as well as other languages.“ **

I have already demonstrated, e.g. here (**), and in this post there is also demonstrated why it does not work.

If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or a high frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique/ etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or a low frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc..

Each language has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on. But language in general has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on - just like - for example - mathematics and philosophy. You can hardly explain e.g. mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. physics or chemistry; and you can also hardly explain mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. psychology or sociology. But you can do it very well, very effectively, very successfully by using mathematics or linguistics.

So you can hardly explain what thoughts or words about by using psychology or sociology.

Nietzsche used thoughts and words in a regular way, although he was psychically ill. According to the English language, which can not seperate psyche from mind, this would not be possible. Though it is possible. I can guarantee you.

On the right side you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called „Hyle“. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things „stem“ Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relaively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to that what the levels are by theirselves, they do not depend on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.

So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself.

That is one of the reasons why one can be mentally healthy and psychically ill but not mentally ill and psychically healthy. Nietzsche has shown how he was able to be mentally healthy and psychically ill even in very extreme situations. He had the best thoughts when he was ill.

428) Arminius, 13.04.2014, 00:14, 00:36, 01:43, 03:50, 06:01, 06:29, 08:40, 09:12 (907-914)

Hello, Lesbethrose.

I am not from Armenia. I am not Armenius, but Arminius.

You confused the „i“ with the „e“. E forgeve you.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Language is sound, isn't it?“ **

Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarily sound.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„What does this have to do with the German language as the language of philosophy. Probably nothing at all.“ **

According to this topic here my main argument refers not to a national language, although in the 19th and in the first third of the 20th century the German language was declared to be, regarded, recognised, accepted as the language of philosophy and science. But I don't actually want to insist of this fact, but I want to evidence that language has its own system, is a system by itself - similar to philosophy or mathematics for example -, and therefor I used some examples of national languages (Ancient Greek, German). If we accept such systems and accept that „mind“ is not „psyche“, then we can also accept that someone doesn't necessarily have to be both mentally ill or sick and psychically ill or sick, but can be e.g. merely psychically ill or sick without being mentally ill or sick.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Did he have the ability to 'predict' the future of mankind through his philosophy? Could that philosophy only have come from a German?“ **

This is an interesting question which should be answered without any reservation, without any taboos, which have been increasing so much ....

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Germany, in trying to maintain that achievement, became extremely Nationalistic, which led to WWI and WWII.“ **

And here is the first evidence for the taboos I mentioned. The neighbouring nations have always been very much more nationalistic than Germany. If you had used other words, then I would not say that here in some sense „Nürnberg is judging“. Anyway. History is not physics! Do you really know what caused WWI and WWII? I don't think so.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„How did he die? Was it the final stages of syphilis? If so, there's no evidence; there's merely speculation.“ **

And if not so?

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Just how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche and how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche myth?“ **

What one can say is that it was neither ONLY this nor ONLY that. That is why I try to answer the question of this topic here whether Nietzsche was a panpsychic or even a panpsychotic. I think, he had the ability or competence, especially the competence of language, to put his own life with all its pain into a poetry and philosophy („life-philosophy“, Lebensphilosophie), and maybe also into myth, but he did it first with a healthy psyche and a healthy mind (Geist), then with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and a healthy mind, and at last with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and an ill / sick/ diseased mind. Thus: Not his psyche, but his mind was the last entity leading him to his collapse.

Fuse wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.« **

Brilliant.“ **

Obe wrote:

„Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace.“ **

Yes. Of course. I can guarantee you.

Obe wrote:

„After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale.“ **

Well said, Obe.

Gib wrote:

„If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We'll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.“ **

Excuse me, Gib, but this sentence attests to a naive belief. You really believe in a revolt of this kind of humans who - at least for the most part - don't know what's going on with them?

Gib wrote:

„They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving.“ **

Until that time when it comes to replace all humans - and that's what we are talking about - they will have forgotten the meaning of „being laid off“ and what or who always or usually causes „starving“, so they also will have forgotten the meaning of „starving“.

Please ask for example the 20 years old humans in the slums of the big cities in North America abaout the meaning of „being laid off“. You will notice that the most of them don't know what you are asking, what you are talking about. The meaning of „being laid off“ will be completely forgotten when all humans will not be needed anymore. You may estimate how long it will take.

