551) Arminius, 25.08.2014, 21:27, 22:26, 22:52 (1892-1894)

Kriswest wrote:

„You know, would a thinking AI if programmed empathize with creatures? Or see real beauty in life? Could a bio AI have more probability of empathy? ...... Just to try to stay a bit on topic. :)Could giving a machine literature on life create a difference even one programmed to find and kill enemy? What if it learns human ethics and morals?“ **

That are important questions which are answered in this thread. The most (about 80%) members of this forum think that machines are not able to learn empathy, ethics and morals. They are wrong.

Arminius wrote:

„Again:

»Arminius wrote:

›The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the 'yes'-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the 'yes'-sayers are the fewest.« ** **

4.8 • 100 / 23% = 20,86956522%
10 • 100 / 23% = 43,47826087%
8.2 • 100 / 23% = 35,65217391%
------------------------------------
23 • 100% / 23 = 100% _/“ ** **

If we add the middle column (43.48%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 79.13%. That are the not-›yes‹-sayers.
But if we add the left column (20.87%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 56.52%. That are the not-›no‹-sayers.Relating to the thread question, the realtionship of the ›yes‹-sayers (20.87%) to the not-›yes‹-sayers (79.13%) is really interesting:According to the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) 20% of the population own 80% of the land, 20% of the pea pods contain 80% of the peas, 20% of all clients cause 80% of all sales, 20% of all websites are the goal of 80% of all weblinks, ... and so on. This 80–20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.Relating to the thread question, it could be interesting, if the Pareto principle applied also to the ›yes‹-sayers (20.87%) and not-›yes‹-sayers (79.13%), as I already said (**|**). ** **

The „yes“-sayers are those who answer the question of the topic of this thread („Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ [**|**]) with „yes“ by trend, that means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. This „yes“-sayers also say „yes“ to the question wether machines are able to learn empathy, ethics and morals.

1893

James S. Saint wrote:

„Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is »anentropic«, also known as »holy«.“ **

„Anything that is in harmony ... is »anentropic«.“ (**). Your words, James.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Almost all harmonic processes are temporal, requiring a compatible environment.“ **

A process is always temporal because of the meaning of the word „process“. Thus all processes are always temporal.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Anentropic harmony provides for a compatible environment as a part of its process.....Harmony requires highs and lows and thus relatively positives and negatives. To maintain a harmony is to maintain both the required positive and negative elements involved. An atom is an anentropic entity having a harmony consisting of a positive proton and a negative electron. It could not exist without both. Life has both »positive« and »negative« elements (high points and low points in its harmony) as the make of its process and must maintain both. Dying, or not living, is the process of not maintaining some required element of ones make and thus is entropic.

And there are no oppositions? No „highs“ and „lows“ as a pair of opposition? No „high point“ and „low point“ as a pair of opposition? No „positive proton“ and „negative electron“ as a pair of opposition? No „positive element“ and „negative element“ as a pair of opposition? No „top“ and „bottom“ as a pair of opposition? No „left“ and „right“ as a pair of opposition? ...?

Obe wrote:

„Robert Schumann, Piano Concerto #1, ....“ **

Obe, do you know this one?:

Robert Schuhmann, „Kinderszenen“ („Scenes of Childhood“), 1837-1838.

Philipp Otto Runge, „Die Hülsenbeckschen Kinder“ („The children of the Hülsenbecks“), 1805-1806.

552) Arminius, 26.08.2014, 00:00, 00:07, 00:35, 00:56, 01:09, 14:44, 15:28, 16:00, 16:38 (1895-1903)

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It just seems to me that you readily accept the end of history as a given, ....“ **

I do not accept the end of history as a given. But I say that history will perhaps end in the near future. Not more.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It strikes me that the reason there was more passion in the past, more desire for political revolution (for example, which I am not personally for, in any common sense of the term, ie. armed or violent revolution) was not because it wasn't believed there were risks, but because (among many reasons) there were pressures that made it more uncomfortable to maintain the status quo than to risk everything on a change for the better. In the west, for the most part (maybe not for everyone) our way of life has become fairly comfortable, and we are less liable to take risks with what we have for fear of losing it at all, and that means even small risks. Most people want to stick with the system because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that if they study hard at school and get a "good" job, they will have a comfortable home and shiny baubles to play with.“ **

Do you think that is a fair assessment? Can assesments be „fair“, although they have to be right or wrong?

Onempious (1mpious) wrote:

„Not there yet, probably never will be.“ **

Why „not there eyet“? Why „probably never will be“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Anything that is in harmony ... is 'anentropic'.‹ (**). Your words, James.« ** **

Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?“ **

Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: „If anything is in harmony, then it is »anentropic«“. Thus being in harmony is being „anentropic“.

You mean your sentences do not have any syntactical structure?

James S. Saint wrote:

„What »structure« did you want it to have that wasn't there?“ **

I did not want a syntactical structure because a syntactical structure is given anyway, unless it is invalid, false. Please tell me then what the exact definitions of „harmony“ and „anentropy“ are according to RM:AO.

We have an effect on the way of the future progresses, but who is „we“? The main effect comes frome about 1% of all humans, the effect of about 19-20% of all humans is still considerable, but the effect of about 79-80% of all humans is quite inconsiderable. The latter do what the former want them to do. Basical is the effect of the 1% of all humans, regardless wether the form of government is monarchy/tyrannis, aristocracy/oligarchy, or democracy/ochlocracy. Who decided, decide, and will decide wether or not there is war, for example? 1% of all humans! The other humans (99%) can not change very much. And if there will be no war, no historical existentials (**|**), no history anymore, then that will probably be the time of the „last men“ (Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

Do you completely agree with the mainstraem-physicist when it comes to interpret the „entropy“?

What should the historian do? If the historian wanted to change something according to his feelings (for example), this historian would not be a real historian. Historians have to know and fix the hoistorical facts without any feelings and disturbance which comes from outside their bodies.

If a particle is not isolated (closed), although it is a stable entity, then tell me what „isolated“ means according to RM:AO. Is there anything at all that can be isolated according to RM:AO? 

553) Arminius, 27.08.2014, 00:04, 00:17, 01:40, 01:55, 02:26, 02:26, 02:26, 03:04, 03:31, 11:51, 12:42, 13:40, 18:24, 19:51, 21:28, 22:21, 23:20 (1904-1920)

Obe wrote:

„I almost hate myself to coming to the realization, that unfortunately, Arminius, the percentages we have been pre-occupied with all along this forum have ALWAYS been as such, there seem to have always to have been such breakdown. Aristocracy was a long standing political stance, and perhaps that is the way society breaks down in almost predictable ways, based on inherent powers? This, incidentally is very Kantian, and categorical, so again, we come to the threshold between the pseudo idealism of Leibniz and the ethical 'practicality' of Kant. And the more i think of it, the more it seems that the 'should' of Kant has reserved a sustenance of a continuation between himself and Leibniz. So in a sense, he foresaw the either/or problem in a historical continuum of consciousness. That his logic is flawed, is another matter. But for his time, it was passable.“ **

Why do you call Leibniz’ idealism a „pseudo idealism“?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„How did the historian come into this?“ **

Come into what, please?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I didn't make any implication of historians changing facts that I'm aware of, only individuals acting to influence history.“ **

That's right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„At the time they came up with the laws of thermodynamics, they had no idea that space itself is filled with energy, actually made of energy. They didn't know that atoms and particles were made of turbulent energy being exchanged with that space. They had no way to know that it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange. But now in physics, even common physics, they are aware that there is nothing that anyone could do to truly isolate a molecular system from energy exchanges. RM:AO explains exactly why that is so.“ **

1.) Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other? I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because „existence is that which has affect“ (**). 2.) If it is right that „it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange“, is it then also not possible to isolate anything at all according to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I think that I had mentioned that back in 1972, I designed a molecular level device with no mechanical parts that directly broke the second law of thermodynamics by perpetually converting the chaos of heat energy in a molecularity closed system into more orderly gas flow that could be used to create mechanical motion or electric current flow. Other than the converted output, the entire system was a »thermodynamic system« that allowed its internal gases to both increase and decrease their level of entropy. The system could provide either an eternal constant flow of gas from a prior stagnate gas chamber or a regular pressure buildup and release.“ **

