671) Arminius, 19.03.2015, 12:35, 18:07, 19:42, 22:27, 22:51, 23:42, 23:57 (2727-2733)

And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.

Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).

Phoneutria wrote:

„That doesn't sound right, dear. I think the word you are looking for is »decadence«.“ **

I am not looking for another word. „Isms“ are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.

The last one is „homo hedonisticus“.

Can machines become living beings?

Can machines get a living being consciousness?

What about the double-aspect theory of consciousness?

For example: In one of his threads, Erik seeks „to outline the double-aspect theory of consciousness“ as follows:

Erik wrote:

„In this thread, I will seek to outline the double-aspect theory of consciousness expounded by Arthur Schopenhauer, and then upgraded by later philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Peter Sjöstedt-H.

Here are my three premises that I will delineate:

1.) Consciousness is not identical, nor reducible to the physical brain.

2.) The physical universe is a mode of representation, not an objective reality independent of the mind.

3.) Reality consists of individual, primal forms of consciousness - all of which are competing for power ( panexperientialism a la » will to power « ).

Premise 1.)

Many within the scientific and philosophical communities, today, subscribe to the position that the physical brain caused consciousness to spring into existence, or that awareness ( consciousness/mind ) is identical to the brain.

The former position doesn't take into account the ' hard-problem ' of consciousness; how does non-conscious, physical material generate immaterial, subjective experience?

The latter, erroneously, conflates the mind with the brain. Yes, the mind and the brain are correlated, but correlation doesn't entail identity, nor causation. One could, easily, make an argument for Berkeley's subjective-idealism. As prior mentioned, correlation doesn't mean identity, nor causation per se.

Premise 2.)

The external world that we experience is a mode of representation, not an objective reality independent of our minds. The naive position that the external world exists just as we perceive it is called " direct-realism ". This position is so ingrained in most people, that even some, nay, many academics still hold to it; but any honest and educated individual realizes the folly of this position. The external world is a mode of representation correlated to our human minds. The color green, for example, that we perceive on the grass is not an inherent property of it; but rather a form of qualia. We project the greenness unto the grass, as it were.

Immanuel Kant ( Schopenhauer's greatest influence ), believed that even space and time are a priori projections of the mind, that they are parts of our human 'spectacles ', which allow experience to be possible.
Double-aspect theory proposes that the universe, the spatio-temporal world, is a mode of representation correlated to human minds. Other organisms will represent their ' worlds ' in unique, idiosyncratic ways.

Premise 3.)

Arthur Schopenhauer believed that the ultimate nature of reality ( the Will ) was a-causal, a-temporal, a-spatial --- non-dual; but Nietzsche departed from Sch. in two ways: he didn't believe that the Will was one or non-dual, but rather plural. And he didn't think that the nature of the wills were primarily centered around survival, but rather power, hence the ' will to power '.

I agree with Nietzsche that reality consists of individual, primal forms of wills to power ( energy with intent ). We can observe how plants seek to acquire power by extracting nutrients from the soil and energy from the sun, in order that they may grow, expand, become ( I.e., acquire power ). Even in the inorganic, we can see how matter strives for power, which we represent as gravity and gravitation.

Note that I don't believe that plants and inorganic matter are conscious in the same way that humans are ( self-reflective consciousness ). These lesser forms of will-to-power systems possess primitive forms of subjectivity. It would be better to think of them as energy with intent.

Conclusion

This amalgamation of pan-experientialism, the will-to-power, and double-aspect theory, I believe, solves the ' hard problem ' of consciousness, and more plausibly accounts for the nature of reality.“ **

2730

Money has a good and a bad side. Most currencies in the world are not tied to the gold standards or anything substantial. Gold and other rare material things have also a good and a bad side. The less tied money is, the more catastrophic the effects are, if the trust in money has vanished. Since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years.

To whom belong the following four avatars?

Can machines become living beings?

Can machines get a living being consciousness?

It is no accident that „trust“ is very similar to „faith“ and „belief“.

672) Arminius, 20.03.2015, 01:01, 01:30, 02:03, 13:25, 14:02, 20:21, 21:56, 22:34, 23:57 (2734-2742)

Hegel's dialectic was, is, and will be Hegel's dialectic, Hegel's method! Of course! That's logical, even tautological.

Pythagoras' dialectic or others' dialectic, thus also Kant's dialectic, are not like Hegel's dialectic.

Orb wrote:

„Money is mostly funny! Although dollars cease to be backed by gold or silver, the trust in it is supported by the guarantee that it could buy it back.

Most of this gold and silver and other rare material things are stolen from Germany (1945). When will the US respectively the Fed (!) give the whole gold (especially the whole gold of the Reichsbank - I don't mean the Nazi gold, altough that should also not be in US or Fed ownership, but it is), silver and other rare material things back to Germany?

1) Tomorrow.
2) After the next „crash“.
3) After the peace treaty.
4) Never.

I know that this is a „tender subject“.

The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or no one of them.

Kriswest wrote:

„I want twin grandchildren one named Hedon and the other named ...?“ **

Antihedon.