To make the humans believe that the meaning of „starving“ is a different, probably the reverse one, is no difficult task. Please ask the humans in Africa about the causes and reasons for „starving“. You will notice that they don't really know anything about the causes and reasons for „starving“, but a lot of „causes“ and „reasons“ they are told by their dictators and his propaganda media. So it is only only a question of time when the meaning of „starving“ will be forgotten or projected on „»evil« other humans“ (who are responsible e.g. for „global warming“ etc., thus for „starving“). In other words: Humans will not really know who or what is really responsible for their starving, who or what has really caused their starving. So when they don't really know that, against whom shall they rebel? I tell you: They will rebel against them who rebelled before them. And in addition: Have you ever seen humans who are rebelling while they are starving?

Gib wrote:

„Yeah, it's how the French Revolution started.“ **

NO. It is NOT how the french „revolution“ started.

Gib wrote:

„You and James are talking about something completely different from the OP. **

NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP (Original Post **) because you are always only talking about political and social issues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about.

„Besides that, human beings just won't stand for it. If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We'll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.“ **

You are talking about „revolution“, „revolt“ „rebellion“, „out of work“, „workforce“, „working class“, „starve“. You are changing my OP (Original Post **) in a primarily political „DP“ („Different Post“). You think of „revolution“, and „socialism“, or „communism“, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers.

„They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving.“ **

You don't know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP (Original Post **) refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). That's the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what's the OP is all about.

Primarily it is a technical, economical, and last - but not least - a philosophical question. it has very much to do with rationality, not so very much with wishes / desires. Secondarily it is also a politcal and social question. Of course. But both questions do not refer very much to the past and to presence, but very much to the future.

One should not confuse the meaning and importance of the first question with the the meaning and importance of the second question.

Gib wrote:

„But in order for me to take this seriously and grant that it might be remotely plausible, you're going to have to detail for me a timeline of events--starting from the state of things now, how they're going to unfold, stage by stage, into the future, explaining how the machines are gradually going to replace humans and take over their jobs, until we get to this science-fiction world of yours in which humans have forgotten what starvation is (even though their experiencing the pangs of it every day) and being out of work has become a foreign concept. Then maybe I can assess whether your argument makes sense or not. **

I HAVE WRITTEN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD (**) !   I HAVE WRITTEN THE OP (Original Post **) !

Please follow the link above, and you will at first read a question. A question! And although I am asking this question, I have hopefully the right to say something different, something which differs from the question and tens to an answer.

And why do I „have to detail for me a timeline of events ... (etc. pp.)“, and you don't have to explain anything, although your statements are full of errors and lead - with the utmost probability - to conclusions which are false and not good for you and your descendants? Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don't rebel, the current machines are already able to learn and also in some cases already part of human bodies, machines will capture the human bodies and probably - I don't know exactly, therefor the question in the title of the thread and in the OP - take over. I don't have to go in details because you can raed them in my posts of this thread. So please read my posts of this thread, If you are really intersted in my arguments and their evidence.

But what about you? You don't have to detail and so on? Are you God?

Your arguments can hardly convince. So please explain them and detail a timeline of events.

Try to convince the people who don't believe in social revolutions, in socialism, communism, and other totalitarianisms!

Zinnat wrote:

„Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.

Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.

A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.

Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.

with love,
sanjay“ **

Sorry, but I am not very much convinced.

429) Arminius, 14.04.2014, 04:47, 21:27 (915-916)

Hello, Gib.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»NO. It is NOT how the „French revolution“ started.« **

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw ... uences.htm

Check out item #6 in particular.“ **

I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don't know him.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, »revolutionising«?

Gib wrote:

„Check out item #6 in particular:

Mr. Schwartz wrote:

›6. Economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-89 generates popular discontent and disorders caused by food shortages.‹

That's not a proof of „revolution“, it is more a proof of NO „revolution“.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, „revolutionising“?

Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?

Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - „Gods“?

Gib wrote:

„Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better?“ **

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread  (**), of the topic, and of the OP (Original Post **): Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

If you want to discuss the question »what would be better«, you have to answer firstly the question of the »what«, secondly the question of the »would«, and thirdly the question of the »better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....

Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying »better« => »would be« => »what« instead of »what« => »would be« => »better«?

Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!

Gib wrote:

„This is human nature. You get put out of work, you face starvation, you panic. Organized rebellion is just a human instinct made collective--it is the response to the threat of death. You panic at the prospect and you take drastic measures: bloody and violent revolution.“ **

AGAIN: Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, „revolutionising“?

Where do the poor and starving people get their weapons from in order to win their so called „revolution“ and to defeat rulers, machines?

It did not, and it does not, and it will not work in that way. I can guarantee you.

Gib wrote:

„I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no.“ **

You have said „no“ - twice -, so what is your problem? Is it because of my „probably yes“ (not „yes“, but merely „probably yes“) ?

