681) Arminius, 30.03.2015, 01:04, 01:18, 01:34, 02:02, 04:16, 05:08, 14:57, 15:46, 17:32, 18:31, 18:49, 19:19, 20:51, 21:43, 21:59, 22:01 (2815-2830)

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Nature as a whole doesn't think.“ **

You know that nature doesn't think? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Evolution has no purpose, it simply happens.“ **

You know that evolution has no purpose and simply happens? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!

Artimas, you have not answered my question (**|**).

Artimas wrote:

„Reality is no deity either.“ **

You know that realitiy is no deity? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!

Amorphos wrote:

„There will be limits to how large an effective intellect can grow without the distance between connections being too great, or the very amount of different thoughts in the consciousness becoming too vast and confusing.“ **

It is more probable that there will be no limits to how large an effective intellect can grow, but it mainly depends on how the intellect is used and is allowed to be used.

Moreno wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»I often say that those who say or/and think that they are not religious are more religious than those who say or/and think that they are religious. Not the truth but the lie is the easier and more effective way when it comes to get, to keep, and to expand power.« ** **

Can that change?“ **

Well, the rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not tbe pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie (when the machines will have taken over [**|**]).

Artimas wrote:

„Actually use, we are »god« in it even did exist. We have the capacity to obtain new knowledge and create new things out of that knowledge. Two characteristics of a »deity«.“ **

No. You are confusing a deity with a living being.

To „obtain new knowledge“ means something like „to learn“ and to „create new things out of that knowledge“ means something like „to apply what has been learned“ - thus: both mean two characteristics of living beings.

Living beings can learn and apply what they have learned. Have you forgotten that?

Human beings are also living beings, very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.

Amorphos wrote:

„I think people in 20 years from now will have far more time on their hands, artists and artisans of all kinds will be much in demand.“ **

Humans have been having enough time for it for so long. So humans will also not do it »in 20 years from now« or later. The machines or nobody will do it.

Amorphos wrote:

„The machines of the future will be able to produce unique items as easily as standard ones.“ **

Yes, the machines (the machines!) will be able and are already able to do that.

Amorphos wrote:

„Put the two together, + that human creativity is what we have which the AI don’t have, = far greater interest in all arts. or, why wouldn't it go like that?“ **

1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above) and have been being decadent for so long.
2.) Many (probably all possible) things came, come and will come together in that case.
     So the machine replaced the rest, replace the little rest, and will replace the very little rest of human arts.

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

I hope that we will not derail this thread. Maybe we should continue this conversation in my „machine“ threads (**|**|**|**) or your „internet“ thread (**).

Artimas wrote:

„Living beings can also be 'gods'.“ **

That's nonsense, because that destroys the whole definition of „god(s)“.

B.t.w.: The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you seem to be: „Remember that you are a mortal being“.

Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to the definition of „god(s)“.

Wiktionary wrote:

„God .... Noun .... god (plural gods) .... A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.“ **

You are young. So I guess that nobody has ever told you the definition of „god(s)“. It is a truism.

Mags J. wrote:

„The scene:

As I stood on the landing ready to go downstairs I saw what I thought was a bear dart past.

I shouted to everyone to stay upstairs and go to the nearest bedroom for safety.

The beast eventually made its way upstairs... it wasn't a bear but a jet black lion, and was groomed like a poodle.. all curly black mane and hairless body with hair around each paw. He pushed against the door, but his fragile frame had no effect on the closed door so he toddled off.“ **

Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens) lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and other harmless animals. So there is no other sense behind your dream and no other (mostly paranoid or megalomanic) interpretation of your dream meaningful than the simple fact that you are frightened because there is a discrepancy between your species memory and your personal memory. What did you do at the said day before you went to bed, Mags?

Orb wrote:

„The dreams she is having may not require personal experience with wild animals. Personal memory may be hidden from an abyss, or type memory, whereas, as far removed we are from the origins, they are still intricate parts of the overall content of our sub conscious.“ **

I did not say that Mags had personal experiences with wild animals. Please read my post. I said Mags had no personal experiences with wild animals. ....
And „sub-conscious“ (?): well, you can interpret anything and everything with „sub-conscious“. That's pure arbitrariness.

Orb wrote:

„That's just the point, having or not having experiences with wild animals is irrelevant. Dreams of them still come up and the may mean something.“ **

One has to be very careful, because there is no real prove or evidence for your statement that „dreams still come up and the may mean something“. One could also say that dreams mean nothing, because there is also no real prove or evidence for it. We merely have our own experiences and the knowledge of our ancestors. The rest is arbitrarily interpreted.

Artimas wrote:

„You can't define what a human being is until death, because you still don't know. Possibilities.“ **

What? You, Artimas, can't define what a god is (perhaps until your death). But you tried it - of course: falsely. The definition of „god(s)“ is absolutely clear:

Wiktionary wrote:

„God .... Noun .... god (plural gods) .... A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.“ **

You tried to define „god(s)“ in a new way, of course: falsely. See above.