Are you sure that that really was a „closed system“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The energy that drove the system was simply being absorbed from the ambient environment and sent back out into it. Other than by totally freezing the gas, that system could not be isolated. But even a single atom represents a »system« of perpetual motion and that can never be isolated from the energy of its environment, no matter how »cold« is gets. Isolation from energy flow is impossible.“ **

Yes, but again: If it is right that „it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange“, then there is only one system possible (which is either an open or a closed one), thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one system) is not possible.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So something can be isolated from mechanical or molecular interference, but never from energy exchange. No nation actually needs to purchase energy from any other except in the form they want it to be stored in. And with today's technology, they can change any form into any other on their own.“ **

But „mechanical or molecular interference“ is also energy.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The following is a small crude anime to display »empty space«, from which nothing can be isolated.The program generating that wasn't nearly complete so it is crude and you have to forgive the extra accumulation around the borders. There was a mysterious programming glitch causing that effect, having nothing to do with the emulation of portions of EMR, »Afflates« = ultra-small »charged, virtual-photons«: blue = relative positive, yellow = relative negative, both relative to the total average (coincidentally showing as green).That is a pic of an area of space perhaps 1000 times small than a single proton presuming that one could actually see EMR in color and at the level. It uses 8000 small afflates, which isn't anywhere near enough for a good approximation. Anything less than 50,000 at that level isn't very accurate even when the programming is complete. The pic is merely to relay the general idea of the random affectance in even the smallest bits of space.And although it might look like the afflates are swirling about, they are actually traveling linearly through a 3D cube of more of themselves, »space«. And I placed a large »stationary positive afflate« in the center just for future reference.And a »mass particle« forms automatically when that field of afflates gets too dense. The afflates aggregate into a »charged particle« that is constantly exchanging its afflates with the surrounding region yet remaining a stable aggregation, »clump«/»cluster«/»traffic jam«.“ **

Is that to see in the picture?

1908

Obe wrote:

„Leibniz has a milder form from that of the classic versions, but far less so than Kant's.“ **

Yes, but that doesn’t justify to call his idealism a „pseudo idealism“, does it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The superior species is the one that does that which more greatly supports/enhances itself, not that which replaces itself with something even greater than itself (I suspect even Nietzsche knew that much). The »final species«, the »Ubermensch« is the one that knows the difference.If you explain to a man with a drug addiction that it will kill him, does he quit? Very seldom. Technology, creating machines, androids, and cyborgs is an addition to modern day governments. They can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.“ **

„We should all join together and change the world!“ That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Is that to see in the picture?« ** **

Is what »to see«? The mass particle? No.
That is just a crude example display of »empty space«.“ **

But the space is not empty!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»1.) Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other? I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because ›existence is that which has affect‹.« ** **

That is why.
Both energy and mass are affects. They are merely different degrees of the same thing. Although even in physics, there is »potential energy« and also »actualized energy« (kinetic, radiant). In RM:AO those are PtA and Affectance (»actualized energy«). What they call »mass« is merely a cluster of radiant energy giving the appearance of not radiating because the cluster as a whole is not radiating, although it might be moving (forming »momentum«) - »energy in a clump«.“ **

Arminius wrote:

»2.) If it is right that "it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange", is it then also not possible to Isolate anything at all according to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?« ** **

Physical things are only isolated through time and any dispersal that might take place as they propagate to each other. If we do not move from where we are, the constant stream of energy leaving from each of us, in some minuscule way reaches each other. All physical things have less than absolute zero affect upon all other physical things, but only through time.“ **

Arminius wrote:

»Are you sure that that really was a ›closed system‹?« ** **

It is »closed« in the way that they meant it. My point was that radiant heat energy, especially on an ultra small sub-particle scale, cannot be blocked. They weren't looking any further down than molecular vibrations, which can be isolated merely by a vacuum of particles. Later they realized that radiant heat energy had to be blocked too, through reflection or absorption. But me, looking on an even much smaller scale than that, I know that there is nothing at all that can block »sub-particle radiation« or »afflates«. It doesn't really reflect (reflecting »surfaces« could not be made on that scale. Surfaces don't exist on that scale) and any absorption is temporary. It is the lowest, smallest form of energy and occupies all space regardless of what is in that space. Everything is made of it, so there is no escape from it. And it doesn't stick around, but propagates always, merely getting delayed more or less which is what gives form to particles and objects.

Arminius wrote:

»If it is right that ›it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange‹, then there is only one system possible (which is either an open or a closed one), thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one system) is not possible.« ** **

And again, it was only »closed« in the way that they meant when they said »closed«. In reality, there is no such thing as »absolutely closed«.

Arminius wrote:

»But ›mechanical or molecular interference‹ is also energy.« ** **

It is a particular type/form of energy that can be prevented from moving too close. One can stop a baseball from getting to ones head, but one cannot stop affectance radiation from getting anywhere it happens to want to go.Arminius wrote:

»But the space is not empty!« ** **

I'm still not understanding what you are asking.“ **

No wonder because I was asking nothing!

James S. Saint wrote:

„There is no such thing as actual »empty space«. What we call »empty space« isn't empty at all. That is what the anime was showing, »space« is a very busy place.“ **

How „busy“ is the space?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well that anime shows how busy it is when there is »no-thing« in the space and near a large mass such as Earth.But if there is a particle in that space (»some-thing«) and falling toward a black-hole, the following would represent how much of that same "noise/busy-ness" would be in that space:
But in that graph, the particle never reaches the black-hole. The »Ambient Density« is a rough measure of how close to the black-hole it is.The simplicity of RM:AO is that EVERYTHING is simply different concentrations of Affectance and situated such that potentials for altering the amounts and locations of the concentrations arise.“ **

So a particle can grow and become a black hole. You are saying that „physical reality has no such thing as a force“ (**). What do you think about Newton’s „laws“?

1) First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object's speed and the direction of its motion; therefore, the statement that the object's velocity is constant is a statement that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant. The first law can be stated mathematically as:

2) Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object. The second law states that the net force on an object is equal to the rate of change (that is, the derivative) of its linear momentum p in an inertial reference frame:

The second law can also be stated in terms of an object's acceleration. Since Newton's second law is only valid for constant-mass systems, mass can be taken outside the differentiation operator by the constant factor rule in differentiation.

Thus, where F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body's acceleration. Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it.

3) Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = -FB.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.« ** **

Do you think you’re making a Nietzschean statement here about affirming eternal return?“ **

No.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Nietzsche thought there was a progression to be made from Christianity to nihilism to the affirmation of eternal return. If you think it is Nietzschean it is ridiculous. Nietzsche affirmed existence as all becoming. You might be more comfortable with the eternal forms.

»Den Conservativen in’s Ohr gesagt. — Was man früher nicht wusste, was man heute weiss, wissen könnte —, eine Rückbildung, eine Umkehr in irgend welchem Sinn und Grade ist gar nicht möglich. Wir Physiologen wenigstens wissen das. Aber alle Priester und Moralisten haben daran geglaubt, — sie wollten die Menschheit auf ein früheres Maass von Tugend zurückbringen, zurückschrauben. Moral war immer ein Prokrustes-Bett. Selbst die Politiker haben es darin den Tugendpredigern nachgemacht: es giebt auch heute noch Parteien, die als Ziel den Krebsgang aller Dinge träumen. Aber es steht Niemandem frei, Krebs zu sein. Es hilft nichts: man muss vorwärts, will sagen Schritt für Schritt weiter in der décadence (— dies meine Definition des modernen „Fortschritts“…). Man kann diese Entwicklung hemmen und, durch Hemmung, die Entartung selber stauen, aufsammeln, vehementer und plötzlicher machen: mehr kann man nicht. —« (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung, 1889 **).“ **

Das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.

Do you know German?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„You admit that you would like history to end:

Arminius wrote:

»The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!« ** **

....“ **

No. That sentence is directed against the following sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Menschen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern.“

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„And I said,

The Artful Pauper wrote:

»I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration ›we should all join together and change the world!‹).« **

We should not change the world because the world is changed enough (see also above).

