441) Arminius, 27.04.2014, 00:00, 00:01, 00:02, 00:02, 00:29, 00:44, 03:04, 13:33, 14:27, 14:53, 22:59, 23:28 (977-988)

Bob wrote:

„Bob wrote:

»It isn’t nationalism because it isn’t unreasonable, nor is it fear that he is expressing, but it is a fact that German speaking (often Jewish) philosophers and scientists have dominated in the past.« **

Arminius wrote:

›Not often Jewish because that is very relative: In Germany the Jewish population was only 0.5%, that is merely ½%, but the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy was 1%.

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.‹ ** **

It's not about statistics but about known people .... And there are enough of them, as you probably know, so I'll save myself the trouble of listing them.“ **

If you list them, you will find what I have said:

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.

If the USA had not got e.g. the German technician and rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his crew, there would never have been any landing on the moon (except a German one). Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: „either you help the USA or you will be put in prison“! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.

This was also a natinalistic act, and a criminal act too. Germany's enemies did not primarily fight the Nazis, they primarily fighted Germany. And that was not merely an allied goal, but as well or probably more a nationalistic goal because fighting Germany was a chance to become rich, thus more powerful, namely to become the world power. Until 1945 Germany had been the one and only rival of the USA, in the matter of world power which the British Emipre had already lost during the World War I. Besides: the USSR at that time was de facto still a part of the Third World.

If you really want to speak truly, honestly, historically about nationalism, you should not forget that on the one hand there was more nationalism before 1945 or 1989/'90 than after 1945 or 1989/'90 and on the other hand there has been being globalism since 1945 or 1989/'90, but globalism is nationalism in global dimensions!

Since 1945 or 1989/'90 there has been being more nationalism because there has been being more globalism, and globalism is nationalism in global dimensions. So on the one (quantitative) hand we currently have more nationalism, and on the other (qualitative) hand we currently have a different nationalism, namely a global one.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„.... Danke.“ **

Ich liebe Dich auch, Lisbeth. („I love you too, Lizbeth.“)

James S. Saint wrote:

„If Nationalism is evil, then Globalism must be the epitome of all evil, aka »Satanism«.“ **

That's right.

Arminius wrote:

„According to Hegels „Dialektik“ nationalism as „Thesis“ leads to anti-nationalism as „Antithesis“, and both lead to globalism as „Synthesis“. Thus globalism doesn't mean there is no more nationalism in it, but globalism even lifts nationalism on a higher level by denying anti-nationalism. So nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism are civilised barbarisms, and currently the danger comes mostly from globalism - of course in global dimensions!“ ** **

Globalism: Danger in global dimensions!

Nano-Bug wrote:

„If evolution holds true, or that the rate of change stays constant, it does seem likely all will be replaced. No amount of logic can determine if that will be good or bad. Robots could replace people, then solar flares from the sun short everything electric. After that, humans could reappear. Again hard to know when results are final results, or how to qualify them. If humans are worse than robots, we are still biased to think our legacy simply must persist forever into the future. Humans claim logic, but irrational emotion dominates our thoughts and actions. The pure logic that we claim makes us superior to other animals is better found in computer programs. In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced.“ **

In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced?

Then please answer my question directly:

Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

Gib wrote:

„James posted these videos as evidence of the real presence of corruption and conspiracy existent in the American democratic System.“ **

In that sentence are two words wrong:

1) „American“. America menas two continents, and you mean the United States.
2) „Democratic“. The system you mean is not democratic.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„The way I look at it, history will end when all of the books have been burnt, when there is no one left to remember it or to tell of it or to write it.“ **

„Telling“ doesn't belong to the aspects of history because telling is very much older than history. But history implies writing. Without writing there is no history, but only story.

With the utmost probability the end of history has come, when all books have been burnt. But there is a little chance for internet and other systems of telecommunication to conserve facts of the past for the future, but this chance is really a little one, I think.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„That's not necessarily the end of mankind.“ **

Right.

Besides: Corresponding to the time duration the human history and the human evolution are comparable with one month and eighty years (eighty years are currently the time span of one averaged human life).

James S. Saint wrote:

„You have the following categories (often by varied names);

1) Total dictatorship - dictator makes all laws.
2) Dictatorial Republic - dictator appoints representatives for regions who then vote on all laws.
3) Democratic Republic - the populous votes on local laws and elects representatives who then vote for national laws.“ **

In ancient times it was called (especially by Aristoteles):

1) „Monarchy“ and its variation „tyrannise“ (= „abnormal monarchy“).
2) „Aristocracy“ and its variation „oligarchy“ (= „abnormal aristocracy“).
3) „Democracy“ and its variation „ochlocracy“ (= „abnormal democracy“).

The „abnormal democracy“ is approximately that what James mentioned under point 4):

James S. Saint wrote:

„4) Total Democracy - the populous votes on all local and national laws.“ **

This is approximately that what Aristoteles called the „ ochlocracy“ as the „abnormal democracy“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.“ **

„Social eqaulity“, „respect“, „individual“, „community“ are merely rhetoric words, if they are used in a political text and context. They only have to do with forms of government, if it comes to enforce ideologies, and ideologies are used in order to control the people.

So the words „social eqaulity“, „respect“, „individual“, „community“ can indirectly, but not directly be used for the describing of any form of government, but they can directly be used for the describimg of the totaltarian rhetoric.

The „principles of social equality“ and the „respect for the individual within a community“ mean a contradiction!

„The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community“ are also a contrast to the other points James mentioned:

James S. Saint wrote:

„1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.“ **

Especially the majority rule (=> 4.) excludes the „principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community“ because a „majority“ can merely really be a mojority, if there is also a minority, and a „minority“ is no longer a minority, if there is „social equality“, and the „individual within a community“ can not exist, if there is „social equality“ (cp. above: The „principles of social equality“ and the „respect for the individual within a community“ mean a contradiction!).

So „the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community“ contradict democracy and any of the other forms of government, but especially democracy and its variation named „ochlocracy“ (= abnormal democracy).