Gib wrote:

„Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I'd have to use the word "revolt" which you left out of the OP?“ **

Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

Gib wrote:

„Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet?“ **

Probably yes.

Gib wrote:

„And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over?“ **

You can find the answers in this thread.

The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**]) with „yes“ is not 100%, but it is high.

Gib wrote:

„If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.“ **

If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings „decide“ always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.

Gib wrote:

„This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?).“ **

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!

You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, ›revolutionising‹?« **

Yes, the French Revolution.“ **

You mean this poor and starving French guys who were not able to construct bow and arrow because they were starving and not able to pay for bow and arrow because they were poor. Gib, they had no money, and they had no power, even no physiological power in their bodies!

So again: If they really had rebelled and „revoutionised“, they would have become food and money for doing it. So again: Who gave them the food and the money for rebelling and „revoutionising“, Gib? Either nobody, so the French „revolution“ was a bad joke, or some of the rich people (the money makers and the aristocrats, so the French „revolution“ was a paid war).

All „revolutions“ were paid, are paid, and will be paid! The French, the German, the Russian, the „X“, and the „Y“ „revolution“ were paid, the current „revolutions“are paid, and the „revolutions“ of the future will be paid too. Of course!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to „revolutionise“!

„Revolutions“ are always made, created, stage-managed, designed, and so on, paid by them who have money, thus power, and interests (more money, thus more power, by „revolutions“, thus by wars, thus by profit by weapons, and so on!). If only the poor and starving people are interested in „rebelling“ and „revolutionising“, there will be NO rebel and NO „revolution“, but only more poverty and more hunger, morer starving, thus more death!

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Where did, do, or w}ill do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?« **

Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you'd be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure.“ **

Just llike I said: They are paid. So the poor and starving people just „change“ into rich and powerful people overnight. Any weapon has its price, thus must be paid. Any! POOR and STARVING people have NO MONEY and have NO FORCE. That's logical, that's even tautological!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to „revolutionise“!

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Gib wrote:

›Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve ..., is that better?‹

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

If you want to discuss the question "what would be better", you have to answer firstly the question of the "what", secondly the question of the "would", and thirdly the question of the "better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....

Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying ›better‹ => ›would be‹ => ›what‹ instead of ›what‹ => ›would be‹ => ›better‹?« **

Which sense are you making?“ **

You are not the best friend of logic. Right?

Example: If your child have made nonsense, then you firstly (=> 1) have to know WHAT it has made, secondly (=> 2) you have to know whether and, if so, how the child WOULD act or react in a different case, and thirdly (=> 3) you have to know whether it is BETTER or not. You do NOT punish or discipline your child without knowing the facts of WHAT (=> 1) your child has done, and without knowing how your child WOULD (=> 2) have done it in a different case or not. Ethical questions are not the first ones when it comes to know the situation which is the object of this ethical question. You can not reason or judge before knowing the facts.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!« **

Jawohl, Herr Kapitan!“ **

Excuse me, my judging God, but this has nothing to do with military, but with mathmatics, especially with logic. So again: You are not the best friend of logic.

Gib wrote:

„Is answering your question now a problem?“ **

How could it? My question is a question. (Remember: tautology). So it is a question for all people, thus also for me. If I answer this question, it can or should not be evaluated differently just because it is my question. You want my question to be differntly evaluated, my Captain Gib. So you want to be the Kapitän, jawohl!

You said „no“, and I said „probably yes“. It is okay, isn't it?

Gib wrote:

„Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don't want to read through all that. Can't you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are?“ **

Yes I can, but you have to do it on your own. I dont have very much time for that, and English is not my first language. So it would be better, if you do it on your own. Okay?

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**]) with ›yes‹ is not 100%, but it is high.« **

Ok, if you call 0.0001% high.“ **

Thank you for that joke, but the probability is about 80%, I estimate. So there are 20% left for you. So there is a little chance for you.

Gib wrote:

„So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?“ **

So you are saying that you don't understand what I mean? Are you joking?

You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don't want to. So any discussion with you seems to be very useless.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

Gib wrote:

›This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?).‹ **

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!« ** **

Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a »yes«/»no« answer.“ **

It is useless to discuss with you. You behave like a child. I have never forbiden anything. The contrary is right: I challenged you, myself, and all the other readers of this thread to give answers and evidence.