Arminius wrote:

„The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.“ ** **

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you know German?« ** **

No, but I had reason to believe you do, and if you were going to reread that passage I’m sure you would enjoy it most in its original language.“ **

Yeah. Well done, Thank you.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Aber das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.« ** **

„Das ist nicht das, was ich meinte“ = „That is not that, what I meant“.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That sentence refers to the following sentence of Karl Marx: ›Die Menschen haben die Welt nur unterschiedlich interpretiert; es kommt darauf an, sie zu ändern.‹« ** **

Is it then only from the influence of Marx you would like to protect the world?“ **

No. Like I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don’t believe in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.« ** **

I personally think there is reason to desire change in the world from the way it is. I am less concerned with changing the whole world than I am clearing a pathway through which I can move and continue to create (create by acting, being, not representing). I don't think a world revolving around the production and consumtion of (many) useless objects will continue anyway, why not at least attempt to influence the direction society moves?

Because of the backlash; the probabilty for the opposite direction is too high. Please tell me what you exactly want to influence?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I'm sure you could kick my ass in German philosophy (almost the only country worthy of the title (philosophy)).“ **

Thank you.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„After all, I spent most of my youth crying over The Idiot, and that was only a few years ago.“ **

Crying? Really?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, this is where you need to understand what an ontology is. Every understanding of existence is an ontology. There is either the reality itself, or an ontological understanding of reality. That is all there is. Reality itself has no words or concepts to it. It is simply what it is, no actual forms or properties. An ontology categorizes issues of concern into abstract concepts. The concepts don't actually exist in physical reality, but in order to communicate and think, the mind chooses such categories, else it could never keep track of anything nor communicate anything.

One common issue of concern can be the concept of pushing or pulling, »force«. In normal life, a person sees himself pushing on something in order to make it change relative location. He »applies force«.

In Newtonian physics, that concept of applying force is given a means of measurement. That was a very useful thing to do (and the only reason you even know his name). But let's say a different guy, „Jacob“, thought in different terms. Jacob considered such actions, not as »forcing«, but »inspiring movement«. In both cases the person is causing a change. But the concepts are a little different. Newton pushes things to move them. Jacob inspires things to move. Newton implies that Newton is doing all of the action and the object is just receiving his effect. Jacob implies that Jacob merely initiates an action that is carried out by the object. The end result and by all superficial appearances, the two are the same.

So the difference between Newton and Jacob is merely one of the ontology they are using in order to describe the same reality. So in reality, was the object pushed or was it inspired to move?

Newton formed a standard for measuring push. But Jacob didn't establish a standard for measuring inspiration. Thus common physics used Newtons pushing concept, »force« rather than Jacob's inspiration concept. But which one is »REAL«?

In a sense they are both real, but you won't find any physicist talking about objects inspiring other objects to move, but rather forcing them to move. It is just an issue of language and inferred connotations.

In RM:AO, I get into the extremely ultra minuscule happenings even below the level of sub-atomic particles. In such an environment, there are no »things« to be pushing anything or to be pushed by anything. There simply is no pushing or pulling to be found. The concept doesn't apply. In order for the concept to apply, »things« have to form and then acquire a means to push other things. At that point, I could then talk about »force« as the average end effect of the infinite number of smaller occurrences that brought about that end effect. So »force« is a concept that can apply on a macroscopic scale, but not on a pico-scopic scale.

So in order to stay consistent, because a force makes no sense on the smaller scale, I (like most people) just say that »the larger concept thing doesn't ›really exist‹. It just appears that way«.

Science does that same thing on many issues. Science says that »pirits don't exist«. The reality is that it is just a matter of ontological construct. A »spirit« is merely the interaction of a group of things or the behavior of the group as a whole. When Science says that »spirits don't exist«, it is saying that there is no interaction within a body. But what do you have if you take out the interactive processes within a body? You have a dead body, exactly what the spiritualist was telling you, the spirit is no longer in the body = »the interaction processes are no longer in the body«.

So do spirits REALLY exist? It is just a matter of ontological language. In the language of Science, no they don't. But Science will agree that behaviors exist. You just have to use the right word for the same concept.

Atheists love to proclaim the non-existence of many things so as to promote Secularism when in fact, they are just using a different language and declaring that the other language is fantasy, even though they are actually speaking of the same things.

In the case of forces, something is implied that truly has no place on the ultra low scale of reality. Everything that is attributed to forces is understood without any lower level of force existing. Thus when I say that »forces don't exist«, I am not merely changing language. I am stating that when you get down to the very bottom of reality and what makes things work, there is nothing that you could rightly call a »force«. And when you raise the level up to the point where you could speak of forces and make a little more sense, nothing new has come into the ontology, no new element to be called »force«, but rather merely a combination of a great many smaller non-force actions, »inspired migrations«.

So in RM:AO ontological understanding language, Jacob was right and Newton was wrong (sort of). Things are »inspired to move«, not really forced. They move because of changes within them, not because of pressures on their »surface«. On the lowest level of reality, there are no »surfaces« either. And that is why nothing can actually be completely isolated from anything else - except through time.

Of course keep in mind, that reality itself doesn't care what anyone is calling anything. We choose our language for our own subjective issues. Our concepts never »actually exist«. The mind can never grasp actual existence, only a map of categories of affects in the terrain, a terrain that the mind will never actually know, only estimate.

To think about reality one MUST choose an ontology and stick with it. Conflating ontologies creates confusions, conflicts, deceptions and fantasies = »the LACK of understanding reality«. It is the same as trying to speak two languages at the same time. It doesn't work to communicate. And mixing ontologies doesn't work to form understanding.

So in RM:AO, forces don't exist. But that doesn't mean that in common physics they don't. And it doesn't necessarily mean that either is wrong (but it just so happens that forces cannot exist, even in common physics, on the ultra low level of existence).

Newton's laws were macroscopic principles, not principles of universal physicality. RM:AO is truly universal.“ **

The main problem is a linguistical one, thus a problem of words. But what do you think about the mathematical equations? Are Newton's equations according to RM:AO as problematic as Einstein's equations which are perhaps false?

And one more question:

What do you think about the four-dimensional space, also known as Riemann's continuum (cp. Bernhard Riemann), and about Minkowski's or Einstein's world (cp. Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein), thus Einstein's theory of relativity; especially the famous E = mc²?

„Jeder Grieche hat einen Zug von Don Quijote, jeder Römer einen von Sancho Pansa - was sie sonst noch waren, tritt dahinter zurück.“(Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. 50 **).
Translation:
„Each Greek has a trait of Don Quixote, each Roman has a trait of Sancho Panza - what they were otherwise, recedes behind that.“ (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1917, p. 50 **).

Who could be a „Don Quixote“ today? Who could be a „Sancho Panza“ today?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I understand this idealism (a projected good) that can drag us down. It can even make us mean and nasty when we believe we are the embodiment of all that is good. But this is also why I am always trying to bring philosophy down into myself and deal with it there.

Do you think that having this view from above it all is another idealism?

To put that question in a very different way, do you think that the ones we call the masters (or the 1%, or 20%, etc.) have acted in all innocence, or have acted out of an idealism, just an idealism that isn't fooled by a false conception of what others call »good«?“ **

I think, they do exactly that what is typical for humans or for Occidental humans. Have you read the book „Faust“ by Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, or „The Decline of the West“ by Oswald Spengler? No one could ever describe „Faust“ as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.

I recommend that two books, first Goethe's „Faust“, then Spengler's „Decline of the West“.

Geographically, the Occidental culture means the North, West, Central, Southwest, and some Western parts of East Europe. In the following maps you can see the Eastern border of the Occidental culture as a black line in the left map and as a white line in the right map:

                                                       „Grenze des Abendlandes“ = „Eastern border of the West (Occident)“.

„Abendland“ (= „West / Occident“) means the Western part of Europe, especially Germany, England, France, Italy, and the Iberian peninsula. The German word „Abendland“ literally means „evening land“.

The author of „The Idiot“ was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners, on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side has been existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn’t want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter („the Great“). Probably Dostojewski’s books were based on that two aspects. Do you agree?

You spoke of the Einstein era as if it had ended.

When will the „new religion“ be complete? First of all they had to create a „new theology“ because they had to create some gods, divinities, godhoods. But after that they had to create that „new religion“, and that has more practical aspects that we have been noticing for so long. Spirit is a taboo, although science is not possible at all without spirit. They are forcing more and more in their religious system. But obviously it is inevitable. The „new religion“ is not finished yet. There is going to come something more to us.

Is your relationship to philosophy substantially or even only determined by aesthetics?

554) Arminius, 28.08.2014, 09:57, 10:38, 11:36, 12:45, 15:48, 18:24, 19:14, 19:36, 19:54 (1921-1929)

The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.