James S. Saint wrote:

„In this context, »social equality« merely means that everyone gets one vote on all relevant issues.“ **

That's right, but nevertheless: it does not change anything of that what I said. The „social equality“ can not really be reached, it's an ideal, and ideologists are always the first ones who misuse this ideal as well as other ideals in order to control people.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Children still can't vote.“ **

So there is no „social equality“.

Many people who are very much ill, or other people who are caused by other circumstances that they are not able to vote - all those people indicate that there is even then no „social equality“, if it comes to voting.

I vote for James S. Saint.

Gib wrote:

„This thread inspired this other one: Reforming Democracy (**).“ **

No. First of all this thread inspired this other one:

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY. ** **

Besides:

Democracy has been being reformed since its beginning. It has already become abnormal. This abnormal democracy is called „ochlocracy“ (Aristoteles). And currently this „ochlocracy“ has already reached a stage which tends to monarchy.

Fixed Cross worte:

„I propose then now as a Westerner - I AM THE FIRST OF MANY - that a new Western religion HAS RISEN.“ **

The western culture has conquered and captured the whole world, not only politically and econimically, but also culturally, scientifically, technically, and artistically. If there shall be a trial for creating a new culture, than that will be very difficult to realise, because nearly all people of the world have - more or less - internalised the western culture. The westerners will be to weak for that task and the others are also to weak or to mixed relating to their origins, their confused positioning between their origins and their internalised western culture, and their disability to break out of that internalised western culture.

With the utmost probability the civilisation as a late kind of the western culture will be continued and no new culture will arise. Perhaps in this or the next century the history will end (**|**), perhaps the evolution of the human beings will end, and perhaps the evolution of many other living beings will end.

Back to my questions about the end of history in my OP (**|**):

442) Arminius, 28.04.2014, 00:13, 00:41, 01:06, 13:24, 21:37, 22:06 (989-994)

Bob wrote:

„Bob worte:

»I’m not German, although I’ve lived here for nearly 40 years. German is a language that makes philosophy and science speak »the common tongue«. I found that books I found difficult reading in my own language were easier in German (admittedly, I am fluent in German) and that goes for almost any subject. Admittedly, there are other sides to language, like Shakespeare or other English language literature in German in not something I enjoy, but I can underline the statement of the person you were speaking of.

It isn’t nationalism because it isn’t unreasonable, nor is it fear that he is expressing, but it is a fact that German speaking (often Jewish) philosophers and scientists have dominated in the past.« **

Arminius wrote:

›Not often Jewish because that is very relative: In Germany the Jewish population was only 0.5%, that is merely ½%, but the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy was 1%.

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.‹ ** **

It's not about statistics but about known people .... And there are enough of them, as you probably know, so I'll save myself the trouble of listing them.“ **

If you list them, you will find what I have said:

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.

Bob wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If you list them, you will find what I have said:

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.« ** **

Again, its not about statistics. All I said was "many of them Jews", since many did hold important positions in Germany until the holocaust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victims_of_Nazism“ **

Nevertheless, Bob, if you use words which can be refered to numbers - I mean words like „some“, „any“, „every“, „many“, ... and so on -, you should also mention their relationship. The percentages we are talking about - 0.01%, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% - can easily be identified as very little numbers, so there is no discussion about that. But if you use merely words like e.g. „many“, then many (!) people do not know, what the relationship is.

Zinnat wrote:

„That is why true love is possible in only two relations - mother-child and husband-wife. Rest relations are mere concerns, not true love.

with love,
sanjay“ **

Oh Zinnat!

Fathers, brothers, sisters, ... and so on - what do you think about them then?

Why are you not even saying: „That is why true love is possible in only two relations- mother-daughter and lesbian(wife)-wife.“?

With true love,
Sonja

Amorphos wrote:

„I think future machines will have quantum computers not unlike our brains are. I doubt they will be made of metal and wires etc, more super fabrics such to experience the world just as any other life-form can [dextrous and sensual], possibly more-so. there would I feel be no reason to get rid of humans, because we will have changed into some manner of artificial living entity, or indeed will be them.“ **

Probably you are interested in this topic: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **

Moreno wrote:

„History did not end with the fall of the Wall. From a US centered perspective, you had 9/11, the Patriot Act, and some wars. These were coupled with Changes in US relations to many nations. It led to a new era. It could lead to all sorts of discussions about politics, governance, separation of Powers, nation states, globallization, ethics of war.....and more, so it would seem strange to me to say that history ended with the fall of the wall, at least for US cits. This would all hold for Europe.“ **

So you tend to point 2.3) or even to point 1.) - right? ** **

Moreno wrote:

„Russia seems to be shifting historically as we type. China's role is changing and while much of this is economic and not the snazzy history of wars and famous people bios, it is history.“ **

This can also be interpreted as non-history (a-history) because not little wars or civil wars, but merely great wars are an „historical existential“.

Arminius wrote:

„According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder ›Existenzialien‹ - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige ›Zwischenspiel‹ der ›eigentlichen Geschichte‹ bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines ›Schemas der historischen Existenz‹ ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or ›existentials‹ - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting ›interlude‹ of the ›actual history‹ and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a ›scheme of historical existence‹is the main goal of this book.«

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der ›Nachgeschichte‹, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the ›post-history‹ as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der ›große Krieg‹, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the ›Great War‹, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«).“ ** **

The „historical existentials“ are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.

Moreno wrote:

„Then lots of nations that have less Power are having wars, starvation, transitions into global economics, you had The Arab Spring, and while this did not change so much, it offers the potential for more Changes.“ **

No, the „Arab Spring“ was either a western production or a western joke!

Moreno wrote:

„China and Russia and not hooking in to any end of History ....“ **

That is a western interpretation.

I am not very much convinced by your text.

History has not ended yet. In that point we agree.

If humans will be replaced by machines, who will judge the responsible one(s)?

How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be eliminated?

