01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [441][442][443][444][445][446][447][448][449][450] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
977 |
Bob wrote:
»It isnt nationalism because it isnt 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. **
978 |
979 |
.... Danke. **
980 |
If Nationalism is evil, then Globalism must be the epitome of all evil, aka »Satanism«. **
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! ** **
981 |
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. **
982 |
James posted these videos as evidence of the real presence of corruption and conspiracy existent in the American democratic System. **
983 |
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. **
That's not necessarily the end of mankind. **
984 |
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. **
4) Total Democracy - the populous votes on all local and national laws. **
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. **
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. **
985 |
In this context, »social equality« merely means that everyone gets one vote on all relevant issues. **
Children still can't vote. **
986 |
987 |
This thread inspired this other one: Reforming Democracy (**). **
988 |
I propose then now as a Westerner - I AM THE FIRST OF MANY - that a new Western religion HAS RISEN. **
|
989 |
Bob worte:
»Im not German, although Ive 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 isnt nationalism because it isnt 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. **
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 **
990 |
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 **
991 |
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. **
992 |
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. **
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. **
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 existenceis 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«). ** **
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. **
China and Russia and not hooking in to any end of History .... **
993 |
994 |
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.
|
995 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest. | |
Sum: | 3 | 8 | 3 |
996 |
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. **
997 |
Arminius,
I'm sorry I don't know what you're asking. **
Arminius wrote:
»If machines are cheaper than human beings, then machines replace human beings.« ** **
I disagree. **
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. **
998 |
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 .... **
999 |
|
1000 |
And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift .... **
And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift .... **
And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift .... **
1001 |
History cannot end. That would require something there to stop it from progressing. **
Equally; death is not a thing. **
1002 |
Arminius is officially one of those people who like to overuse the winky face. **
I thought a philosophy message board was a place to explore ideas instead of answering questions with a simple yes or no. **
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 .... **
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. **
1003 |
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. **
1004 |
Arminius,
Every time I speak you keep asking me to answer your simple question with a yes or a no. **
I answered your OP on the first page with my thoughts. My thoughts do not fit into a simple yes or no .... **
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. **
1005 |
Arminius wrote:
»If machines are cheaper than human beeings, then machines replace human beings. ** **
I disagree. **
1006 |
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. **
1007 |
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. **
Country | Birthrates | Fertility rates | Year |
Bosnia | 9 | 1.2 | 2010 |
Burkina Faso | 44 | 6.0 | 2010 |
Burundi | 47 | 6.8 | 2010 |
Chad | 45 | 6.2 | 2010 |
China | 12 | 1.7 | 2010 |
Germany | 9 | 1.4 | 2010 |
Guinea-Bissau | 50 | 7.1 | 2010 |
Italy | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Japan | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Kenya | 39 | 5.0 | 2010 |
Mali | 48 | 6.5 | 2010 |
Mexico | 19 | 2.1 | 2010 |
Uganda | 47 | 6.7 | 2010 |
World | 20 | 2,5 | 2010 |
1008 |
Extreme adaptability of ultra-liberalism is the sloth of the cynic is what Sloterdijk was pointing out. **
1009 |
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. **
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. **
|
1010 |
You must become what has never been, often referred to as the »Ubermensch«. **
1011 |
![]() |
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.« **
1012 |
I believe that commiting suicide is the ultimate evidence of human free will. **
1013 |
1014 |
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. **
The Goal is ANENTROPIC HARMONY for the LIVING. **
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. **
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. **
1015 |
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; .... **
1016 |
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. **
Arminius wrote:
»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it? ** **
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:
If machines are cheaper than human beings, then machines replace human beings. |
p = machines are cheaper than human beings.
q = machines replace human beings.
p -- q = machines are cheaper than human beings, thus machines replace human beings.
Truth table for a logical implication:
p | q | p -- q |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings
But will all human beings completely replaced by machines? All human beings? All? And completely replaced? Completely? By machines? Machines?
What do you think?« ** **
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. ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it? ** **
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. **
Arminius wrote:
»Disagreeing« is »cool«, isn't it? ** **
1017 |
So I think I've adequately answered this. **
1018 |
No, it really isn't an argument. And you've been condescending to me all thread. Anyone can see. **
|
1019 |
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 which is not what you have in the OP. It is not of logical necessity that »expensive things are replaced by cheaper things«. **
1020 |
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.
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. |
1021 |
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«). **
In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long. **
1022 |
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. |
.....« ** **
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«. **
I say: | Cheaper things replace expensive things. | |
You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): | Cheaper things always replace more expensive things. | |
I say: | Machines replace human beings. | |
You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): | Only machines replace people. |
1023 |
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) **
1024 |
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. **
1025 |
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. **
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 .... **
I disagree with premise 2 .... **
1026 |
1027 |
Arminius wrote:
»There is no human free will because it is merely a relatively free will.« ** **
»Relatively« to what? **
1028 |
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. **
1029 |
1030 |
Cheaper workers will always be preferred. **
I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper. **
1031 |
|
1032 |
Im 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 dont allow for events to stand alone independent of any other events. And I agree it is not necessary. **
1033 |
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. **
1034 |
1035 |
Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything. **
Brilliant. **
Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. **
After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale. **
1036 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, James S. Saint, Moreno, Amorphos, Tyler Durden. | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe. | |
Sum: | 5 | 8 | 8 |
1037 |
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. ** **
1038 |
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. **
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?« .... **
|
1039 |
It's not that history will end, that is the question, but that we become oblivious to it. **
There is always a story, somewhere, it's just that it's not ours. **
Artifacts, development, culture, always leave traces .... **
1040 |
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. **
His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed. **
1041 |
All Nietzscheans are addicted to suicide. **
Was Nietzsche a panpsychic? **
Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« .... **
A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade's tradition.
Wasn't what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits. **
His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed. **
1042 |
|
1043 |
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. **
1044 |
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.
1045 |
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. ** **
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.« **
.... ** **
His fears of moral nihilism and trying to overcome them were flawed. **
1046 |
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. **
|
1047 |
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. **
1048 |
1049 |
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. **
1050 |
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. **
1051 |
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...« **
1052 |
Arminius wrote:
»....
....« ** **
If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. This would then include media, which really should be on the list. **
1053 |
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. **
1054 |
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. (**). ** **
1055 |
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? **
1056 |
1057 |
Strange that you are unable to answer a direct question. **
»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. (**). ** **
However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively. **
1058 |
1059 |
==>
|