No. Philosophy is not alive. Philosophy may be good, anyway, I like it.

„Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland.“ (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 792 **).
Translation:
„Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia.“ (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1918-1922, p. 792 **).

Wikipedia wrote:

„In Russia, Spengler sees a young, undeveloped culture laboring under the Faustian (Petrine) form. Peter the Great distorted the tsarism of Russia to the dynastic form of Western Europe. The burning of Moscow, as Napoleon was set to invade, he sees as a primitive expression of hatred toward the foreigner. This was soon followed by the entry of Alexander I into Paris, the Holy Alliance and the Concert of Europe. Here Russia was forced into an artificial history before its Culture was ready or capable of understanding its burden. This would result in a hatred toward Europe, a hatred which Spengler argues poisoned the womb of emerging new culture in Russia. While he does not name the culture, he claims that Tolstoi is its past and Dostoyevsky is its future.“

„Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend.“ (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 792, 794 [**|**]).
Translation:
„Tolstoi with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoi was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the Christianity of Dostoevsky.“ (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1918-1922, p. 792, 794 [**|**]).

Moreno wrote:

„What is the goal of stopping change? (some change, change per se, all change?)“ **

A goal could be the protection of nature, or the right and the duty of fair production and reproduction, but as you could and can see: each attempt of stopping change was, is, and will be answered with more change.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What is the goal in staying alive?“ **

A similar question. One answer: The will, the will to power, the will to be accepted or at least respected, ... etc., or to reach the anentropic harmony.

Note which word is chosen: „Attractor“! - That’s Faustian. ** **

Remember:

Arminius wrote:

„What you call »affectance« is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call »attraction«, and that is especially true for the electromagnetic »attraction«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Affectance comes much closer to being their ›mass field‹ or ›energy field‹.« **

„But »affectance« is a word, related to »affect«,»affected«, »affection«, ... and so on. So if I say »X has more affectance than X, and Y is affected by X«, I can also say: »X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X«.  –  James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„The good thing about anentropic harmony is that once attained, there is neither need nor desire to change from it. Of course, it is a type of changing already, but never away from its essence.“ **

The anentropic harmony is something like a paradise, a paradise for the „last men“.

„Seht! Ich zeige euch den letzten Menschen. Was ist Liebe? Was ist Schöpfung? Was ist Sehnsucht? Was ist Stern? – so fragt der letzte Mensch und blinzelt. Die Erde ist dann klein geworden, und auf ihr hüpft der letzte Mensch, der Alles klein macht. Sein Geschlecht ist unaustilgbar, wie der Erdfloh; der letzte Mensch lebt am längsten. »Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1. Teil, 1883, S. 13).
Translation:
„Look! I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star? - so asks the last man and blinks. The earth has then become small, and on it the last man jumps, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest. »We have discovered the happiness« - say the last men and blink.“ (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Thus spoke Zarathustra, Part 1, 1883, p. 13).

Obe wrote:

„The last man jumps, where?“ **

The last man jumps on the Earth. First I wanted to write „upon“ instead of „on“, but then I decided to write „on“. Is that okay, Obe?

Obe wrote:

„So as to become first, again?“ **

Actually not. But who knows? What do you think, Obe?

Obe wrote:

„Spengler's main influences were Nietzsche and Goethe, and it is very interesting to note, that Goethe's main influence was Leibniz, yet partly unbeknown to himself.“ **

Yes, that’s right.

„Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche. Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen, und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. IX **).
Translation:
„Finally, it urges me to once again mention the names, I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have got the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made of his moment an overview. But Goethe had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.“ (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1917, p. IX **).

Have you read Spengler's „Decline of the West“, Obe?

And my translation is okay for you, Obe?

555) Arminius, 29.08.2014, 01:35, 02:19, 03:45, 19:56, 20:12, 21:48, 22:33  (1930-1936)

The „end of history“ does not mean the „end of if one's life“, the „end of human evolution“, or even the „end of universal development (change)“, the „end of time“.

Arminius wrote:

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.“ ** **

Do you (**) believe in times when humans were without history - this time is also called „Stone Age“. Humans don't need history in order to survive. I think they can even better survive without history. Nevertheless: I do not plaed for or against the „end of history“. But I think that if humans have already history (and they do have!) and do not die out, then they have no other possibility than playing the history game until its end, and after the end of history there is something like a „Stone Age“ again.

Humans have no „free will“, but merely a relative free will.

You (**) are not lost here. Philosophy has many facets and aspects. And you don’t have to have read any book in order to be a philosopher. Having read books can be an advantage, but also a disadvantage; in any case it is not necessarily important in order to become or be a philosopher. I merely asked you about the knowledge of Goethe’s book „Faust“ (**|**) and Spengler’s book „The Decline of the West“ (**|**) because of rational or economical reasons: we would perhaps have saved some time and abbreviated some texts. But also that it is not necessarily important for philosophising.

Obe wrote:

„Nietzsche really admired Christ ....“ **

As far as we know (but also not for sure), Nietzsche admired Paulus.

Fuse wrote:

„Nietzsche wasn't against Jesus or what Jesus symbolized, but against what he traced to be a perversion of Jesus's memory -- the history of Christianity -- starting with St. Paul.“ **

We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus. Nietzsche in his „early times as philosopher“ was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his „middle times as philosopher“ was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche in his „late times as philosopher“ was against Jesus, although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about Nietzsche's relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the whole Nietzsche has to be considered.

In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow „knows“ what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean „human language“, but also „language for all beings“).

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle „luxury“, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. „Das Menschheitsrätsel“, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47): „The human beings are descended from the throw“ (translated by me) and „human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings“ (translated by me), no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?

That (**) is a bold thesis.

My guess is that you have not studied Friedrich Nietzsche much, otherwise you would have not said this.

„The Birth of Tragedy“ - for example - shows Nietzsche’s „early times as an adult philosopher“, and his „early times as an adult philosopher“ are one of the well „closed“ periods of Nietzsche`s philosophical life, and because of that Nietzsche in his „early times as an adult philosopher“ is not difficult to understand. The problem is the whole Nietzsche, his four or even five philosophical periods, not each of them because each of them are a well closed and well known single period, and, if combinded, probably also not two of them. The problem of understanding Nietzsche’s philosophical life is his problematic life itself, especially after he broke with Wagner (and „The Birth of Tragedy“ belongs to the period before Nietzsche broke with Wagner).

Stopping change is good when the change itself has become a problem, when every attempt of stopping it leads to more change ... and more and more change ..., when the disaster has already become apparent. I am not against change, but too much change is a problem. Unfortunately it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes, yes, and we have many examples for that - that was the reason why I said stopping change leads to more change (because stopping change requires change) and even more than more change (because stopping change leads to reactions, thus more change). It's almost a vicious circle.

In the film (**) is said: „Workers always lose. .... Economy always wins.“ And that is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness, ... and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely replaced by machines in the future.

Well done, Obe (**). But Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity to the success? It was Paulus. So your quoted source is not wrong, but the term „Nietzsche admired Jesus“ is a bit exaggerated.

556) Arminius, 30.08.2014, 01:01, 02:48, 03:16, 21:35, 22:14, 22:16, 23:41  (1937-1943)

Topic: Language, language development, language acquisition ....

A) Language (a) in general and (b) in particular.

B) Language development (a) in general and (b) in particular.

C) Language acquisition (a) in general and (b) in particular.

D) Human language (a) in general and (b) in particular.

E) Human language development within (a) evolution and (b) history (especially of the different cultures).

F) Human language acquisition relating to the (a) first language and (b) second (foreign) language(s).

G) Future of language (A-F).

Explanation:

Aa) What language in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ab) What language in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ba) What language development in general and actually means,also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Bb) What language development in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ca) What language acquisition in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Cb) What language acquisition in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Da) What human language in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Db) What human language in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ea) What human language development within evolution means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Eb) What human language development within history means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Fa) What human language acquisition relating to the first language means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Fb) What human language acquisition relating to the second (foreign) language(s) means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
G) What the future of language means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.

So A), B), C) refer to the language in general and in particular, D), E), F) refer to human language (what we usually mean when we say „language“) as well in general and in particular as within evolution and history, and F) refers again to the language in general and in particular.

Have you (**) „merely“ been threatened or even been physically attacked?