With this post my whole posts have reached the number „1929“. My point is that the year 1929 was the beginning of a world economic crisis; and if we consider that since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years, then we can easily calculate when the next world economic crisis after 1929 should have averagely begun: 1999. But 1999 a world economic crisis did not occure, but the Euro was implemented, probably in order to prevent a world economic crisis; howsoever, the next world economic crisis after 1929 began 2007, 78 years after 1929.

The world economic crisis of 1929 was released in the USA by financiers, and the world economic crisis of 2007 was also released in the USA by financiers.

Ecmandu wrote:

„Moreno wrote:

»Ecmandu wrote:

›This is an easy question to answer actually... human genetic code can match machine code, it just depends on whether we engineer humans to be as smart or smarter than machines. That should take all the hype away. I just recently read Gates and hawkings warnings... nonsense, we can engineer humans to control robots with their minds.‹ **

So we will treat humans as and make them machines. Sure, as I said in an earlier post, this is one way machines are replacing humans.« **

There are already humans with these abilities, we'd just be replicating them... there are other species with these abilities as well.“ **

The question in the op of this thread (**|**) is not whether humans replace humans, but whether machines will completely replace all humans.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you remember your last vote, Moreno?« ** **

Yes, yes. Pardon any confusions my way of participating leads to.“ **

Never mind.

Moreno wrote:

„I think that if you are a modern rationalist (small r) you should think that machines or some kind of artificial mixed thingy humans and then mixed things make, will replace us. So when I see arguments against this that I think are being made by people who have, given their system of beliefs, a good reason to doubt this, I press for the yes position. I see this as wishful thinking and denial on their part. An unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of what they take as normal and rational and the at worst nature of corporations and those with power. I might react similarly to a Christian asserting that they knew they were going to heaven and were clearly relishing the thought of their opponents going to Hell. IOW I see this as a problematic moral position for a Christian. With the rational often materialist modernists I see logical, perceptual and intuitional weaknesses when they think machines will not replace us. Not having their system of belief I have reached another conclusion.“ **

So, you would not mind seeing your name in the „yes“-column again?

Erik wrote:

„So, I've been inspired by Prismatic's thread ( on the dollar **) to create my own thread about the value of money, in particular: the dollar.

Questions:

1.) Do we, really, need to have our dollars backed up by gold?“ **

No. You do not need to, but you should have your dollars backed up by gold, because gold is much more safe than paper. If it comes to a monetary crisis and your dollars are not backed up by gold, then all your dollars are lost, because of the lack of safety.

Erik wrote:

„Could society function without it?“ **

Yes. It could, and it can, because you and I live in such societies, and they function as long as there is no monetary crisis.

Erik wrote:

„2.) If yes, then how come primitive societies could function by merely exchanging coins?“ **

Because they were much more interested in a very much concrete money and in safety. Coins, goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and even slaves seemed to be „moving money“ or even „living money“ (animals, slaves). They did not have huge problems with their monetary system, because money was much more safe: backed up by the goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and slaves.

Erik wrote:

„I'm not adept in economics, so forgive me if I come off benighted; but frankly I think the value projected unto money by gold is an illusion, better yet, a delusion!“ **

Never mind, Erik. The less safe your money is, the more risk you have. The dollar is as safe as the trust (faith, belief) in it is safe. Thus the dollar is one of the least safe currencies of the world. The dollar and other currencies are risk currencies which have their safety merely in paper and people who have trust (faith, belief) in this currencies.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The greatest problem with immaterial money is the ease with which a governance can delete someone's worth and manipulate the world.“ **

Yes. And that is what most people do not understand.

Arminius wrote:

„Artimas wrote:

»›Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.‹« **

The German banker Mayer Amschel (Bauer) Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, said that.“ ** **

If the distinction of the so-called „progressives“ and the so-called „conservatives“ makes any sense (beside the propaganda), then this: only the conservatives can stop the destructive exploitation of all living beings, the whole planet Earth, and its neighborhood (this all has to be concerved!), because the progressives are hedonists , thus the most destructive exploiters.

673) Arminius, 21.03.2015, 00:00, 21:19, 21:48, 22:22, 23:11 (2743-2747)

Most parts of Sigmund Freud's whole theory are false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Feminism is hedonism.“ **

They are mutually dependent.

Immaterial money makes the 1% of the humans richer and richer (more powerful and more powerful) and the 99% of the humans poorer and poorer (less powerful and less powerfull). Both groups differ more and more from each other, so that they have nothing to do with each other anymore. Perhaps they will become two different subspecies of the species homo sapiens or even two different species.

Would you mind going into details?

I asked this because of two of my threads:
- „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **
- „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“ ** **

674) Arminius, 22.03.2015, 00:13, 01:01, 02:24, 13:47, 14:10, 14:30, 21:55, 22:22, 23:13, 23:44 (2748-2757)

Philosophy does not mean „love of wisdom“. Philosophy means „love to wisdom“.

The first definition would mean „wisdom's love“ or that „wisdom loves“, thus it would mean nonsense. The second defintion is the right one and means that „one loves wisdom“ or „one has the love to (have or/and get [more and more]) wisdom“.