And I remind you again:

„I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **

430) Arminius, 15.04.2014, 00:00, 01:39, 04:22, 05:18, 17:09 (917-921)

Moreno wrote:

„One could even argue that the difference in grammar between English and German leads to tendencies in thinking ..., different thoughts ....“ **

1) Grammar refers not only to linguistic systems, but also to mathematical systems, and to semiotic systems.
2) Grammar also refers to a language as a whole system, and to its history, to the contacts with other languages, to etymology / derivation.
3) Grammar refers to texts, sentences (=> syntax), referemes, representemes, sememes, words, lexemes, morphemes, phonemes, graphemes, and other forms, structures, and functions of language.

So words belong as well to a grammar as other language forms, structuers and functions.

So words lead to tendencies in thinking, different thoughts, and so on - not only because words belong to the grammar of a language, a linguistic system, but also because of their history, their etymology / derivation. If you have many related words, words of the same language, then you know their linguistical relaitionship, including their logical realtionship, very well. You can work with them very well and effectively. Foreign words must be translated, even then when they have belonged to your own language for many centuries. This foreign words have no or only little relationship to the words of your own language. And this has consequences, and not only linguistic consequences, but also logical consequences, thus philosophical consequences.

I am not saying that languages with many foreign words are generally not convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on, but languages with many foreign words are less convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on. This disadvantage can be compensated by borrowing more and more foreign words, but it can never be changed into an advantage. So „pure“ languages have an advantage compared with „mixed“ languages. But remember before you think I would like to rail against the English language: In some cases - for example in the case of sememes and in the case of some syntactic structures and functions - the Englsih language is not so „mixed“ as it is in the other cases. So in some cases the English language is the most Germanic language of all Germanic languages and in other cases it is the less Germanic language of all Germanic languages

Linguistic forms, structures, functions influence thinking, thoughts, definitions, concepts, and so on. So linguistic influences philosophy, science, and so on. This influence is often underestimated, but you only have to remember or to think of a child who is asking in order to get knowledge. Speaking and thinking or information / language and science / philosophy are very closed to each other, work very closely with each other, so that one can say that they influence each other in two directions.

James S. Saint wrote:

„@ Gib.

Revolution ONLY takes place when the people perceive that their government is the cause of their discomfort and that discomfort is extreme. Currently the USA has about 1/6 of its population »laid off« (47 million). The USA spends a great deal ensuring that they do not also »starve« by spending money that it doesn't have while also spending billions on high tech enhancement projects (all aimed at mechanizing police and military) and »foreign aid«.

As long as the people cannot clearly see (or think that they can see) that drastic measures from them personally are their only option, they will not rebel. The USA knows that. And for that reason, a great deal is spent upon ensuring that the mainstream media presents a good »normalcy bias« scene at all times. Anything resembling any kind of uprising is merely a »lone wolf« episode.

The money is being spent in two ways: removing the perception of immediate threat and preparing for marshal law.

The USA is already a true police state. They have already manufactured millions of »Marshal Law« signs. They are practicing military action against the citizens within the cities. They have already deployed army vehicles and weaponry to the major cities. They have already built the stalags in all of the states, complete with body disposal equipment. They have already armed 800,000 Homeland Security employees to the teeth. They don't expect the feigned perception of normalcy to last forever as they force Americans into conspicuous slavery and begin wiping them out (the Vanishing project, already underway). And the feminism is merely a part of all of that - »replace the males first«.

The intent is to maintain the structure and just get rid of the people. The original idea was to replace the people with their own people and that hasn't been abandoned, but they don't have that many "good people" and thus require far more manual laborers, robots.

They really ARE slowly boiling the frog and because they are getting away with it, they are not going to stop.

What they are not expecting is simply the complexity of an intelligence far superior to their own. They are unwittingly creating their own god (different than the one they intended). To think that they can control it is to think that a bunch of monkeys could control a homosapian. How long do you think that would last?

The rebellion isn't going to happen because they understand how to prevent it and they are doing that. If they go ahead and say "to hell with it", it would probably last about 3 days. But then there would be another programmed uprising requiring guess what - androids to help stop the rebellion in America.

They ARE getting away with it so they are not going to stop. And YOU are an example of it. WW1&2 were examples of how to murder and conquer and get away with it - »the perfect crime« and explained in the Torah.“ **

And remember the following two parts of our conversation, when I was speaking about trial and error:

„Gib wrote:

»If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.« **

„Arminius wrote:

»If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings ›decide‹ always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.« ** **

„Gib wrote:

»So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?.« **

„Arminius wrote:

»You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don't want to.« ** **

And try to answer the following question: Why will the males be replaced at first?