Perhaps it would be better anyway, not to speak of physical „laws“, but of physical rules. But on the other hand, what would be changed? after that change? The words would have got a different meaning - little by little -, not more.

Are those „liberals“ and „conservatives“ similar to those who are called „die Linke“ („the left“) and „die Rechte“ („the right“) in Europe? I think so, but in Europe „the left“ is interpreted as „the egalitarians“ (communists etc.) and „the right“ as „the liberalists“ (capitalists etc.). If you ask a politician from Europe whether he or (even!) she is „conservative“ the color of this person's face will change immediately like this: . And then this persons will say: „I am not »conservative«, I am »(social)democratic«“. Apparently there are merely „democrats“, namely „social democrats“ in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!

For example: A (Aa and Ab) and B (Ba and Bb).

According to A) and B) the following quoted posts might also give a hint:

A)

Arminius wrote:

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

Arminius wrote:

„I want to evidence that language has its own system, is a system by itself - similar to philosophy or mathematics for example ....“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Arminius wrote:

„I said that language is MORE THAN sound, NOT MERELY or NOT PRIMARILY sound. Proof:

Arminius wrote:

»Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarily sound (**|**).«“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Animal »languages« are very different to human languages, and this fact has always been clear to scientists or philosophers. Excuse me, but your premise is false because animals use language in a too much different way than humans do. Language is NOT only a physiologic phenomenon, it is a lingiuistic system (cp above: my posts), and this linguistic system is typical for human beings. Human language is so very much different to animal »languages«, that both became two language systems during the evolution. Human language is primarily a very much single language, a language by itself, a language system on ist own.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„There is an interdependence between language and logic. But which of both came first? ....“ ** **

B)

Arminius wrote:

Languages started with signs (cp. semiotic), the transition of semiotic signs to the first lingusitic signs was the beginning of the language in that sense we can use the word »language« very generally. The sound started later. Sound is not necessary for language, but an advantage, as all human languages indicate. Primitive animals do not need any sound for their language, they use a very primitive language, a chemical language.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Lizbethrose wrote:

»When I say language is sound, it's because, to me, that's how it began.« **

But it did NOT begin with sound, it began with soundless signs, with chemical signs (cp. my posts here and here and here).

One of my fields of study has been linguistics (degree: Magister) and language acquisition and language development - both are not the same (!) - was the theme of my diploma thesis. Sound is one of the high leveled kinds of language, thus it was NOT the beginnig kind of language.

Lizbethrose wrote:

»I imagine a small group of hominids ....« **

Language (in general!) did NOT begin with hominids, but with primitive living beings!

„If we want to talk about language seriously, we have to define the word »language« in order to prevent misunderstandings and unnecessary disputes. Language in general is very much more than human language, but human language is the greatest one. All the so called »progress« of human beings is based on the language of human beings. It's just the human language which led to the difference between the ancestors of the human beings and the human beings. That was the beginning of human language, the larynge sank which caused a very complex phonetic sound, the brain grew in an exponential degree. So one can say that the phonetical sound was important for human beings (=> their language development) and for their very young children (=> their language acquisition) and also has been being important for very young children (=> their language acquisition). But phonetical sound was NOT important for the general language, because in the beginning of general language there were only chemical signs - at that time there was NO possibility for any development of sound.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow »knows« what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean »human language«, but also »language for all beings«).

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle »luxury«, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. »Das Menschheitsrätsel«, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, p. 43-47): »The human beings are descended from the throw« and »human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings«, no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation,of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?“ ** **

1941

Oh, that kid (**) again!

Can you actually nothing but only write nonsense?

For those who don't want to derail this thread:

„S“, „NP“, „VP“, „PP“, „N“, „V“, „Prep“, „Det“, and others are part of the synatx tree (diagramm, a.k.a. „phrase marker“) which belongs to Chomsky’s „Transformational Generative Grammar“ („TGG“).

S = Sentence.
NP = Noun Phrase.
VP = Verbal Phrase.
PP = Prepositional Phrase.
N = Noun.
V = Verb.
Prep = Preposition.
Det = Determiner.

S = Sentence. NP = Noun Phrase. VP = Verbal Phrase. N = Noun. V = Verb. D = Determiner.

The resulting sentence could be: „The dog ate the bone“. Such a tree diagram is also called a phrase marker. They can be represented more conveniently in text form, (though the result is less easy to read); in this format the above sentence would be rendered as:
[S [NP [D The ] [N dog ] ] [VP [V ate ] [NP [D the ] [N bone ] ] ] ]

Philosophically, you don't have to know the details of Chomsky's linguistic theory, James. But if you are interested in his linguistic theory in general, in his generative grammar as far as it is interesting for philosophy, and in Chomsky hierarchy which is not only interesting for linguistics but also for mathematics and computer science (cp. machines), then please read at first the follwing article:

Wikipedia wrote:

Linguistic theory

The basis to Chomsky's linguistic theory is that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted.[118] He therefore argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of socio-cultural difference.[119] In this he opposes the radical behaviourist psychology of B.F. Skinner, instead arguing that human language is unlike modes of communication used by any other animal species.[120]

Chomskyan linguistics, beginning with his Syntactic Structures, a distillation of his Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75), challenges structural linguistics and introduces transformational grammar.[121] This approach takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a syntax characterized by a formal grammar; in particular, a context-free grammar extended with transformational rules.

Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" or "creativity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pa?ini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar, although it is also related to rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge.

A popular misconception is that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate, and that he discovered a "universal grammar" (UG). Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic data, the human will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has that the cat lacks as the language acquisition device (LAD), and he suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to determine what the LAD is and what constraints it imposes on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed "universal grammar" or UG.[122] Though Chomsky generated the universal grammar theory with the belief that language is uniquely human, a series of studies from various laboratories have shown the existence of acquired language in several great ape species, including common chimpanzees,[123][124][125][126][127][128][129] bonobos,[129][130] gorillas,[131] and orangutans.[132] Thus, great apes at least partially possess whatever mental functions might underlie the LAD, and are therefore important species of study for exploring the neural basis of language.

Chomsky's ideas have had a strong influence on researchers of language acquisition in children, though many researchers in this area such as Elizabeth Bates[133] and Michael Tomasello[134] argue very strongly against Chomsky's theories, and instead advocate emergentist or connectionist theories, explaining language with a number of general processing mechanisms in the brain that interact with the extensive and complex social environment in which language is used and learned.
Generative grammar
Different grammatical deep structures of a sentence Time flies 1.svg Time flies 2.svg Time flies 3.svg Time flies 4.svg

Generative grammar

The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, studies grammar as a body of knowledge possessed by language users. Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages.[135] The innate body of linguistic knowledge is often termed universal grammar. From Chomsky's perspective, the strongest evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native languages in so little time. Furthermore, he argues that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (the "poverty of the stimulus" argument). The knowledge of Universal Grammar would serve to bridge that gap.

Chomsky's theories have been immensely influential within linguistics, but they have also received criticism. One recurring criticism of the Chomskyan variety of generative grammar is that it is Anglocentric and Eurocentric, and that often linguists working in this tradition have a tendency to base claims about Universal Grammar on a very small sample of languages, sometimes just one. Initially, the Eurocentrism was exhibited in an overemphasis on the study of English. However, hundreds of different languages have now received at least some attention within Chomskyan linguistic analyses.[136][137][138][139][140] In spite of the diversity of languages that have been characterized by UG derivations, critics continue to argue that the formalisms within Chomskyan linguistics are Anglocentric and misrepresent the properties of languages that are different from English.[141][142][143] Thus, Chomsky's approach has been criticized as a form of linguistic imperialism.[144] In addition, Chomskyan linguists rely heavily on the intuitions of native speakers regarding which sentences of their languages are well-formed. This practice has been criticized on general methodological grounds. Some psychologists and psycholinguists,[who?] though sympathetic to Chomsky's overall program, have argued that Chomskyan linguists pay insufficient attention to experimental data from language processing, with the consequence that their theories are not psychologically plausible. Other critics (see language learning) have questioned whether it is necessary to posit Universal Grammar to explain child language acquisition, arguing that domain-general learning mechanisms are sufficient.