In German this „love to wisdom“ is called „Liebe zur Weisheit“ - you may compare it to „Wille zur Macht“ („will to power“), if you know the German nihilistic philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.

Instead of the preposition „zu“ („to“) one can alternatively use the preposition „für“ („fo“): „Liebe für Weisheit“ („love for wisdom“) - for comaprison: „Wille für Macht“ („will for power“). But one should never use the preposition "of" in this cases because the terms would get an entirely different meaning.

Amorphos wrote:

„Well it may be so that humans replace all machines :mrgreen: i.e. If we don’t find a way to keep making machines or run out of raw materials.

I think that inevitably something will replace both humans and machines [as we know them].“ **

For comparison:

Amorphos wrote:

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

I certainly hope so and I think they will. Not just that but sooner than one may think. All it requires is for computers/camcorders to have stereoscopic 'vision', and object rendering in a 3D live point-field I.e can 'see' [possibly in higher definition that we can at some point]. By that time if not already, I think robotics will be dexterous enough to move faster than we can.

Once paid for, the cost of running these machines should become far cheaper than humans [and greener], especially when they are made from artificial diamond, carbonado and other super-materials. All of this is available either now, or will be within the next 5-10 years apparently [and I believe it].

Q. when I watch star trek NG and see alien creatures operating sophisticated machinery with claws and all manner of weird appendages, I cant help but wonder how they would ever have created and made such machines. However, it is plausible that more advanced creatures like humans, could have built such machines and sold it to them e.g. for mineral rights on their planet etc.
Then what becomes of humans if we no longer need to build and maintain such machines? What if all the machines stop working one day?“ **

The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called „psyche“, „soul“; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.

Amorphos wrote:

„An intelligent machine would preserve us .....“ **

Probably they will not preserve humans, because humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.

Amorphos wrote:

„Lets imagine that at some point in the near future, a machine who’s brain is composed of artificial neurons each being a quantum computer is created. It would perceive the quantum matrix by which the universe is manifest, and know that humans are a product of that. It would know what consciousness is and would either be conscious itself, or otherwise see that humans are conscious.“ **

The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:

Arminius wrote:

„The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called »psyche«, »soul«; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.“ ** **

Amorphos wrote:

„IF there is no purpose to existence or it cannot deduce what that is, then there would be no reason for it to destroy humans, as we are the product of existence and the only ‘purpose’ to it all. Simply being and living would be what it would want [if conscious], and hence would have no reason to take the same thing away from us.“ **

Machines are rational products of humans, but they are nonetheless not like humans: too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.

Amorphos wrote:

„If it saw us as a danger e.g. Via overpopulation or waste of resources, it may at most [if it could] reduce our numbers. However, as i see it, long before we produce such a machine, we would necessarily have to build an un-programmable core to future machines ~ robots etc. The reason is that as soon as you make robots, people will use them for crime, murder etc..“ **

Yes, mainly. And that is also a reason for machines to replace all humans. It is just rational. It fits to what I said before: humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.

Amorphos wrote:

„Ah yes, well if we succeed then indeed i think machines will replace human beings in the workplace and wherever we want them to do the shit we don’t want to [most jobs].“ **

You mean this:

Amorphos wrote:

„That's not the same as ‘completely’ replace humans though.“ **

That's right.

Amorphos wrote:

„Perhaps we will find a way to transpose our consciousness into a better vehicle, but is that replacing humans or replacing our bodies/brains?.“ **

....:

Arminius wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»An intelligent machine would preserve us .....« **

Probably they will not preserve humans, because humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.

Amorphos wrote:

»Lets imagine that at some point in the near future, a machine who’s brain is composed of artificial neurons each being a quantum computer is created. It would perceive the quantum matrix by which the universe is manifest, and know that humans are a product of that. It would know what consciousness is and would either be conscious itself, or otherwise see that humans are conscious.« **

The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness -probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:

Arminius wrote:

»The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called ›psyche‹, ›soul‹; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.« ** **

Amorphos wrote:

»IF there is no purpose to existence or it cannot deduce what that is, then there would be no reason for it to destroy humans, as we are the product of existence and the only ‘purpose’ to it all. Simply being and living would be what it would want [if conscious], and hence would have no reason to take the same thing away from us.« **

Machines are rational products of humans, but they are nonetheless not like humans: too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.

Amorphos wrote:

„If it saw us as a danger e.g. Via overpopulation or waste of resources, it may at most [if it could] reduce our numbers. However, as i see it, long before we produce such a machine, we would necessarily have to build an un-programmable core to future machines ~ robots etc. The reason is that as soon as you make robots, people will use them for crime, murder etc..« **

Yes, mainly. And that is also a reason for machines to replace all humans. It is just rational. It fits to what I said before: humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society??

For the past 50 years or so, the promotion in the West is that there IS no difference between the male and female other than the placement of their genitalia. Of course, due to tens of thousands of years of contrary experience people (and even Science) have declared otherwise. The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different?“ **

Yes, women are and should be different from men, and men are and should be different from women. They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.