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„I would actually think an atheist would be the best person for the job because an atheist would not care about the flame wars and actually decide on the quality of discussion, not on what is discussed.“

You say „atheist“, but do you know any atheist?

I have never got to know an atheist.

Amongst them who call themselves „atheists“ is no atheist because they all are theists.

443) Arminius, 29.04.2014, 01:55, 02:06, 14:18, 17:49, 20:03 (995-999)

Besides: Fuse has already given an answer (by trend):

So, Fuse, you don't think (by trend) that all humans will be completely replaced by machines.

Fuse wrote:

„Replaced in what way? Human beings are being replaced by machines for many tasks. Machines may even succeed us. That's not saying much, though, as I explained above.“ **

You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius,

I'm sorry I don't know what you're asking.“ **

Is it because you are too young? You have forgotten important things, e.g. that the question is the TITLE OF THE THREAD (**) and of the OP (Original Post **). What's the matter with you, Fuse? Are you Con-Fuse?

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

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

I disagree.“ **

Why? Is it because you are too young? ....

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

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

Who knows? Perhaps if you tailored your question I could answer it.“ **

You have already answered the question (with: NO [**|**]) and you have even answered the question (also with: NO), whether machines replace human beings, if machines are cheaper than human beings. Excuse me, but the latter of this two answers is nonsense.

Is it because you are too young? ....

Cassie wrote:

„Pinker predicts a continued decrease of violence, and so machines might fight instead of humans in future wars if secular humanism continued to have its way and wasting humans was off-limits. There would be machines making more machines making more machines then. Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism ....“ **

But what do you judgmentally think abaout that, especially about your last sentence: „Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism ....“?

Do you know Francis Fukuyama and his thesis?

According to Hegel’s „Dialektik“ e.g. Fukuyama interprets the „extreme liberalism“ as the „Thesis“, the „totalitarianism“ as the „Antithesis“, the „liberal democracy“ as the „Synthesis“. So for Fukuyama the „liberal democracy“ is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyama’s thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary “democracy“ and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyama’s notion of the „End of History“ can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: „By »nation building« you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy.“ Scholl-Latour: „I would have added: »Serving the market economy«.“ (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyama’s bold thesis of the „end of history“ of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes. **

Fukuyama’s thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: „In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyama’s book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche.“ (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as „housing of servitude“ by Max Weber. The „Gestell“ (something like „frame“ / „framework“ o.s.) by Martin Heidegger, the „managed world“ by Theodor W. Adorno, and the „technical government“ by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of „cultural crystallisation“. **

Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyama’s work as „the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called “mass psychology“ and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in »The End of History«, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the »end of history« in the year of publication of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes [„Phenomenology of Spirit“], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the »last men« more than all the rest ....“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67). **

For Fukuyama „thymos“ is nothing else than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for „Anerkennung“ (appreciation, recognition, tribute). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the „real engine of human history“ (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work „Zorn und Zeit“ („Rage and Time“, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger. **

But Sloterdijk's work mentions also the Christian era referring to revenge and resentment:

„Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
My translation:
„Especially must now against Nietzsche's impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: It is given by the faith of Christians, God's justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.“

444) Arminius, 30.04.2014, 01:54, 02:40, 04:06, 04:31, 05:14, 15:34, 15:45, 15:45, 16:41, 23:13 (1000-1009)

Obe wrote:

„And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift ....“ **

Not in any case.

Obe wrote:

„And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift ....“ **

It depends on the case, on the particular case.

Obe wrote:

„And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift ....“ **

You mean Fukuyama’s „liberal democracy“ as the „Synthesis“? Then it is up to him to object that or not. For me the current Synthesis is not something like a „liberal democracy“, but the globalism: containing amongst others an ochlocracy (anarchy) in order to get the monarchy. Probably the „liberal democracy“ had been a Synthesis for a short time in the last fourth of the 18th century, namely the Synthesis of the Thesis „democracy/oligarchy (egalitarianism)“ and the Antithesis „liberalism/individualism (libertarianism)“. Fukuyama confuses his time (especially his Zeitgeist) with Hegel's time (especially Hegel's Zeitgeist). He also confuses ideality with reality. So for me Fukuyama is wrong. The assessment of Peter Scholl-Latour, Fukuyama's thesis has been absurd since its beginning (**|**), is right, I think.

Amorphos wrote:

„History cannot end. That would require something there to stop it from progressing.“ **

So you are saying that progressing and history are not dividable, or they are even the same? Progressing and history do not have to have, but can have to do with each other. Progressing and history are not the same. History is a development, evolution is a development, but history and evolution are not the same. History is a part of evolution because history is an artifact, a product by humans, and humans are as part of the evolution as other living beings.

Amorphos wrote:

„Equally; death is not a thing.“ **

Is that poetry?

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius is officially one of those people who like to overuse the winky face.“ **

Wrong. I just didn't want to shock you.

Fuse wrote:

„I thought a philosophy message board was a place to explore ideas instead of answering questions with a simple yes or no.“ **

There is no text in this thread which requests merely answering questions with a simple yes or no, although answering questions with a simple yes or no is informative for philosophers too. Exploring ideas is a good thing, if it is not too much degenerated, if it is not too much kaffee klatsch - and often it is in this forum. Philosophy does not primarily and not secondarily mean discussing, exchange of opinions, of views ....

Fuse wrote:

„Yes, Arminius, I must be too young to be taken seriously in this conversation, but just in case you feel like having a conversation instead of merely taking poll ....“ **

You are saying that this thread is like „merely taking poll“? That's wrong. You are too young. You are wandering from the subject. Please read this thread in order to disprove your statement.

Fuse wrote:

„They way I see it, machines may very well succeed us, but their future looks pretty trivial to me if you're going by the current state of technology.“ **

Please read this thread in order to get some information, good ideas, and expecially good arguments for the high probability that all humans will be replaced by machines. And therefore it was a good idea to make an interim balance sheet (**|**): merely 21.43% - 3 of 14 writers - say „yes“, but the percentage of the text for this „yes“ has nearly the reverse amount.