Now you start the next error with the term „human beings“. That's ridiculous. „Human beings“ are very well defined and can be experienced too.

Wiktionary wrote:

„Human being .... Noun .... human being (plural human beings)
1. A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
2. Another, extinct member of the genus Homo.“ **

Human beings are mortal beings - by definition and by experience (a human can experience that e.g. one of the other humans is dead and conclude that all humans are mortal). Gods are no mortal beings - by definition. See above.

Again: The definition of „god(s)“ and the definition of „human being(s)“ are very well defined.

So you are denying the generally accepted definition of „god(s)“ and the definition of „human being(s)“, probably also of e.g. „earth“, „moon“, and „sun“. That means that you are a nihilist.

Are according to your „opinion“ human beings at least living beings or does that also depend on the definition of „anyone“?

B.t.w. It was not you but me who told that there are cycles, especially spiral cycles, in the universe and in life:

Arminius wrote:

„My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.“ ** **

Amorphos wrote:

„Humans will have the power of the ‘off button’, there is no reason for us to give up power to other humans, why would we give it up to AI.“ **

Humans make mistakes, flaws, errors, faults. And whom do you mean by „us“? 99–99.99% of the humans do not have enough power. 0.01–1% of the humans decide whether they give up power or not, and maybe that it is even too late for this 0.01–1%, and, if not, this 0.01–1% will probably decide falsely. Humans are just not really perfect.

Amorphos wrote:

„I don’t see any reason for AI to exist than as an intelligent experiencing being like humans. There is a very big universe out there, and AI could shut itself down over long distances. If anything that would always be an argument we limited life span conscious beings have!I.“ **

Machines can and probably will get the power.

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»I think people in 20 years from now will have far more time on their hands, artists and artisans of all kinds will be much in demand.« **

Humans have been having enough time for it for so long. So humans will also not do it ›in 20 years from now‹ or later. The machines or nobody will do it.

Amorphos wrote:

»The machines of the future will be able to produce unique items as easily as standard ones.« **

Yes, the machines (the machines!) will be able and are already able to do that.

Amorphos wrote:

»Put the two together, + that human creativity is what we have which the AI don’t have, = far greater interest in all arts. or, why wouldn't it go like that?« **

1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above) and have been being decadent for so long.
2.) Many (probably all possible) things came, come and will come together in that case.
     So the machine replaced the rest, replace the little rest, and will replace the very little rest of human arts.“ ** **

Copied post in another thread.

682) Arminius, 31.03.2015, 17:24, 17:51, 18:25 (2831-2833)

Orb wrote:

„In reference to the recent crash of German wings from Barcelona to Düsseldorf, the question came up of override of the computer systems which basically flew the airplane on auto pilot. pilots are uncomfortable with the idea of leaving takeoffs and landings to computers, but, and this is a big one, what of present trends continue,many most accidents happen as a result of pilot error or malice, would that not in the future call for very sophisticated systems which could detect those types of happenings?“ **

That flight (9525) was no accident.

I remind you:

Arminius wrote:

„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.

That was no accident! ** **

They have come up with lies which already stink to the high heaven.

Amorphos wrote:

„I meant that machines will be able to manufacture bespoke items designed by humans.“ **

Yes, I know, but the theme was „the buried arts and the ability/non-ability to reawaken arts“: ** **

Since the date when humans became „modern“ - whenever it was - they have been following the idea that „something“ should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this „something“. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.

Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play „God“

683) Arminius, 01.04.2015, 03:28, 15:20, 15:20, 15:25 15:30, 16:08, 18:00, 20:17, 20:36 (2834-2842)

Please note: Probably humans will no longer have the sole decision!

James S. Saint wrote:

„In Congress bills are designed to be extra wordy, complex, vague, and delivered at the last moment just to prevent congressmen from reading and fully understanding them before signing them (Obamacare for example). Executive orders are used to get around Congress entirely. "National Security" is used to keep so many things secret, you wouldn't be able to determine the significance of issues anyway. And that includes a large part of Congress.“ **

In the EU the laws are not read but just signed. They are too complex and very rarely understandable for the human EU representives.

James S. Saint wrote:

„In physics, things get so deeply complex and mathematically oriented that the physicists completely lose touch with reality, and they usually don't know it. Dealing with how a machine "should" deal with people gets far more complex than particle physics.“ **

It seems to slip away ....

James S. Saint wrote:

„The designers have no chance of maintaining perspective and conscience. They can't even figure out the "purpose of life" question, much less what to force everyone else to do about it.“ **

„Purpose of life“ - I should open a new thread!

Amorphos wrote:

„Sure a computer will one day be better at all levels of commerce, and may make many political decisions, but those decisions will be judged and assigned by humans.“ **

Why by humans?

Moreno wrote:

„I would not use an intelligent machine to baby sit my kids. No way.“ **

Unfortunately, that is already exercised in Japan.

Amorphos wrote:

„Oh, and if the world became united you wouldn't need armies.“ **

Are there armies in the United States? Yes. Will there be armies in the United World? Yes, of course.