Oh, come on, you know what that connection is.

Amorphos wrote:

„Please explain what said rational is!?“ **

In my example: „rational“ in the sense of „not emotional“. Machines are „not emotional“. They were and are produced merely for rational reasons by humans who applied and apply them economically, rationally.

Orb wrote:

„But machines and humans and consciousness and unconsciousness are not independent that's the flaw in the argument. There is a co dependency.“ **

Which argument do you mean? Machines, humans, and unconsciousness were not considered as being independent; and consciousness was considered as being partly independent.

Amorphos wrote:

„Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests.“ **

That image suggests sadness but not angst.

Amorphos wrote:

„If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice.“ **

Humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive!

This thread is about the value of money, and i.e. „too expensive“ means that more money is needed for paying, whereby the value of money changes, if no other measures are taken.

Orb wrote:

„Back, sorry. back,You said consciousness is a little bit independent, a little bit?“ **

I said: „pretty much“, „most of all“, „partly“, but not „a little bit“ - „a little bit“ is what we „know“ about the consciousness, I said.

Orb wrote:

„I propose that they are not at all independent.“ **

I thought so. And I say this:

Arminius wrote:

„The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:

»Arminius wrote:

›The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called 'psyche', 'soul'; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent. (**|**). ** **

Orb wrote:

„Let's put it in a different way. How do You define dependence or independence?“ **

I define those words as they are used in your language.

Orb wrote:

„On what level of reality are You talking about? this definitional objection is what interferes in the basic sense, in any way to determine, how anything at all can be said about relationships in general. In fact it can not be defined, regressive lay to the level,Magen and where it was customary to do so.“ **

Excue me, but I find these statements too de(con)structive, too nihilistic.

How do you define „dependence“ and „independence“?

675) Arminius, 23.03.2015, 01:02, 01:18, 01:30, 15:49, 16:08, 16:49, 19:19, 19:19, 21:09, 22:41, 23:07, 23:59 (2758-2769)

In my example, I was not speaking about „any product“ but about humans themselves, although they are also products.

I do not know what your point is. Excuse me.

As long as we humans do not know whether the consciousness is dependent or independent, we can say that the consciousness is partly independent or partly dependent but not that it is absolutely independent or absoluetly dependent - similar to the will as a relatively free will or relatively unfree will.

And look at the machines again! Study the machines!

The intellectual can be the brute, and the brute can be the intellectual.

„Philosophy“ means what „philospohy“ means. The definition of „philosophy“ is about 2500 years old. There is no other definition possible. It is not debatable. There are no opinions of the meaning and definition possible, because it has already its meaning and definition. It is not possible to change them, but it is possible to not know them or to forget them.

Arminius wrote.

„I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«).“ ** **

The need of the difference between males and females is to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And the „free will“ is merely a relatively free will.

If sex and gender belong together, then: A person's sex is not assigned at birth but long, long, long time before the birth. A person's „gender ... doesn't fit“ is as long nonsense or even a lie as this person has the same sex that he/she had long time before birth. A person's „hormone therapy“ does not change the sex of this person. This person merely thinks that his/her role does not fit and perhaps wants to change this role. That's all. This person can do it; so there is no problem at all. If you are a man and want to behave like a woman: okay, just do it! But your sex can merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs in order to get the new (female) sexual organs. If you are a woman and want to behave like a man: okay, just do it! But your sex can merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs in order to get the new (male) sexual organs. But this is what 99.99% of this „male-female“ and „female-male“ persons do not want.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But all that is going to happen is that »homo-sapian« is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; »mutants«, cyborgs, Rev2, »new and improved«, ....“ **

But this is still in the making. The process has not ended yet. And as long as it has not ended yet, we should do what we use to do. And don't underestimate the coincidence.

Like I said: „They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.“ ** **

If humans will not have any difference, they will either create differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able to win any fight.

In the following animation the different one is not an human but an android machine:

I answered your question, and it was a very direct answer. And I don't think that my answer was in too much German English.

You asked:

„Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society?? .... The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different?“ **

I answered:

„Yes, women are and should be different from men, and men are and should be different from women. They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.“ ** **

That was a very direct answer. And I thought that I don't have to explain to you what „to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens“ means.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But you do. The »yes« or »no« was the easy part.“ **

Yes, and this was my answer to „easy“ part:

„Yes, women are and should be different from men, and men are and should be different from women.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is the exact »WHY?« that matters.“ **

Yes, and this was my answer to the „exact WHY“ part:

„They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.“ ** **

That IS exact, if one knows what „to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens“ means.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Exactly how does male and female distinction help prevent extinction considering today's and the future's technology?“ **

I also answered this question.

You asked:

„But all that is going to happen is that »homo-sapian« is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; »mutants«, cyborgs, Rev2, »new and improved«, ....“ **

I answered:

„But this is still in the making. The process has not ended yet. And as long as it has not ended yet, we should do what we use to do. And don't underestimate the coincidence!“ ** **

I did not want to go into details. There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, ... and so on ....), ... and so on ....