You know Wilfried Fritz Pareto and the „Pareto principle“? The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. In the above example (will machines completely replace all humans?) we have about 20% „yes“-sayers and about 80% of the text belong to that „yes“-sayers.

This thread, that you wrongly call „poll“, is interesting because of the Information, not because of having opinions, not because of conversation, not because of talk, not because of kaffee klatsch.

Finishedman wrote:

„All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.“ **

Finishedman, hystory and the past are not synonyms. Please! For example: the history refers to the past, the past can, but does not have to refer to the history. If we lose our history, we do not lose our past at all. History has to do with writing, with script. If history loses writing, then it becomes story. Story refers to the past too. Humans do not need history in order to be humans.

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius,

Every time I speak you keep asking me to answer your simple question with a yes or a no.“ **

NO! That is wrong, Fuse! I said: Please read the thread! Read! Not answer, just read!

Fuse wrote:

„I answered your OP on the first page with my thoughts. My thoughts do not fit into a simple yes or no ....“ **

That’s no problem. Do you want your name in the interim balance sheet (**|**) to be eleiminated, or (like Moreno) to be changed in a different column?

Fuse wrote:

„I've said that I don't think the question is simple and explained why. I've been having a conversation with James throughout this thread and I've read many of your posts. You've oddly suggested that I have trouble reading, that I am confused and I am too young, and that my disagreement is nonsense -- all without explanation. So it is up to you.“ **

No, I did not suggest that your disagreemanet is nonsense, No, no! Please read the text again. It is not your disagreement. Or, if you don't want to read, please guess what the nonsense is in that text!

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

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

I disagree.“ **

You are disagreeing with facts! You are disagreeing with logical truth!

So, let's start:

My statement contains two premises:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than human beings. ** **
2nd premise: Machines replace human beings. ** **

You „disagree“!

Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.

Another example:

1st premise: Machines are cheaper than horses.
2nd premise: Machines replace horses.

You probably „disagree“!

Cheaper things replace expensive things.

You probably „disagree“!
________________________

„Disagreeing“ is „cool“, isn't it?
______________________________

Sorry, Fuse, but philosophy has not very much to do with kaffee klatsch.

Obe wrote:

„However, there is credibility in the notion, that if machines displace jobs, and even if they can do the job cheaper and more efficiently, the buying power of those displaced people will effect the economy adversely. Another fact is, that profits will, rather then being re-invested, may be used to enhance personal and corporate capital instead for research and product development. This trend has not noticeably kicked in as of yet, because, human jobs still far outnumber machines to a very significant degree, and for the most part, automation augments, rather then displaces human workers.“ **

Don't forget the effects of egalitarianism/socialism/communism/feminism/genderism/quotationism because they decrease the buying power rapidly.

Obe wrote:

„At the present time, it is far more feasible to hire workers in China, then set up vast automated industries.When wages go up there, this too might change , in time, not foreseeably, i would think, with hundreds of millions, if not billion workers in that country.“ **

Okay, Obe, but do you know the demographic development, especially the current fertility rate in China?

Here come some facts, data, and numbers:

China has reached the economical stage of the earliest industrial countries in the 18th/19th century: England and Germany. So in China the human labour is still as important as it had been in those earliest devoloped countries for about 200 years (from about 1770 till about 1970). Because of the fact that this economical development has becoming faster and faster, China will soon have too less human labour, or - reversely said - more machines! In earliest developed countries the fertitlity rate first rised fastly and then declined fastly, and since about 1970 their aboriginal populations have been declining fastly. So today China has already reached the demographic circumstances of Europe in 1970, although China has not reached the economical circumstances of Europe in 1970. So China will either have to accelerate its economy or have to prevent the shrinkage of its population. Else China will have no chance. So what will the Chinese probably do?

The Chinese will accelerate Chinas economy by buying or producing more machines and of course more different machines than before.

Cassie wrote:

„Extreme adaptability of ultra-liberalism is the sloth of the cynic is what Sloterdijk was pointing out.“ **

Would you mind going into details?

James S. Saint wrote:

„You might want to note that the countries with a high Debt/GNP are the ones promoting automation the most; USA and Japan at the top of the list. Those countries cannot afford to have people being paid to do what a machine can do very much faster and better.

If in your foreign trade, you are going to be selling 10,000 of product X per week and you have the choice of building a machine to produce it for you at that rate (or any easily changeable rate) or hiring enough people to be able to keep up that rate (not easily changeable rate), the machine will be far cheaper, produce far more consistent quality, last much longer, and be more rate-versatile.“ **

Machines are always far cheaper!

No human being can compete against machines.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thus by controlling Money, the national debt is controlled and by controlling the national debt, people are eliminated in favor of machines. The lust for Money, eliminates people ... selected people.“ **

According to Schopenhauer the will is Kant's „Ding an sich“ („thing-in-itself“); according to Nietzsche life is the will to power; so life is the „Ding an sich“ to power; if that is right, then the lust for money is merely because of the will to power.

If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.

445) Arminius, 01.05.2014, 00:20, 01:15, 02:02, 02:18, 17:30, 22:35, 23:40, 23:48, 23:57 (1010-1018)

First of all, James, I buy and send you the „Ü“-key for the „Übermensch“ - and you may have the „Ä“-key, the „Ö“-key, and the „ß“-key too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„You must become what has never been, often referred to as the »Ubermensch«.“ **

And according to you: How can I become the „Übermensch“? By getting a „Fourth Eye“? How can I get a „Fourth Eye“? Can you send me one in return for my „Ü“-key?