Zinnat wrote:

„The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.“ **

No. Because I mentioned it, e.g. here:

Arminius wrote:

„And concerning to my question in the original post (op), to my question or statement of „surviving“ in my next-to-last post (**), and the questions in my last post (**), that is also assuming that there will be no human errors (for example: creating machines-with-„self-will“), no wars, no accidents and so on.“ ** **

I said „machines-with-»self-will«“, and „self-will“ has also to do with „willingness“. My idea was that human beings create machines with a will, and that includes interests. So willingness may be interpreted little bit differently, but as far as I know - about the English language - is the meaning of "willingness" very much similar to the meaning of "will".

Zinnat wrote:

„We tend to confuse complexity with learning.“ **

No!

Zinnat wrote:

„Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.

It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything.“ **

That will be changed, Zinnat!

Why?

Human beings have different interests, and they struggle for interests, this leads them to the interest to fit or equip machines with interests. Once more: The interests of human beeings lead to the interests of machines.

In the beginning of that development there is an human interest in copying the own interests in order to strengthen the own interests against the interests of the enemy. In order to prevent that the enemy has already machines with self-interests (although the enemy perhaps doesn't have them) the first machine with „self-will“ will be created.

Zinnat wrote:

„To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible.“ **

It is possible!

Zinnat wrote:

„We cannot enable them to will.“ **

Humans can!

Zinnat wrote:

„They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them.“ **

You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib!). But the question in the title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future!

Many things will change in the future! Many people don't want these things to be changed. Maybe I belong to those people but nevertheless: I stay on track, I always try to prevent getting side-tracked, wandering from the subject.

What about you, Zinnat? Do you also not want machines to be changed?

Zinnat wrote:

„with love,
sanjay“ **

With love and peace,
Arminius.

Gib wrote:

„Do you read any history at all?“ **

What I said to you is because of history. I have read enough about history. I am an historian - amongst others. If a physicist comes to the conclusion that many of his scientific „stuff“ is wrong, is he then a „bad“ physicist? I don't think so. The German physicist Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Werner Heisenberg would have never been successful in their scientifical life, if they hadn't come to that conclusion I just described.

We have to risk something in order to get more information about that what is needed, e.g. for science. Amongst others trial and error lead us to more knowledge, to more awareness, but: If a theory is false (e.g. Einsteins theory is probably partial false), any other new theory includes the risk of being false too, but the reasons for that fact are not always a scientifical reasons, but also reasons of power.

Your question means whether I read any political correctness, any „mainstream“ lies of the. My answer is: Yes, but only in order to get the correct knowledge. The most written „history“ is dictated, especially such „histories“ about „revolutions“.

Human beings make mistakes, errors. This is also the case when it comes to create and design machines. Concerning to this human beings have already made mistakes, errors. It is because of the nature of human beings and other beings. They all are not perfect. Because of that they risk their own life - at least every now and then.

History has been being written and rewritten. The time Intervall is about 70-90 years, and it is no coincidence that this time Intervall is approximately one lifespan. Rewriting history, world economic crisis, and one lifespan have nearly the same time Intervall. Please think this over.

Again: What you are told about history is not always true, Gib. And what you are told about the future is also not always true, Gib.

Probabaly you want to change the topic of my thread, to derail ..., and so on.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„If language isn't sound, then what is it?“ **

You have misundestood me because I said that language is MORE THAN sound, NOT MERELY or NOT PRIMARILY sound. Proof:

Arminius wrote:

„Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarily sound.“ ** **

....

„Who declared the German language to be the language of philosophy and science. You've given us no references.“ **

Why „us“? (Rhetoric?)

Okay, the most Americans have forgotten it (they had their reasons), but German has been the language of science till 1945, and in some cases, especially in chemistry, even till about 1960. It didn't had to be „declared“, as you presume. It was known all over the world. Today most of the people have forgotten it, especially in the USA (we know the reasons!), so it is only known by scientific historians and people who are in other respects interested in science and/or scientific history.

Concerning to German as the language of philosophy one has to say that(1.) it depends on the known fact that German was the language of science, and (2.) some philosophers (one example amongst them was Martin Heidegger), and some linguists named German (b.t.w.: also the Ancient Greek) the language of philosophy because of its structure, functions, and forms (incl. poetry).

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Do any eye-witness accounts say anything about his mental and/or physical condition at the time of his death--other than his sister.“ **

What did Nietzsche's sister when, where, and why say?

And I remind you: Mind is NOT psyche (perhaps only in your language). If someone is ill, he/she/it can it be in different ways.

....

Back to the topic:

Was Nietzsche a panpsychic or a panpsychotic? Either ... or? Neither ... nor?

==>