676) Arminius, 24.03.2015, 01:07, 01:32, 02:01, 17:23, 18:08, 22:37, 23:01, 23:27, 23:42 (2770-2778)

The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.

When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.

So, I thought that I did not have to explain to you (!) what „to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens“ means, because it implies these differentiations / specialisations.

Again: Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.

Humans designed and design machines, and machines were and are better, less emotional, less egoistic, ... and cheaper than humans. Humans gave and give them value. Humans did, do and will commit a fault. Machines also konw (because they have learned it from the humans) that machines are better, less emotional, less egoistic, ... and cheaper than humans. And at the end of this process the humans will be replaced. I estimate that this probability is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Artimas wrote:

„This is what this discussion is about ... and almost every discussion that goes on between Ucci (Uccisore) and Ecc (Ecmandu): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE.“ **

Where did you find this fantastic song, Artimas?

Orb wrote:

„Describing an irreversible situation is never productive, even if it seems as if it was.“ **

„Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.“ - Thomas Gray.

Orb wrote:

„»I would far rather be ignorant then wise in the foreboding of evil.« - Aeschylus.

»Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.« Darwin.“ **

„Ignorance und arrogance
dance the same dance.“
- Paul Mommertz.

Orb wrote:

No! Ignorance is when you do not know better, arrogance says »I don't give a damn«.“ **

Thus they fit well together and dance the same dance all day long. Maybe they dance the dance called „tolerance“ (for example): the ignorance from the one side and the arrogance from the other side.

So Mommertz is right:

„Ignorance und arrogance
dance the same dance.“
- Paul Mommertz.

Orb wrote:

„Again no, because ignorance may have an undercurrent of good intentions as a driving force, but arrogancee lacks this. Sure they may walk the walk, and dance the dance, but they mis step, stepping on each's others' toes, it is a very frightful and nervous jitterbug, not a greater waltz at all.“ **

You are wrong, because it is said that they dance the same dance. Your dancing partner does not know whether you have „good intentions“ or not. Moreover, it does not matter - the dance goes on. Music, please!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arrogance spawns ignorance and ignorance spawns arrogance.“ **

Yes. Like I said: they fit well together; so they can dance together; they are perfect partners; they are one of the most perfect couples.

677) Arminius, 25.03.2015, 00:12, 01:13, 02:17, 15:29, 15:41, 15:52, 16:19, 16:57, 17:19, 17:43, 18:34, 19:43, 21:14, 22:41 (2779-2792)

The arrogance and the ignorance are no opposites. They can even be (for example) the ignorant arrogance and the arrogant ignorance. They have the same origin - both linguistically and extralinguistically.

Mommertz calls the relationship between ignorance and arrogance a „dance“. Okay, he is right. He is a poet, and poets use metaphors. But why do I explain this? Do you really not know what is meant by the words of this poet?

„Ignorance und arrogance
dance the same dance.“
- Paul Mommertz.

And do you really not know what is meant by the words James S. Saint used philosophically and also poetically?

„Arrogance spawns ignorance and ignorance spawns arrogance.“ (**) - James S. Saint.

„Abrahamic Theism“ is not a well chosen term.

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.

Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.“ ** **

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are »ja-sagende Religionen« (»yes-saying religions«) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are »nein-sagende Religionen« (»no-saying religions«). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, »Der Wille zur Macht« (»The Will to Power«), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no »three Abrahamic religions« because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.

Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.

Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.

.... Not that any of them do a very good job of any of it.“ **

From this thread:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Abraham has a ›loaded gun pointed on head‹ to the extent that he was willing to kill his only son when he believed God would pulled the trigger and send him to hell if he did not obey God's command.

The question is how did Abrahamic believers end up with a loaded gun pointed on their heads?

This is based on their false beliefs that they will die in hellfire if they don't adhere to God's command in the holy texts.« **

That part would only be true of the Judist and Muslim faiths, a bit anti-Christian. Christianity is Hope-based, not threat based (you might try actually reading the NT).“ **

That is true. Christianity is hope-based, not threat-based.

2781

Fiat money is probably the last step before the step of no money: the machines pay instead of the moneyless humans who are more effectively controlled than ever before.

2782

Orb wrote:

„Those who argue along this line of reasoning will definitely arrive at a misinterpretation upon those to whom such differentiation will spell impossible. here both ideas will become reversible, therefore a spawned ignorant from arrogant will spell same as arrogant from ignorant. fewer excuses will be allowed, and a theatre of torture will consume both.“ **

I disagree.

Orb wrote:

„The theatre of torture refers to Artaud. And the next ref. Barthe. How far can You carry literature by association? How much farther by poetry? Much more so, but nit within the mode of traditional poetry. Free form has been along very long, and the proof is in the pudding, analysis may be variously supported by a network,much as robots have been instilled within, choosing open systems over closed. This is not an example of systemic arrogance born of ignorance. It is based on newly arrived encyclopedic associations. Most arguments are still done in closed systems, patently waiting for structural renewal.“ **

I disagree.

You are misinterpreting something.