1011

Skakos wrote:

„Tao is full of paradoxical phrases. It contains wisdom our western logic cannot comprehend. But the world is inherently illogical - so why try to understand it logically? Being illogical could be the best way to reach the truth. In this thread I will try to post some thoughts/teachings of Tao for discussion. I will start with a favourite of mine:

»Seek the empty, if you wish to be full.«“ **

„Seek the empty, if you wish to be full.“ That slogan is not a paradoxial phrase, not illogical. Why are you saying, that Tao „contains wisdom our western logic cannot comprehend“? Logic is logic. You are suggesting the existence of different „logics“, and that is paradox because Tao is comprehendible for all those who know logic. What you mean is that for a Non-Chinese Tao is more difficult to understand than for a Chinese. But that does not also mean that „our western logic cannot comprehend“ Tao.

Skakos wrote:

„I believe that commiting suicide is the ultimate evidence of human free will.“ **

There is no human free will because it is merely a relatively free will.

„Progress“ is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is „progressivism“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If all human beings will be completely replaced by machines, then the will to power will have been responsible, guilty.« ** **

Certainly. And that is because the »blind lust for power« leads to the wrong goal for any living entity.

The goal is NOT POWER for an arbitrary LIVING ENTITY.“ **

Maybe that it is not the goal, but it is something like the original living cause, the original living reason, the original living source for life itself, for every living being and their situations. The goal for the will to power is: to get more power! But there are other goals as well, and they may even fight the will to power (might). .... Danger!

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING.“ **

Maybe that the anentropic harmony is the goal, but if so, you probably should say a few sentences more about anentropic harmony or set some links, James, because I think that many people don't exactly know what it is.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Aim the thoughts in that direction, and that is what you will get. Technology will become aimed in that direction and thus serve its true purpose.“ **

You probably should explain »that direction« a little bit.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Lizbethrose wrote:

»Automation has already replaced some human workers; but, until some method of 'caring for' the replaced humans, and their families, I think it would be detrimental to any economy to automate all all production lines. My thoughts.« **

But we are not talking about what is wise, but rather what is going to happen, regardless of what was wise.“ **

That is absoutely right, James.

One doesn't have to read much, merely the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**) !

James S. Saint wrote:

„If you ever wonder about what the globalist's current hypnosis propaganda is in plain black and white, just read the rose. And here she goes; ....“ **

The globalists have too much success with their hypnosis propaganda.

Fuse wrote:

„Excuse me, Arminius,

I guess no one has pointed this out yet, but your conclusion (I did not realize you thought of it as a conclusion) does not follow your premises. It is not a valid deductive argument.

Arminius wrote:

»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.« ** **

This is not an argument.“ **

That is not an argument? You want to make trouble because:

„Arminius wrote:

»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it?“ ** **

You haven't read the thread, have you? This question you mention is resolved. Again: You have to read the thread, before you make trouble here.

Look here:

„Arminius wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

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.« **

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:

»Arminius wrote:

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 op 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.
....

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

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.

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

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.“ ** **

There is no problem. It is a fact that cheaper things replace expensive things, and it is a fact too that machines are cheaper than human beings, and it is a fact too that machines replace humans. So, what you want? .... Oh I see, you want to make trouble because:

„Arminius wrote:

»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it?“ ** **

Fuse wrote:

„Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

I disagree with premise 2, and in fact can give plenty of counterexamples. So it is a valid but unsound deductive argument.“ **

No you want to dictate!

Besides: It is not difficult to understand the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So what is your problem? Oh, I see:

„Arminius wrote:

»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it?“ ** **

You are young and full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. That's all.

Goodbye.

Fuse wrote:

„So I think I've adequately answered this.“ **

No. You haven't. ** **

Fuse wrote:

„No, it really isn't an argument. And you've been condescending to me all thread. Anyone can see.“ **

You feel that I have been condescending to you. That's right and that's the reason why you are full of resentments because of this post, so you look for a chance to revenge. Your last posts have just proved it.

Are you a child? A re you a woman? If yes, then excuse me.

You have not understood the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings?

446) Arminius, 02.05.2014, 00:01, 01:07, 01:28, 02:10, 02:46, 03:33, 19:19, 19:46, 20:05, 20:34, 20:54, 22:16, 23:48 (1019-1031)

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»....

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

Yes, this is a valid argument which is not what you have in the OP. It is not of logical necessity that »expensive things are replaced by cheaper things«.“ **

Child, you would have saved much energy, if you had listened to me! I have told you a number of times: Please read the thread, if you don't undesrtand the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**) !

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Fuse is partly right.

»Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?« would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.“

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well known, isn't it?

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

Do you agree or disagree?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Fuse wrote:

»Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.«

I understand what you were getting at. But what you need to do is provide the counter argument, much like Lady K is attempting (»cheaper will not replace all else«).“ **

And ...? Has anybody provided such a „counter argument“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long.“ **

Has anybody a „counter argument“?

My question is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**).

It is just a question. One can answer this question with „yes“ or with „no“ (therefore also my interim balance sheet [**|**]), but one has to justify the arguments or counter arguments, if it is requested.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»....

.....« ** **

As a formal syllogism, that would be a »non-sequitor« (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, »Cheaper things always replace more expensive things«. And also, »Only machines replace people«.“ **

No, I don't have to say that because this thraed has already reached an extend of 13 pages and 307 posts. I did the syllogism in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. This 13 pages and 307 posts have proven that. There is no problem because everybody knows the facts (except Fuse, but not really because he has other reasons to „disagree“).

After 13 pages and 303 posts, James!

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.

The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term)“ **

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as everybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings?

1) If I say „expensive things are replaced by cheaper things“, then it is clear that I don't speak about „luxus“ and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxuriousness.

2) If I say „machines are cheaper than human beings“, then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.

If we go further with „nitpicking“, than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That’s impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.

Obe wrote:

„I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.“ **

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?

Again: The TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**) is a QUESTION:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

And my given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn’t satisfiy the logical implication truth table.

I insist on that because ILP doesn't demand a syllogisms and a logical implication when it comes to open a thread. So, actually, one doesn't have to give any syllogism, one doesn't have to give any logical implication in the OP. (Though I have given them!). If all ILP threads had to be opened by syllogisms and logical implications, then the statistics of ILP would be merely 1-10% of the total posts, and 1-10% of the total topics, and 1-10% of the actual total members.