Today there are many different branches of generative grammar. One can view grammatical frameworks such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar, and combinatory categorial grammar as broadly Chomskyan and generative in orientation, but with significant differences in execution.
Chomsky hierarchy

Chomsky hierarchy

Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modeling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).[145] Indeed, there is an equivalence between the Chomsky language hierarchy and the different kinds of automata. Thus theorems about languages are often dealt with as either languages (grammars) or automata.

That's SCIENCE, and that's PHILOSOPHY too!

557) Arminius, 31.08.2014, 00:06, 02:26, 02:56, 08:04, 08:12, 08:37, 08:43, 11:24, 12:45, 13:34, 17:09, 21:20, 21:32, 22:23  (1944-1957)

What a luck for you (**) that you were one of the first, child, because children are inculpable, and you are even the most childish child, although already 14 years old.

What a luck for you!

Yuujin wrote:

„Can atheism explain love?“ **

No, although the atheists are very much religious (in a modern way: ideological), more religious than many of those who say that they are religious (atheists wouldn’t say that because they tell others and especially themselves a lie).

In the latter film (**) is said: „They don't care about you. They don't care, the will of the people is no profitable investment.“ (See 30.00-30.07 **). Thus one of the most improtant questions is: When will machines have a will?

Arminius wrote:

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

Arminius wrote:

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

1946

„Laws are actually material entities and actually nothing else really exists at all“ (**) - does that mean that you think there is merely matter, thus no spirit, merely material reality, thus no spiritual reality, or (in other words) that spirit reality and material reality are the same, and we have merely different words for them, so that matter and spirit are either spirit or matter?

1947

I said „machines will perhaps have will“, not „machines have will“. Please note the subtleties!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Such is pretty obvious to me. But having will is different than caring. People who are very uncaring are the ones giving will to machines. They design the machines to achieve objectives, letting nothing stand in their way. That is exactly what the woman in the video was expressing concerning the DHS operatives. They very seriously do not care about anything at all but becoming God. It is very much that "will-to-power" thing being applied. The machines will reflect their creators.

... and btw, people are already being enslaved by machines. People just don't realize it. That is how to become a god, "undetectably". Eventually, the Godwannabes no longer need "other" (unchosen) people and will simply eliminate them in the dark. They are animal farmers becoming machinists.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

Matter and spirit are actually just different concentrations of the same thing.“ **

That is exactly what I meant.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Mass and energy« are of the same substance, merely more and less concentrated. That substance is »Affectance« in an infinite variety of concentrations or »affect upon affect« and nothing more, also known as the »Changing of the changing«. The only thing being affected or changed is the affecting or changing. There exists no other substance at all.

The »law« is that which is affected least, yet affects most. Laws come in degrees/strengths, as do affects. The law that never changes (is least affected) is that which is the »most material«, »matters most«, is »most solid«, has the »most affect«. What we call »substance« is the application of the law. And the less the law is applied, the less it exists. And without the law, there is no existence. The application of the law is existence. But it is only the law that is applying itself. Thus the »law« is the application of the law and thus IS the existence. Without the law, there is no existence and without existence, there is no law.

It is a somewhat unnecessary philosophical point unless you happen to want to know the infinite details of the make of existence. The most extreme existence is the immutable law applying itself to the most extreme degree.“ **

What is your definition of „law“ then?

What do you think about the following classification?:

There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others) on the other side which is more material than spiritual. So we have:

|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| „versus“ |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|

This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines, but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.

There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations of the same thing, interconvertible, and that means that they are similar to energy and mass).

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„To me it is obviously a mere issue of focus. The spiritualists are focused on behaviors and the materialists are focused on objects.“ **

The reverse is also true.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Both often claim that the other doesn't »really« exist.“ **

Yes.

James S, Saint wrote:

„But it is a false dichotomy.“ **

Why false? Because for you dichotomies do not exist, right?

James S. Saint wrote:

„My earlier point is that what we think of as »immutable law«, is merely the extreme of what we call »matter«.“ **

But actually a law is spiritual.

So again: What is your definition of „law“?

Nietzsche also said that humans have no free will.

Humans have no „free will“, but merely a relative free will.

This thread is not „defeatist“ (**). Which „new faith“ (**), which „apocalypse“ (**), and which „morality“ (**) do you mean? Your religious or ethical interpretation is an exaggerated one. We are trying to find answers to the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Why can't you accept that?

Is the meteorologist a defeatist when he predicts bad weather? Why can’t you accept bad weather?

Is the newscaster a defeatist? Why can’t you accept the news?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Whether machines come to dominance is a result of human actions, to create those machines and put them in place in the society. Meteorologists measure naturally occuring phenomenon that occurs regardless of our actions. Reporters and Journalists report on things that have already occured.“ **

It’s not about „measure“, but about the report (forecast, prediction, thus future!), and it’s not about report on things that have already occured, but about the forecast, prediction (thus future!), and the way reporters report, and that way is „negative“, „pessimistic“, or as you said: „defeatist“ (news = bad news). And you have understood that, haven't you? Be honest, please!

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„This thread is defeatist because it demands that something must happen in the future, nothing can be done about it, that actions are hubris and it is not worth making an effort to change anything.“ **

„Nothing can be done about it“? Who said that? And if nothing can be done about it, ... what is the problem then for you? You remind me of the communistic dictatorship of the Soviet Union (USSR) which forbid its „people“ to be pessimistic or, as you said, defeatist, because that communistic dictatorship wanted 100% of its „people“ into the belief in the communistic illusion, thus into the so-called „optimism“.

I do not want to be forced to optimism or pessimism; I want no bondage or similar! Can you accept that?

Do you believe in change? In „positive“ change of course? And if yes, also then, if that change is obviously „negative“? Think of the dictatorships.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Ah, okay, so then we may be led on by fate and the universe into strength of will. What a hopeful thought.“ **

„Fate“? That is a very relatively free interpretation. Relatively free will does not mean „fate“ or even „amor fati“ (cp. again: Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

„What a hopeful thought“? That is either rhetoric or angst. Anxiety for fate, for defeat, for pessimism, for what?

Would you mind telling me where which problem is?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„You can be defeatist if you like. A communist dictator would threaten you with punishment presumably if he did not want it, I merely pointed it out. If you want to throw a tantrum because you can't accept the truth go ahead.

What is this?

I did not say I were defeatist. Sop trying to be rhetorical. It is useless.

„Defeatist“? „Communist“? „Tantrum“? „Truth“? Your „truth“? „Go ahead“?

Are you a communist?

James S. Saint wrote:

„What is your definition of »spiritual«?“ **

First of all I give you a dictionary example:

Langenscheidt wrote:

„Spiritual [...] geistig, geistlich, geistvoll ....“

Also according to Langenscheidt „geistig“ means „intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual“, „geistlich“ means „spiritual, ... ecclesiastical, clerical“, and „geistvoll“ means „witty“.

The word that fits best to „spiritual“: „geistig“, and „geistig“ means „intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual“.

So my favourite definition of „spiritual“ is „intellectual, mental“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The word »spirit« is often given two meanings;
A) principle of behavior or its design, process, or conceptual form
B) behavior itself, the processing in action“ **

That is very different to what the dictionaries „say“, for example Langenscheidt again:

Langenscheidt wrote:

„Spirit [...] Geist, Sinn, Temperament ....“

Also according to Langenscheidt „Geist“ means „spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect“, „Verstand“ means „understanding, intelligence, intellect, brains“, „Sinn“ means „sense“, and „Temperament“ means „temperament, ... spirits“.

The word that fits best to „spirit“: „Geist“, and „Geist“ means „spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect“.

Arminius wrote:

„»Geist« = »mind«, »conscience«, »consciousness«, »awareness«, »esprit«, »spirit«, »genie«, »intelligence«, »intellect, »apprehension«, »brain«, »sense« etc..“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

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

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

Note: „Anorganic things“ mean merely „physical-chemical things“.

558) Arminius, 01.09.2014, 00:51, 01:34, 11:30, 11:50, 13:08, 13:44, 16:47, 22:31, 22:59, 23:39  (1958-1967)

„Geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit!“ - Friedrich Schiller, Don Karlos, 1787.
Translation:
„Give freedom of thought!“ - Friedrich Schiller, Don Carlos, 1787.

Don Carlos (1545-1568), King Philipp II of Spain (1527-1598), Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), 1st print of Schiller's „Don Karlos“ (1787).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Lev Muishkin wrote:

»With a choice of avatar like yours it is probably not t good idea to attack others for their choice.« **

Look who's talking .... “ **

Oh, ... YES ...! The CHILD ...!