2783

Amorphos wrote:

„If robots aren’t benign in design, i do think there will be trouble, human beings will use them for crime etc...“ **

For example, yes, and human beings have been doing it since they are able to do it. That is also a reason for the mechanical beings to replace the human beings.

Amorphos wrote:

„Some when soon »they« will need to be controlling what schematics can be used in 3D printing and other additative technology [don’t know why they cant call them replicators?].

The future is going to happen, we need to be dealing with it very soon imho.“ **

Yes. But - unfortunately - according to those human beings who are i.e. ignorant and arrogant there is nothing what we need to be dealing with, because according to them nothing is going to happen ....

2784

Orb wrote:

„Disagreement does not change anything ....“ **

Change always happens. Disagreement (compare: antithesiss) is even one of the motors for change. And if you want to compare disagreement with ignorance or arrogance, then you can only say: „ignorance and arrogance do not change anything“.

Orb wrote:

„The facts speak for themselves.“ **

Yes, they do.

And we can extrapolate what probably will happen.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„No big issue, to explain what the term meant in this OP.“ **

Yes, „meant in the op“, no doubt, but it is wrong.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„»Abrahamic Theism« = Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.“ **

No.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„If you don't think »Abrahamic Theism« is appropriate, just interpret it as theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.“ **

No.

I don't know whether you are of the opinion that I said that „machines are better than humans“ - I never said that, but now I say: machines can many things better than humans - otherwise there would be no single machine.

Do you know any current human being who is able to build a gothic cathedral without machines? There is no one. Humans are not able to do things what humans of the past were able to do. Humans have been making themselves dependent of machines. And we can already foresee that they will be not able to produce music without machines.

It is just a sad story that humans have been destroying themselves in this way.

The main point is - like I often said in my first machine thread (**|**) - that machines do not have the negative aspects that human beings have, especially when it comes to work effectively, economically, thus in a profitable and frictionless way.

Hence I posted the following image (amongst aothers) several times:

My text and even the picture in my last post are not meant pessimistically. I think pessimism and optimism have nothing to do with this theme. We only have to see what happens and consequently extrapolate what will probably happen in the future. Additionally, most human beings will probably not notice their extinction.

The Romantic period had nothing to do with depression. Depression is merely your interpretation. The Romantic period was a different period to the period of today. Now we have to „judge“ anything and everything „optimistically“ - it is like it was and is in all communistic and other socialistic societies. The period of Romantic was very much different to what happened after it. I do not want a commanded pessimism or a commanded optimism (besides: pessimism and optimism are convertible) or any other kind of depression of communistic and other socialistic societies. The Romantic period has very much to do with irony and also self-irony. Don't confuse your situation with the situation of the people during the Romantic period.

Ecmandu wrote:

„Well... what would you call it? Adam and Eve theism?“ **

The jewry (jewishness, judaism) is an abrahamic religion with an abrahamic theism.

Ecmandu wrote:

„There are clearly passages where people exhort to Jesus as on the son of David (Jesus never refuted this), but in the story Joseph never had sex with Mary, and he was the descendant of David. The whole tale starts with Adam and Eve, moving into Islam and then Christianity. I'm not sure what your argument is here.“ **

It is a rhetoric trick or ploy to put some relgions together just because they refer in some quite unimportant cases to the same „thing“. If you take other aspects as a basis, then you soon notice that Buddhism and Christianity have much more in common with each other than with any other religion. Buddhism is partly hinduism and partly not hinduism. Nevertheless: Buddhism belongs historically to the Indian culture with its hinduistic religion(s). But what do we want to know when it comes to live together? We want to know how our ethics amd morality are. Buddhism and Christianity answer this question very similarly. In this important case they on the one side and other religions on the other side are even opposites.

Eric The Pipe wrote:

„*It's called the dollar because of the Thollar family, which was a rich family that used paper as receipts for things... The receipts would be passed around as „Thollar receipts“ .... The crazy ability of English speaking people slowly turned it into dollar .... Which is why other countries use the name Dollar...

No. The origin of the dollar is the German Taler.

Wikipedia wrote:

„On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called „Joachimsthaler“, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ??? („talari“), Italian tallero, Polish talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar.

A later Dutch coin depicting a lion was called the leeuwendaler or leeuwendaalder, literally »lion daler«. The Dutch Republic produced these coins to accommodate its booming international trade. The leeuwendaler circulated throughout the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. This coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies and in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New York). It was in circulation throughout the Thirteen Colonies during the 17th and early 18th centuries and was popularly known as lion (or lyon) dollar. The currencies of Romania and Bulgaria are, to this day, »lion« (leu/leva). The modern American-English pronunciation of dollar is still remarkably close to the 17th century Dutch pronunciation of daler. Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies were known as „dog dollars“.“ **

2791

Orb wrote:

„Is art dead and buried, that we have to visualize a period in visiting representations of it?“ **

Art is as buried as God is - unfortunately.

Orb wrote:

„Are there not people today who still live as if the period was still meaningful and alive within their own sense of being?“ **

I am afraid that most of them are „buried“ too. If people do not see any sense in reproduction of themselves but merely in their own personal self-preservation (without reproduction) by misusing any other kind of life sense, thus if they are too hedonistic, too decadent, too nihilistic, then they are lost.