I have given the syllogism and the logical implication in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. And in that way the syllogism and the logical implication MY OP are not false.

13 pages and 307 posts of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) have shown or even proved that my given syllogism and my given logical implication are true.

Have I forgotten „emotional »arguments«“?

Fuse wrote:

„Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.“ **

But then:

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»....

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.

.....« ** **

Yes, this is a valid argument ....“ **

„Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper“ IS A CHEAPER THING.
„A worker that is more expensive“ IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

There is no problem.

Fuse wrote:

„I disagree with premise 2 ....“ **

Fuse's disagreement has nothing to do with logical arguments, but merely with his emotions!

Fuse doesn't want to answer the question of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with „yes“ or „no“, he disagrees to poll, he diagrees to my premise 2, he disagrees ..., okay, he may disagree - I don't care -, but he has no argument.

Again:

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as everybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings?

1) If I say „expensive things are replaced by cheaper things“, then it is clear that I don't speak about „luxus“ and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxuriousness.

2) If I say „machines are cheaper than human beings“, then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.

If we go further with „nitpicking“, than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That's impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.

Skakos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is no human free will because it is merely a relatively free will.« ** **

»Relatively« to what?“ **

To human's environment, to nature, to the will of the world (cp. Schopenhauer), to God.

Every human relativeley free will is relatively because it is limited by his next human relativeley free will.

Finishedman wrote:

„As long as events are dependent upon, caused by, or are led to by other events, there will be stories. The linking up of certain events to promote a designed idea are the stories that precede history.“ **

So, you are saying that every stone has its history too, every subatomic particle has its history too. But that is not what we usually mean with the word „history“. Okay, one can poetically say nature has its own „history“, but I say that nature has its development, living beings have their evolution, and merely human beings can, but don't have to have history.

Human beings have to have development (cp. nature), have to have evolution (cp. living beings), but they do not have to have history, but they can have history.

In order to become more powerful than human beings, machines need a will to power, interests, ..., and so on.

Fuse.

What you have been saying is not as important for this thread as you probably have been thinking.

I didn't mischaracterise your statements.

Have you read the thread? Have you read my other posts? Probabaly you have not because of some of your interests which have nothing to do with this topic here.

Fuse wrote:

„Cheaper workers will always be preferred.“ **

Not always. But nevertheless: that statement is one of my two true premises because it is generally accepted. I don't have to start with the exceptions. Exceptions prove the rule - anyway. I even don't have to start with syllogisms and logical implications, when I open a thread here in this forum (ILP) - as I repeatedly said (please read it!), and I also don't have to do it, when the title of my thread (**|**) and the title of my OP (**|**) is a question, cp.: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Fuse wrote:

„I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper.“ **

No problem in order to accept. But it is an opinion, your opinion (and probably even my opinion - have you ever thought about that? [so please read the thread]), it is no counter argument against my arguments.

All what you have been telling in your last posts (adressed to me) contains no arguments, only disagreements, nothing new. That's destructive, thus not constructive.

You have no argument and no counter argument. You always only disagree - without arguments or counter arguments. That's all. Okay, and good luck!

If you had read more of my my posts, then you would have known that I don't ignore your posts. Even in my last post (**|**) I mentioned that I probably also don't want to be replaced by machines. So why are you crying so much?

What you are saying in your last post is no counter argument because that is what I have been saying for about 40 years (cp.: you are 25 years old - according to ILP viewing profile).

Please don't confuse ideality with reality!

Your pseudonym is „Fuse“. And your real name? „Confuse“? Your „logical truth“ is „disagreeing“ or „reversing“ the logical truth which is accepted - as logical truth, not as wish, desire, hope ..., and os on - by at least 80%. One can always disagree - that's no mighty deed. So: If you say „Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will NOT replace a worker that is more expensive“ or „NO worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive“, then you have to argue in that way, but you can merely argue in that way, if you deny the logical truth of the 80 or probably more percent. Because: the fact that nearly all machines are cheaper than human beings is accepted by at least 80 or probably more percent.

Your so called „counter examples“ are no counter examples to my examples because they are integrated in my examples, and as I denoted in my last post (**|**): I don't want to be replaced by machines as well as you. But that are our opinions - not more.

You didn't refute anything.

Your „logical truth“ is at the utmost probability a „10-20%-truth“. So what about the „80-90% truth“? Who ignores? Who confuses? Don't confuse, Fuse!

447) Arminius, 03.05.2014, 00:21, 01:24, 02:10, 02:32, 02:45, 22:13, 23:48 (1032-1038)

Finishedman wrote:

„I’m saying people subjectively make up stories by the linking up of certain past events to create their philosophy or life narrative. They do it so as to not lose identity as time goes on. They don’t allow for events to stand alone independent of any other events. And I agree it is not necessary.“ **

Right. But they can do that merely with story, thus: without history.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.“ **

In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Therefore: Sokrates is mortal.

The word „therefore“ is usually either omitted or replaced by a symbol.

B.t.w.: Where is your nice sig?

Before I opened this thread I had to decide in which philosophical subforum it should be opened:

(A) Subforum „Philosophy“?
(B) Subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“?
(C) Subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“?

One of the main reasons why I decided to open this thread in the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ was the syllogism and the logical implication, although I knew that on ILP they are not required, not necessary in order to make clear what the title of the thread (**|**) and of the OP (**|**) means: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So when I gave the syllogism and the logical implication, I did it nevertheless - and because of my decision for the subforum „Philosophy“.

 One of my favourite conversations in this thread:

Uccisore wrote:

„Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.“ **

Fuse wrote:

„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.“ **

I compliment Obe.

Here comes the 2nd interim balance sheet:

There is a difference between this 2nd and the 1st balance sheet (**|**).

I define „history“ as a „cultural evolution“. All „archivable artifacts“ belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here „story“ means only „telling story“, „told story“, etc.) since they began to speak. So „story“ as a „oral tradition“ (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the „Eloi“ as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

The „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

History is merely the „roof“ of the „house of change“.