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„Insults are not allowed on this Forum.“ **

@ The Artful Pauper

This thread is not meant for an irreverent teenager.

Your hubris is that you can't accept any other statement than your own statement. Why do you not change? Here on this forum are many threads. Here follows the today's statistics: • Total posts 907708 • Total topics 39383 • Total members 6913. 39383 threads! And you can find only this thread? You really can't find another thread? I can't believe it.

You want us to judge anything like you do. That’s like communistic dictatorship of an irreverent teenager.

You have said absolutely nothing on the subject, but only bitched.

There were no „crooked answers“ (**). And I definitely did not sidestepped my entire previous comment. I don’t have to response to any stupid statement.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„The point I was making is that there is a process in place that machines are coming to replace humans, and it will take place if nothing is done about it.“ **

No. Defintely not because that is the point that we were making! You have understood nothing! You have merely bitched.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I made the assertion about defeatism ....“ **

Yes and because of bitching and wrongly judging our statements.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It then appeared from one of James S's responses that I was wrong and admitted that I may have been mistaken in my position.“ **

That is an amusing teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

The following quoted posts are James S. Saint's last three responses:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Spoken like a true irreverent teenager.
... clueless.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Could you be any more self-condemning?
Which is really worse, being »self-defeating« or being »self-condemning«?
... something you can't really ask a self-condemning person.... “ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Didn't you just say that »hubris is necessary«?“ **

Yes, James, he meant his own hubris as an irreverent teenager.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»That tire is only flat on one side. The rest of it is fine!??«
»And why worry about that one tire when you have 3 good ones!??«
»The cancer is only in the brain. The rest of the body is doing great. So what are you worried about?«

AP, there are only two ways to deal with a problem;
A) face the problem and work out a solution.
B) follow someone else who has faced the problem and worked out a solution.

You have more voice here right now than you will ever have in the rest of the world. You are talking to us directly and interactively. So having such influence, you certainly should be able to change our minds and attitudes. We believe there is a very high probability of a very serious problem to face. You believe the solution is to ignore it and just be positive (apparently). So okay, if you can't change our minds, you certainly can't change the rest of the world.
Make us believe.
... Else accept that perhaps you are the already defeated.“ **

And he is already the defeated because he does not respect what we say (cp. irreverent teenager).

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It seems that you are the one who can't stand someone with a differing perspective so you have to compare me to a communist dictator and call all of my assertions bitching.“ **

That should have been the reason for me „to compare“ you „with a communist dictator and call all of“ your „assertions bitching“? No. That's again your teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I can see that no fruitful discussion is taking place with me here ....“ **

That „fruitful discussion“ is not possible with you because you would not change your teenaged communistic dictatorship. In other words: You don't want that „fruitful discussion“.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I will leave.“ **

Thanks.

But, James, your definition of „spiritual“ - your „option (A)“ (**) - is far away from the common definition.

Relative reproductive interest because of the relative free will of living beings.

There is probably no selection but reproductive interest.

So we probably have (1) variation, (2) reproductive interest (instead of selection), and (3) reproduction as the three principles of evolution.

Who or what selects? God? The nature? The environment? That would mean very passive actors in evolution. The reproductive interest means at least partly active actors in evolution.

A reproductive interest is part of the will (and therefore also of the nature, environment), and because of the fact that living beings have no „free will“ but a relative free will the reproductive interest is merely a relative reproductive interest.

So I don’t deny the principle selection but I partly ignore it because no one knows who or what really selects.

So, what's the point (**) ?

James S. Saint wrote:

„How is »design«, »conceptual form«, and »principle of a behavior« NOT = »intellectual, mental«?“ **

I would say that the first and the third of that examples do not fit so much like the second example („conceptual form“).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Then what is a »design« if not a »conceptual form« (or »concept of the form«)?
And the "principle of the behavior" is merely the description, a mental thought of the relationships.

So I don't see how either of those could not be »mental«.“ **

Yes, that's right becuse they could be „mental“ but - for me - that isn’t enough to be the „best“ definition, although ....

In German the English word „design“ has become a loanword: „Design“ - for example used in the word composition „Internet-Designer“ („internet designer“). Do you know what internet designer means? „Design“ actually means in German „Gestaltung“. „Designer“ actually means in German „Gestalter“. For example: a „Raumgestalter“ means a „designer (Gestalter) of a room (Raum)“, thus what you call an „interior decorator“ or „interior designer“. The first word association I have when I hear or read the word „design“ is not „spirit“ - I can guarantee you.

The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt that it was God - is sometimes also called „designer“.

559) Arminius, 02.09.2014, 00:03, 01:05, 01:27, 03:06, 03:30, 15:49, 16:45, 16:55, 18:33, 18:39, 18:54, 19:00, 19:03 (1968-1980)

 
James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Who or what selects? God? The nature? The environment?« ** **

The Godwannabes. That's »who decides«.“ **

I thought as much!

But the Godwannabes are human beings, what I meant was also related to a time without any human being.

Obe wrote:

„Here again, the discussion strayed between feeling states of optimism/pessimism. These states are merely non categorical by now, and reverting to the basic break of either=trying to sustain in the romantic notion, as it should be,(how many bewailed this loss,), or to die-entangle it by way of de-signifying it, via the gradual relaxing of codes of standards particularly of censures of expression.

Knowing full well, the initial break started with the expression of exasperated logical and inconsequential relationships, between feeling states and actual changes in context and perspective,leaving little room for regrets.

So discussion on this level is fruitless, and see no need to regret anything, the different points of view are on different levels, where no real consensus can be attained.“ **

No. There are other reasons which make that „no real consensus can be attained“, and one of this reasons is the emotional motive, for example expressed in sarcasm. The first sentence of The Artful Pauper in this thread was: „This thread is really defeatist.“ (**). It is confusing because of the sarcastic background. His whole post:

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„This thread is really defeatist. It appears to me that you've all been taken in by a new faith. You're sitting around telling tales of the apocalypse and bemoaning that nothing can be done about anything, and any attempt would make things worse. You've even created a morality, condemning the hubris of fallen man who has caused the downfall of civilization.“ **

Because of the fact that I had a good conversation (**) with him in the „END OF HISTORY“ thread I was very much surprised when I read all that sarcastic words. And I think that this sarcasm respectively the motives for that sarcasm are the reason why „no real consensus can be attained“ (Obe).

In any case: the „pessimism/optimism“ dualism is not the main reason why „no real consensus can be attained“ (Obe) because it plays no role in this discussion. The „yes“-sayer are no pessimists, but probably realists, and the „no“-sayers are no optimists, but probably idealists. The words „pessimism“ and „opimism“ are moreover disqualified (because of too much abuse) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**).

Moreno, for example, is a „no“-sayer. According to you, Obe, „no real consensus can be attained“ between „no“-sayers ans „yes“-sayers, but the truth is that Moreno and some other „no“-sayers can find a consensus with the „yes“-sayers. Note:
„Yes (by trend)“ means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. ** **
„No (by trend)“ means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%. ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Obe wrote:

»Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered ....« **

And it is the case in this thread! The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the „yes“-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the „yes“-sayers are the fewest.“ ** **

And I very often said that for me the probability that machines replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**); thus the 20% probability that machines will not replace all humans is not low (note: probability calculation!).

The Artful Pauper has not read the whole thread but probably some sentences of it and come to the „decision“: „Defeatist“. And that's not okay, folks!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Way back before Eugenics, the Situation (aka »Reality«, »God«) was dictating who got to continue living and who didn't. And of course, it was never an issue of »the greater survivor«. It is always an issue of the greater survivor for the particular situation it happens to be in at that time. It is ALWAYS up to »The Situation«, »The God«.

But of course the Godwannabes intervene and rearrange the situation such as to manipulate the outcome, fooling not merely the people, but even those fooling the people, and themselves.“ **

And themselves, of course. That's true.

But again: What I meant was also related to a time without any human being.