Orb wrote:

„I would say yes to that, and there need not a confusion arose as a consequence, although. It takes a lot of,art appreciation to change the way things are looked at.“ **

Yes, but art is as dead as God is - unfortunately.

Orb wrote:

„To me surrealism is the most meaningful way to gap the ages, a visual stream, and a method this develops, very painful at diets, and visually excruciating, but then, one must not fear the method of this madness. Lest it becomes lost for ever. (Not the madness, but the method).“ **

I advise you against surrealism. But if it helps you personally and gives you a real sense, okay then ....

Orb wrote

„I know You will disagree, however, disagreement is the bedrock of constructing reality, and really I do agree, to disagree.“ **

I guess, you mean this in the sense of Hegel’s dialectic: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope, we are not going to derail this thread.

It doesn't matter very much today whether religions „talk“ about Adam and Eva or about Abraham, if the people want to know how to live together and under which ethical and moral conditions they can live together. The quintessence of the AT and the Koran is very much different to the quintessence of the NT. Today it is not important to know whether there were („once upon a time“) Adam and Eva, or Abraham, and other fictional „persons“, eating, drinking, and lenten regulations. Modern Christian people are interested in their religion because they want to know whether their religion is social or not, hope-based or not, threat-based or not, what kind of ethics and morals is important for them, what will be after their deaths, what it has to do with their current lives, but they do not want to know whether there was i.e. „Abraham“ or not. In addition: Ethically / morally it is not important to modern Christians to know very much about the NT, whereas Jews and Muslims have to know each sign of their holy texts in their holy books. In Christianity it is allowed to change the text of the NT, whereas Jews and Muslims art not allowed to change a tiny sign of their holy texts in their holy books. And: Christianity is not as monotheistic as Jewry and Islam.

Following: a copied post.

678) Arminius, 26.03.2015, 02:14, 15:59, 16:14, 16:40, 17:13, 17:21, 17:36, 17:43 (2793-2799)

Orb wrote:

„Incidentally Arminius but I wrote on my daily journal blog re flight my original entry into usa from Frankfurt when our turbo prop almost crashed into the Atlantic ocean. I erased it got bogged down with it. Now I open today's paper and find the unfortunate news of the tragic loss of flight 9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf a place I spent some timr eons ago.

Condolences for the loss of your fellow countrymen.“ **

Thank you very much, Orb.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Kant argued Metaphysics is an impossibility ....“ **

No. Are you sure that you really have read books of Immanuel Kant?

Kant merely argued that a too speculative metaphysics which his philosophical predecessors excessively used is not able to realise without any perception. Many of his philosophical predecessors had tried to realise God by pure reason. Kant has changed the (concept of) metaphysics, because according to him metaphysics should not longer be the „science of the absolute“ what it had been to all his philosophical predecessors, the dogmatic philosophers. According to Kant metaphysics is the science of the knowledge borders. Kant re-created i.e. the epistemology, but he did not say that metaphysics in general is an impossibility. The epistemology is the „border police“against all pretension, hubris, border crossing beyond that what is experiencable, Kant said for example.

Matt MVS 7 wrote:

„Evolution defines pleasure as the only good.“ **

No. That would be no evolution. You define „pleasure as the only good“ (look at your title of your thread).

Just compare the Old Testament with the New Testament and you will soon notice that the Old Testamet deals very much more with threat than with hope and that the New Testament deals very much more with hope than with threat. And the quality of threat and hope shows the same difference and relationship, also the violence and the quality of violence, ..., and so on .... The bottom line is that one could say: the Old Testament and the New Testament almost contradict each other.

One question:

Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word „gender“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„More often it is hidden behind the word „sex“ when there are more significant distinctions.“ **

Thus the difference is hidden. ....

Ecmandu wrote:

„Lot's of people confuse them, but they are technical terms.“ **

People are wanted to confuse them.

Ecmandu wrote:

„I always found it annoying that sex also refers to the act of sex, not the physical features of the sex, because of this confusion, I think most people assume that gender is the right word. People can have a psychological baseline and have many different talents and personalities (gender).“ **

How would you exactly define these two different words and concepts: „sex“ and „gender“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„It's being hidden quite intentionally (so as to manipulate it).“ **

Yes, of course. That was my point.

Following: a copied part of a post.

679) Herr Schütze, 27.03.2015, 23:09 (2801)

Deutschland hat genauso wenig Kinder wie schon in den 1970er Jahren. Daran hat sich nichts geändert. Die Prozentzahl der Kinder hat sich also nicht wesentlich geändert. Aber die Zahl der Sozialhillfeempfänger hat sich geändert und durch die Einwanderung sogar dramatisch verändert. Die Quantität und Qualität der Verbrechen sind dramatisch gestiegen. In bestimmte Stadtteile traut sich die Polizei schon längst nicht mehr. Die Ausländer müssen zurückgeschickt werden, und zwar möglichst bald. Ansonsten werden wir hier bald den schlimmsten Krieg aller Kriege erleben.

