01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [421][422][423][424][425][426][427][428][429][430] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
869 |
|
In the shuffling madness He
feels the piston scraping - He
sees his children jumping off He's
crawling down the corridor He
hears the silence howling - He picks
up Gideon's Bible - ... No way to slow down .... | |||
Songwriter and singer: Ian Anderson. Martin Barre, Clive Bunker, John Evan, Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond. |
Locomotive-breath-persons,
-things, -performers (referred to my interpretation): | |||
All-time loser: | Mass of the male human beings. | ||
His wife: | Mass of the female human beings. | ||
His children: | Reproduced mass of the human beings (=> reproductive future). | ||
His best friend: | Rulers (main area: finance/ecomics, politics, and media). | ||
Stations: | Generations (years per generation). | ||
Old Charley: | Ancient rulers (main area: technique/technology, science). | ||
God: | Modern rulers (main area: technique/technology, science). | ||
Train: | Development as the decline of all human beeings. | ||
Handle: | Best way of human life (maybe James S. Saint's anentropic harmony). | ||
Gideons Bible: | Light bulb moment (aha). | ||
All-time winner: | Entropy. |
870 |
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.. **
871 |
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. **
872 |
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. **
873 |
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). **
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. **
874 |
I see a huge problem in the so-called »sexual revolution« .... This is also a lack of empathy .... **
875 |
![]() | |
![]() |
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 .... **
|
876 |
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. **
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. **
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? **
877 |
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. **
878 |
May not anentropic processes limit the entropic ones? **
879 |
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? **
If something is growing, the word »anti-entropic« is proper because it is doing the exact opposite of what entropy would dictate. **
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«. **
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«. **
But if the ambient gets too extremely dense. **
The particle will be inspired to grow beyond stability and continue growing and growing. **
At that point .... **
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? **
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. **
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«. **
Thus the DNA process is actually an anentropic process, not really an anti-entropic process, except during growth against continued entropy. **
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«. **
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. **
880 |
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. **
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? ** **
881 |
You will find that I have only small concern over what physicists agree on (in modern English a »physician« is a medical practitioner). **
|
882 |
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? **
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. **
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. **
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. **
883 |
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. **
884 |
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? **
Will machines completely replace all of the human beings?
Logical implication:
If machines are cheaper than human beings, then machines replace human beings. |
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:
p | q | p -- q |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
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? ** **
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. **
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. **
1) First premise (propositio maior): | Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. | |
2) Second premise (propositio minor): | Machines are cheaper than human beings. | |
3) Conclusion (conclusio): | Human beings are replaced by machines. |
Why would machines replace human beings? **
885 |
The question is whether machines will completely replace human beings. **
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. **
|
886 |
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. **
887 |
Here's an interesting quote from Wiki ...:
»According to Santayana, Nietzsche considered his philosophy to be a correction of Schopenhauers philosophy. In his Egotism in German Philosophy, Santayana listed Nietzsches 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 Schopenhauers philosophy was not a mere initial stimulus for Nietzsche, but formed the basis for much of Nietzsches thinking.« **
Hope it is useful. **
888 |
Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« .... **
889 |
People will choose to become machines. **
890 |
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.
Not to mention the upcoming Google Glass, for video hypnotic control. **
891 |
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. **
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
892 |
And then there is the internal nanobot stage.
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. **
|
893 |
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«? **
894 |
The intelligence of the people; the managers, engineers, and employees, is being replaced by remote machine intelligence. **
The people become merely humanoid drones. **
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. **
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. **
The people dare not think for themselves. Yet they are not aware that they are not thinking for themselves. **
Destroy the species. That is the design intent. **
|
895 |
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 .... **
896 |
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« .... ** **
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?) **
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. **
897 |
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? **
898 |
Pan-psychic means universal mind--as in, the mind of the universe. **
899 |
900 |
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:
Psychotic = mentally disturbed, abnormally disconnected with reality. **
So »Pan-Psychotic« would mean »wide spread, all encompassingly disconnected with reality« .... **
In English, the word »psyche« means »mind«.
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. **
901 |
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. **
Measuring is what made Science succeed and that could have been from any language as long as it included detailed math. **
It is hard for me to separate »psyche« from »mind«. And »soul« doesn't even come into the picture, for me. **
902 |
![]() |
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? **
903 |
I am Texan, English is my second language. **
|
904 |
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. **
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. **
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. **
905 |
906 |
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. **
And you'll have to demonstrate somehow why it does not work for, say, philosophy, as well as other languages. **
|
|
907 |
Language is sound, isn't it? **
What does this have to do with the German language as the language of philosophy. Probably nothing at all. **
Did he have the ability to 'predict' the future of mankind through his philosophy? Could that philosophy only have come from a German? **
Germany, in trying to maintain that achievement, became extremely Nationalistic, which led to WWI and WWII. **
How did he die? Was it the final stages of syphilis? If so, there's no evidence; there's merely speculation. **
Just how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche and how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche myth? **
908 |
Uccisore wrote:
»Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.« **
Brilliant. **
Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. **
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. **
909 |
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. **
910 |
They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving. **
911 |
Yeah, it's how the French Revolution started. **
You and James are talking about something completely different from the OP. **
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. **
They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving. **
912 |
913 |
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. **
914 |
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 **
|
915 |
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. **
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.
Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better? **
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. **
I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no. **
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? **
Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet? **
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? **
If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out. **
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?). **
916 |
Arminius wrote:
»Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, revolutionising?« **
Yes, the French Revolution. **
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. **
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? **
Arminius wrote:
»Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!« **
Is answering your question now a problem? **
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? **
Arminius wrote:
»The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**]) with yes is not 100%, but it is high.« **
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:
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. **
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? ** **
|
917 |
One could even argue that the difference in grammar between English and German leads to tendencies in thinking ..., different thoughts .... **
918 |
@ 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. **
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.« ** **
919 |
The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness. **
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. ** **
We tend to confuse complexity with learning. **
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. **
To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. **
We cannot enable them to will. **
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. **
with love,
sanjay **
920 |
Do you read any history at all? **
921 |
If language isn't sound, then what is it? **
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. **
Do any eye-witness accounts say anything about his mental and/or physical condition at the time of his death--other than his sister. **
==>
|