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

Arminius wrote:

„Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. »Das Menschheitsrätsel«, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, p. 43-47): »The human beings are descended from the throw« and »human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings«, no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation,of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„If we consider the principle „luxury“, ... the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.“ ** **

For human beings luxury is not the exception but the rule.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„Revolution takes the form of a rejection of luxury ....“ **

No. The so-called „revolutions“ are also and especially a part of the luxury. They are a special kind of luxury for they occur because the so-called „revolutionary“ want the power and thus the greatest possible luxury gratis, without any work, without any effort, ... and so on.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„Luxury lifts man up out of the animal kingdom of the suffering hell of nature- it is our birthright as a conscious species. Now we must learn to control this right else its power ruin us by setting itself up continually as a limitation.“ **

If we tried to control that, it would merely lead to more injustice, unfairness, and so on because it would make the upper class very much richer (in an expoentially way, so that it perhaps will lead to a new human species), but the middle and lower class very much poorer, so that there soon will be no middle class anymore.

Many years ago, when the Occident began to more and more aggressively meddle in the affairs of Ukraine, my certain idea was that later the Western Ukraine will come under Occidental and the Eastern Ukraine under Russian control.

Do you remember what the deal was when the „Cold War“ ended? All Occidental countries of the Eastern bloc countries under Occidental, the other Eastern bloc countries, thus also Ukraine, under Russian control, and the US promised to adhere to it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Incorporeal" resolves to it »having no size« and »nothing obeying it«.
A thought/design/idea/concept/principle/law that has nothing obeying it, has zero affect and thus has zero physical existence.“ **

To you, does »zero physical existence« also mean »zero existence at all«? I remind you: According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. That which has »zero existence« could have a »spiritual« existence.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But »the design« (not »the designer«) is »the form« itself, the idea in the mind into which to »mold the environment - gestalt«. In ancient times, especially with Plato, the form itself (if perfect) was considered »a divine entity«. A perfect square was a divine entity. And many used the word "spirit" to refer to those entities, whether forms of living entities or not.

For years, I have stated that the word »spirit« gets conflated between »perfect forms« and »actual behaviors«. In scriptures, it is used both ways. An »angel« in Catholicism is »an idea« or »thought«, similar to Platonic entities. But a »spirit« is an action, often brought about by a thought. Often God is referred to as »the highest angel«, meaning the greatest, all-encompassing thought/idea. People trying to find and form that »highest thought« into society is what has caused a great, great deal of serious trouble, especially when they conceive the highest thought to be one requiring the killing of many people (as the science-secularists do today). When their idea requires the murder of a great many people, they say, "God commanded it", meaning merely that the idea requires it in order to be manifest.

So to me, the greater issue isn't one of who is using which words, but rather the aspiration of them trying to arrange for the highest idea being the governance of Man, the Ubermensch. Those are the »Godwannabes« because their highest ideal always insists that THEY are on top dictating to everyone else (if they even allow anyone else to live at all). Secularists prefer using a machine to be that dictator controlling or manipulating the thoughts of all people so as to be their »perfect ideal governor« = »God« or »Man(ager)«. But look who is programming their machine.“ **

If we want to talk reasonably, we must first agree on the words (logemes, lexemes) that we use, thus we must define.

If we say „»the design« (not »the designer«) is »the form« itself, the idea in the mind into which to »mold the environment - gestalt«“, then it is okay, so that we can use it in connection with „spirit“, although the word „design“ has also a different meaning.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„An atom is a self-valuing, holding itself in existence by the manners in which it regulates and interprets energy based on what it is.“ **

For valuing one has to be able to estimate, for example of something’s worth; in the case of self-valuing the self’s worth. But for the ability of estimation and consequently of valuing one needs awareness, and for awareness one needs something like a brain or at least an electric transmitter like a nerve.

How can - according to the Mechanical Monster or to the „Value Ontology“ („VO“) - an atom be a self-valuing? Are you saying that an electron is the electric transmitter I mentioned?

Anand Droog wrote:

„A Post-Hegelian Theory of History.“ **

Would you mind telling me what your exact reason was when you decided to use the term „Post-Hegelian“?

Obe wrote:

„I agree with Moreno, that consensus may be reached ....“ **

Where and when did Moreno say that? It was me who said this:

Arminius wrote:

„Moreno, for example, is a »no«-sayer. According to you, Obe, »no real consensus can be attained« between »no«-sayers and »yes« -sayers, but the truth is that Moreno and some other »no«-sayers can find a consensus with the »yes«-sayers.“ ** **

The term „can find a consensus« does not mean „Moreno said that consensus may be reached“ because he didn’t, but true is that he can find a consensus.

Please note that I didn’t say that he said that a consensus can be reached, but I said that Moreno and other members of this forum are good examples to show that a consensus can be reached. See the corresponding posts of this thread.

If a consensus can be reached, then it is not necessarily sure that a consensus will always be reached. It depends on many factors.

Obe wrote:

„I appreciate Your looking into the distinction. Carry on!“ **

Thank you, Obe. Carry on!

Anand Droog wrote:

„Well I should've said a development on the Hegelian idea. Hegel said there's thesis and then contending antithesis, in the historical progression. My work shows that since there are 2 contending factions in humanity, this kind of progression is only natural.“ **

Hegel said there’s thesis and then contending antithesis, in the historical progression, and then there’s synthesis (please don’t forget!).

Why is „this kind of progression only natural“, as you said, or (in other words) what did you mean by the words „only“ and „natural“ when you said „only natural“?

You've misunderstood me a little.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„Obviously by »controlling« luxury, luxury as a human-social limit, I mean something other than the exponential increase of the rare wealthy class at the expense of everyone else.“ **

I did not mainly mean the „exponential increase of the rare wealthy class at the expense of everyone else“, but I mainly meant the character, the being of humans because I said:

Human beings are luxury beings.

The classes are merely a part of the consequences. Either there are two classes (upper and lower) or there are three classes (upper, middle, lower), and believe me: the higher the number of classes, the better the society as a whole. A „classless society“ is no society but a primitive horde, often without real houses. In any other case: a „classless society“ is rhetoric of those who want to become the upper class, thus the power, thus the luxury.

Mechanical Monster wrote:

„As for revolutions, of course they want the »comforts of life« and their revolution is in part a rejection of that society which has not granted these to them.“ **

That’s merely their rhetoric. They do not reject anything of that society, but they have to „say“ the reverse, the lie. That's all rhetoric in order to get the power and have more of the comforts of life than those who are allegedly / reportedly the „bad men“ („capitalists“ an so on) - in reality both are bad, and the revolutional followers are even worse than their predecessors.

They merely want the power and thus the luxury - that’s all!

There are merely two kinds of human get-together possible: (1) a modern one (with a middle class and modern luxury) or (2) a non-modern one (without a middle class, but with non-modern luxury). What remains? The power, the classes (either two or three), and the luxury, but either as (1) a modern one or as (2) a non-modern one. If there will be no human luxury anymore, then the Earth will have become an inhabitable planet.

560) Arminius, 03.09.2014, 03:50, 04:09, 17:56  (1981-1983)

In German there is also this euphemism: „nur natürlich“ („only natural“).

Bummer: „The YouTube account has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.“

Pandora wrote:

„New link: **

Thank you, Pandora.

The nature is full of violence, full of cruelness, full of abominations, and any and every living being is equipped with the will to live, the will to power. Even then, if we really want to take responsibility for nature, we could not do it, because we are also living beings. So the human promise of „responsibility fort the nature“ is a lie. Having said that, we should not be surprised about that lie.

Here are some more interesting videos: ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Schopenhauer was the earlier and the better „Darwin“. A half century before Darwin Schopenhauer explained philosophically, especially metphysically, how the nature works. Accordig to Schopenhauer the cause is the „will“, the „thing as such“ is the will. A half century later Darwin said that the cause of evolution would be the natural selection. Darwin was a theologian, and thus his statement has a theological aspect because of the question: „what or who really selects?“. However, Schopenhauer was the discoverer or founder of evolution.

We don’t know the first cause; we can believe in a so-called „unmoved mover“(Aristoteles) or in a so-called „thing as such“ (Kant) which became later the „will“ (Schopenhauer); we can also believe in coincidence and its following „selection“ (Darwin); but the latter is the most imperfect one of those four explanations how development and/or evolution work.

We don’t need to say that Darwin was totally wrong, but we should be allowed to say that he was partly wrong, in any case more wrong than Schopenhauer. We also don’t need to consequently negate the nature because it is so cruel (and it is very cruel!). Because of that we can faith in Nietzsche and his affirmation of all development (thus also evolution and history), but also not too much!

==>