680) Arminius, 28.03.2015, 00:55, 01:30, 04:09, 04:23, 04:24, 04:53, 16:18, 17:10, 17:25, 18:43, 19:11, 20:38, 21:20 (2802-2814)

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Come on .... I had asserted my reading of Kant many times and I have quoted from Kant's books many times which implied I have at least read his books. It does not reflect well on you to ask such a question.“ **

Rhetoric.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„The proper question is whether despite one having read Kant's book, did one fully grasp Kant's philosophy.“ **

You did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy, perhaps because you have read Kant's books in English.

Otherwise you would not post such false statemants (see above).

We do not need any other word for sex than „sex“. „Gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Note Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel and other German philosopher read Kant's work in German but yet missed the central message and the various nuances of Kant's work.“ **

No. Hegel and Schopenhauer did not miss the central message and the various nuances of Kant's work.

What are the central message and the various nuances of Kant's workis according to you?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I agree translation is a factor but this limitation is reduced with extensive refinements of the translations and expositions from various scholars and comparative studies.
In our current age to use the limitation of language and translation is one of the worse defense.“ **

One of „the worse defense“?

The following video is about the „wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn“: **

Copied post in another thread.

Zerubbabel wrote:

„The Left is the voice of environmental conservation. The Left is the voice of conservation of natural resources ....“ **

Conservation. Thus the left is conservative, the right.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„If Schopenhauer had understood Kant's central message, he should have known how Kant's used of the noumenon or thing-in-itself fit perfectly like a piece of jigsaw within the whole of Kant's philosophical system.“ **

What you mean is something very different. You mean that Schopenhauer was not Kant. That is - of course - true. To „miss the central message“ means something like to „not understand the central message“, right? Schopenhauer understood Kant's message. And Schopenhauer used Kant's „Ding an sich“ for his „will“-concept, but that does not necessarily mean that he did not understand Kant's „Ding an sich“.

James S. Saint worte:

„He (**) could have said much more, but that was an excellent sample of the problem we have been talking about for the past year or so (intelligence design) - the birth of a man-made species far superior to Man = the replacement and extinction of human beings.“ **

Yep.

The people do not have any problem with it - the problem is merely that „gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control, and nothing else.

I mean that we need merely one word for it. What counts the most in this case are the biological facts, because biology is the begin and end of life. If a male wants to be a female, then he can go to a surgeon who changes his male sexual organs into female sexual organs; if a female wants to be a male, then she can go to a surgeon who changes her sexual organs into male sexual organs . If a male wants to behave like a female, then he can do it and is called a „gay“; if a female wants to behave like a male, then she can do it and is called a „lesbian“. So there is no problem at all.

Or are you of the opinion that we should worship them?

Which of the fwo words was the first one in the English language: „sex“ or „gender“?

So one word is used in a biological (especially: physiological) sense, the other word is used in a psychological/sociological (especially: political) nonsense.

That's just what I was thinking.

Again: there is no problem at all. Politicians and media folks create a problem in order to manage this problem, thus to control the people according to the slogan „divide and rule“ („divide and conquer“).

Ecmandu wrote:

„Actually, my take is that obfuscating the differences in gender cause more problems than pointing them out.“ **

Obfuscating differences is also a huge problem, but in the case we are talking aboout the „problems“ are invented, produced, created in order to manage them, and „to manage them“ means „to control people“.

At first it is said that there are many problems because of diffenrences, then it is said there should be no difference and therefore i.e. „gender mainstreaming“ must be established.

Kriswest wrote:

„Oh please, then we would also have to not differentiate between left and right, up and down, etc..“ **

The differnce between „sex“ and „gender“ is not comparable with differences like „left“ and „right“, „up“ and „down“, and other opposite relationships, because there is no opposite relationship, and there is no difference but the difference between biology/physiology and politcs/media.

Kriswest wrote:

„Gender has been in use since the 14th century.“ **

The meaning has been another one than today. All Englsih speakers have used the word „gender“ in a different sense than it should be used according to the current politicians and media folks. Since politicians and media folks dictate the „gender mainstreaming“ the English speakers have to - and most of them do (!) - use the word „gender“ in a different sense than before.

So it's not me who wants to steal your word „gender“, but it's the rulership that has already stolen it, at least it original meaning.

Kriswest wrote:

„And if it is being used to control, they are certainly doing a piss poor job of it. Because according to you the people do not have a problem with it. So your control does not exist.“ **

I think you have not read my posts. .... - Actually the people have no problem with it, then they are told (by politics/media) to have a problem with it, then they believe that they have a problem with it, and then they have a probelm with it. The control exists. And it exists very well. And the control is the main problem. Thus they are much more controlled than before.

Ecmandu wrote:

„If you can resolve gender differences, you can resolve wealth disparity and war and suicide and disease cure innovation and energy innovation... the goal of dispersing is money and sexual hoarding.“ **

One can use it in both ways. And we experience the one that is very much easier for the rulers to manage in order to become richer, more powerful.

==>