Arminius wrote:

„The »end of history« means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all »historical existence« (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.“ ** **

End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that’s the question of this thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Fuse wrote:

»Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?« **

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.“ **

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't »the implication«, but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, »it seems like things point in this conclusion«. An exact implication means, »because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true«.

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; »Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?«, »Are machines really cheaper than people?«, »Might it all occur by accident?«, »Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?«, »Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?« ....“ **

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by objective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?

448) Arminius, 04.05.2014, 01:34, 04:09, 15:07, 16:35 (1039-1042)

Obe wrote:

„It's not that history will end, that is the question, but that we become oblivious to it.“ **

That we become oblivious to history, yes, but that means in consequence that history ends after a while because human beings have become oblivious to it. If human beings become oblivious to history, then there is no historical comprehension anymore; and if there is no historical comprehension, then there will be soon no history. „History“ without historians and without people who are interested in history is no history anymore.

Obe wrote:

„There is always a story, somewhere, it's just that it's not ours.“ **

„Stories“ have to be told in order to be stories. So only human beings can have stories. „Stories“ of animals or plants are merely stories for us because we make and want them to have stories. All non-human-beings do not have any story, they only have information, and they communicate with each other in order to get information - not more.

Story is human - and only human.

Obe wrote:

„Artifacts, development, culture, always leave traces ....“ **

That's right, Obe. But to whom are they traces? Who interprets them to be traces? Non-human-beings know nothing about traces as traces, but as a kind of information - certainly without historical information. „Trace“ is a word, a concept, a term, a definition only for us. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.

One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential (**|**) - can merely be defined as „great war“, if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a „great war“ could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not be defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are „artifacts“, because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.

So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word „human being“ with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Nietzsche it is said was just trying to create a new morality or ethos of what he saw as the deterioration of the current ones.

His fatal flaw and error you see is that once the genie comes out of the bottle there is no way to bring it back inside again.“ **

And after the genie his epigones, his copyists, his copycats, his imitators come and get „high“ outside the bottle.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed.“ **

Probably - or probably not?

Can you give evidence?

Perhaps isolation leads to suicide:

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„All Nietzscheans are addicted to suicide.“ **

Okay, that is a cynical statement, but nevertheless: Nietzscheans are endangered ...:

Gib wrote:

„Was Nietzsche a panpsychic?“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »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.“ **

So Nietzsche was a panpsychotic, wasn't he?

Tyler Durden wrote:

„His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed.“ **

What shall we do with him?

Probably Nietzsche didn't overcome nihilism, but brought more nihilism than all other nihilists before him, because he spread nihilism all over the world.

Who is really able to overcome nihilism in times of nihilism?

Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that's all. I don't know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism. (Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism.

449) Arminius, 05.05.2014, 20:25, 22:17, 23:26, 23:50 (1043-1046)

Moreno wrote:

„I don't Think it was a Western production since it actually upset most of the Power players in the West since it was unclear if their puppets were giong to stay in Power.“ **

Nevertheless: It can be a part of a western strategy.

Obe wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.‹ **

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

James S. Saint wrote:

›And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't 'the implication', but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, 'it seems like things point in this conclusion'. An exact implication means, 'because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true'.

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; 'Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?', 'Are machines really cheaper than people?', 'Might it all occur by accident?', 'Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?', 'Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?' ....‹ **

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?“ ** **

There may be another scenario? The age of sleep, or just sleep for that matter, instead of causing a vicious cycle, may become a conscious disconnect, with no further effects of meltdown. If there is consciousness to it, the estimation, would, as admittedly remaining constant, have some effect on disproportionate or overestimated intelligence. Another thing is, the abnormal intelligence, itself, may be the effect of sinking general intelligence. It may be a natural process of a compensatory effect to sinking awareness.

If at a critical level of the negative feedback a break would occur, then sleep would not be of pleasant dreams, for nightmares would surely come forth. If still, absent these, psychotic episodes will be in alert mode, to signify that social intelligence has diminished.

The apex of this realization is what makes or breaks social consciousness, making a difference between enhanced or diminished capacity.

Do you see there even a chance for the humans in the „age of sleep“?

Arminius wrote:

„Tyler Durden wrote:

»Nietzsche it is said was just trying to create a new morality or ethos of what he saw as the deterioration of the current ones.

His fatal flaw and error you see is that once the genie comes out of the bottle there is no way to bring it back inside again.« **

And after the genie his epigones, his copyists, his copycats, his imitators come and get „high“ outside the bottle.“ ** **

Many of the so called „Nietzscheans“ misuse Nietzsche for thoughts which have nothing to do with Nietzsche. One example for this „high“ copycats is that racist Cezar - as you surely know, Contra-Nietzsche.

Arminius wrote:

„Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

»All Nietzscheans are addicted to suicide.« **

Okay, that is a cynical statement, but nevertheless: Nietzscheans are endangered ...:

Gib wrote:

»Was Nietzsche a panpsychic?« **

James S. Saint wrote:

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

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

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

....“ ** **

Many of the so called „Nietzscheans“ try to copy that, and since they are not able to copy Nietzsche entirely, they copy merely the psychosis.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed.“ **

Tyler Durden, I asked you whether you can give evidence. Would you mind answering my question?

Obe wrote:

„While the age of sleep may be unconscious, that period doesn't figure into awareness, however, there is no temporal gap, until awakening.Sleep is only a state of regeneration, until awakening. Brunhilda was granted her wish of not to be awakened unless for some worthy being. There is no need for men during regeneration, until the worthy one arrives. And then, it's likely, he never leaves. He doesn't sleep. Machines are interim products, during sleep, after awakening, there is no need for them. They may turn out to be the keepers.“ **

But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction?

450) Arminius, 06.05.2014, 01:09, 01:36, 02:18, 03:14, 03:49, 04:59, 17:45, 19:02, 20:35, 21:22, 21:27, 22:30, 23:10 (1047-1059)

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Im am three things, 1) A Catholic 2) A Cynic 3) A Machiavellian.

I already know about Nietzsche being heavily attracted to all three. In alot of cognitive tests, mapping brain function, he pops up on my end..... but I am no Nietzschean. Nietzsche half assed, stole, and blundered in the execution of his ideas. Who you think is Nietzsche (especially you Arminius the immunologist) is Jerome Cardan, a renaissance philosopher who's autobiography somehow ended up in Ecce Homo.“ **

Jerome Cardan was: Gerolamo Cardano (Girolamo or Geronimo; lat.: Hieronymus Cardanus). He was a doctor, a philosopher, a mathematician, and a technician. I don't think that he wrote as a philosophical immunulogist. He wrote in the 16th century, Nietzsche wrote in the 19th century. Writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 16th century has a duifferent meaning than writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 19th century. I don't know very much about Gardano, but I don't think that he wrote as a philosophical immunologist.

It is possible that the western strategy includes anti-western politics.

Obe wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction?« ** **

That is why, wisely, You put me in the column marked indeterminable. There is always a chance, granted, however one of the biggest obstacles to it's realization is the diminishing returns which mankind places on value, whether it be other, or self = valuing. We are at a low point in valuing the very being in which we find our very existence. Until that can be overcome, singularly, it seems we are heading for a period of long sleep.“ **

My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%. 80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

James S. Saint wrote:

„In my particular case (which I don't even discuss), in 1972 during the »we need energy« false flag, I personally designed what I thought was the first truly perpetual energy source, only to discover that a few others had come even before me in other ways but buried under a hell of a lot of obfuscation and demonizing (largely by displaying silly efforts of morons in order to promote disrespect for all efforts - a common method for hiding a truth). I suspect that I still hold the most ecological design.“ **

The „first truly perpetual energy source“?

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„As the German Oswald Spengler foresaw in his Decline of the West, even Russian (Orthodox) Christianity is fundamentally (anthropologically) different from Western Catholicism (let alone Anglo-Saxon Protestantism).

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (06 Dec 2008)

»Is Russia an integral part of ›Western‹ civilization? Ask Oswald Spengler...«“ **

According to Oswald Spengler the West has been consisting religiously of catholics and protestants, thus without all (all!) orthodox Christians. Greeks, Slavs, and other orthodox Christians have never been belonging to the Western culture / civilisation. They all have been getting influenced by the West - like the other people of the world as well -, but never been becoming a real part of the West.

Spengler assumed that there will be either no new culture anymore or perhaps one: a Russian one. But Spengler tended more to the conviction that no new culture will come, thus: the Western culture / civilisation ist the last one.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»....

According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!

....« ** **

If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. This would then include media, which really should be on the list.“ **

According to Ernst Nolte both science and technology are meant. Science (incl. technology) also includes media, but media is also included in the other historical existentials, especially in education. Living beings are media beings. So media is important for all living beings, not only for human beings, also not only for historical human beings. What you probably mean with the word „media“ is the „modern media“.

Moreno wrote:

„I suppose I see Changes in media since the fall of the wall, since 9/11, so I see no way to determine history has ended under the criterion Changes in media. And since the modern trend is a mergence of media and self, the change is enormous. Where i live the amount of people who are scared without their cellphones and laptops and generally walk, drive, eat, bike and socialize while looking down at screens small and large, we post-humans are here. Only they are not some ubermencsh of a cyborg or some other flesh/machine intermingling, but they are just as post human to my Eyes. And rather pathetic. This trend could lead to the end of history. I just don't quite know what happens when nearly eveyrone is no longer quite present at any time. This might lead to very unstable domino like effects.“ **

„Übermensch“, „cyborg“, „flesh/machine-intermingling“, „post-human“ remind me to my other thread:

Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call „Letzter Mensch“ („Last Man“). This „Last Man“ will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

Arminius wrote:

„Peak oil is not based on scientific knowledge, but primarily on speculation, and when it comes to speculation, lies are immediately at work, whereby the wealth and therefore the power of the ruler of the world is increased.

Incidentally, it is possible that oil is an inorganic product. If this is true, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie.

Most »scientists« are no more scientists because of their involvement in corruption and their opportunistic behavior due to the censorship of the rulers. Who is brave and wants to remain scientists, is soon released and exposed to impoverishment. (**).“ ** **

If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.

In that case we merely would have to eliminate the lie. The lie is a problem humans can't resolve.

Phyllo wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.« ** **

Organic = matter that contains carbon atoms, matter that comes from the remains of plants and animals.

So where does oil come from, if not from plants and animals?“ **

Can't you guess it? My last post (**|**) contains already the answer. Haven't you read it, although you have quoted it?

According to some scientists chemical, but not fossilised, thus inorganic processes lead to oil, so oil is an inorganic product.

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call „Letzter Mensch“ („Last Man“). This „Last Man“ will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

Phyllo wrote:

„Strange that you are unable to answer a direct question.“ **

I did answer your question, but you are unable to read. That's strange. In addition: English is your mother tongue, isn't it?

The abiogenic hypothesis „fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because“ (**) the Soviet Union was defeated, the „Cold War“ ended, and the western age of total globalism started. You know what I mean?

„Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material.“ **

Therefore I wrote:

»Peak oil is not based on scientific knowledge, but primarily on speculation, and when it comes to speculation, lies are immediately at work, whereby the wealth and therefore the power of the ruler of the world is increased.

Incidentally, it is possible that oil is an inorganic product. If this is true, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie.

Most »scientists« are no more scientists because of their involvement in corruption and their opportunistic behavior due to the censorship of the rulers. Who is brave and wants to remain scientists, is soon released and exposed to impoverishment. (**).“ ** **

Wikipedia (although also mainstream):

„However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.“ **

Do you agree with the mainstream theory?

Inorganic chemistry is the study of the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of organic chemistry.

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

@ Moreno

Martin Fleischmann (not: „Fleishman“) was his name. **

==>