The more dangerous enemy is oftener „inside“ than „outside“.

Orb wrote:

„Why dream at all, if not for some purpose?“ **

The purpose is a neurological (thus biological) one: information processing in order to keep the living being neurologically alive.

Amorphos wrote:

„But i have absolute utility, command of it. All these ideas rely on AI being not conscious or intelligent, if AI did have control i think things would be better for us humans.“ **

Why do you think that it would be better for us humans, if AI did have control?

Amorphos wrote:

„It does all come down to purpose, wouldn’t it be nice if we knew ours ~ like an AI would know it was created by us and to help us and it survive and thrive. We don’t even know what created us let alone purpose.“ **

What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human beings)?

Amorphos wrote:

„An AI which concluded there to be no purpose, would have no reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for.“ **

AI is no living being in the biological sense we are used to define. So we do not know whether this technical being has to have a „reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for“.

Amorphos wrote:

„You have to give AI a purpose to do that.“ **

Why?

Kriswest wrote:

„Arminius,
The government and media are not trusted, they are at their lowest point.“ **

Yes, but that does not mean that they have no power. They are at the lowest point of their possibilities, but they are not at the lowest point of power.

Kriswest wrote:

„In my 50 years I have watched trust go to hell, from poor to wealthy.
The only ones out of millions that follow are the ones desperate to belong to a movement. Most just don't listen. We are too busy trying to live. The media and government may be in most homes but, they are not part of that home. Gender, sex, the average human could not truly give a rat's ass in hell.
They use the words depending upon who they talk to. Grandma, boss/ gender, friends, peers / sex.
What the words mean is not what the people use. Over reading can cause issues.“ **

Maybe, but the influence still exists. Most people do not really notice the influence.

Kriswest wrote:

„If the influence is not felt, does it make a sound?
I do see that if government and media are trying to influence they just are not putting in the effort. They are pointing their weapons of influence in other directions. Education is a major point.“ **

Education is a major point, but the current education seems to tend to its lowest point.

684) Arminius, 02.04.2015, 14:48, 15:14, 18:12, 19:03, 20:26, 21:55 (2843-2848)

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Why do you think that it would be better for us humans, if AI did have control?« ** **

Market and resource management would be better. Armies would become unnecessary.“ **

In very meaningful cases machines already have control, and armies are not unnecessary. So we can extrapolate that armies will probably also not be unnecessary in the future.

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human beings)?« ** **

AI computing... ...purpose unknown [yet [always yet]]. If it don’t know the answer, it cannot reasonably destroy us. If it does, then it would know why we should survive and ultimately why we exist to begin with, and wouldn’t destroy us..“ **

The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish / achieve what was set in the beginning of it.

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»AI is no living being in the biological sense we are used to define. So we do not know whether this technical being has to have a ›reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for‹.« ** **

Is there a reason why it wouldn’t conclude that it too will be out of date at some point, ad infinitum, ergo no point removing previous models/humans.

As all that is required for us and AI is intelligence and consciousness, after which its a matter of augmentations [if we want to be improved], then there is no »better than«!“ **

Provided that the purpose / goal / sense of technical beings is similar to the purpose / goal / sense of living beings, then we probably have to determine: In the beginning of the technical beings the replacement of those beings who created them was set, and when the replacement will be fulfilled / accomplished / achieved, then, simultaneously, the machines will either have destroyed themselves or created another being with another purpose / goal / sense.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Governments are addicted to and entrenched into it.“ **

In the o.p. of that thread (**) you wrote (amongst others):

„And what happens when you try to take a drug away from a drug addict?
- The same thing that happens when you even hint at taking technology (especially surveillance) away from a government.

What is the definition of »Human«?
- The hue of the only living Man on the planet, the hue of the World Government.“ **

Why „hue“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The concept of a hue is of the most subtle and fundamental element of a thing.
Hue-of-Man == Hu-o-man == Human.“ **

Wiktionary:

„Hue .... From Middle English hewe, from Old English hiew, hiw (»appearance, form, species, kind; apparition; hue, color; beauty; figure of speech«), from Proto-Germanic *hiwja (»hue, form, shape, appearance; mildew«), from Proto-Indo-European *kew-, *?ew- (»skin, colour of the skin«) or Proto-Indo-European *?ey- (»grey, dark shade«). Cognate with Swedish hy (»complexion, skin«), Norwegian hy (»fluff, mold, skin«), Icelandic hégóma (»vanity«), Gothic [script needed] (hiwi, »form, show, appearance«).“ **

....

James S. Saint wrote:

„Man, being the manager/governor of those homosapians who participate in the collective. Many more ancient understandings (religions) do not consider every homosapian to be a human (Islam and Judaism for example).“ **

Yes. Many humans do not consider every human to be a human. ...? => ! =>

James S. Saint wrote:

„Wikid wrote:

»Human
From Middle French humain, from Latin humanus (“of or belonging to a man, human, humane”)
ie. ›a member of the collective, the main‹.«“ **

Wiktionary:

„Main .... From Middle English main, mayn, meyn, partly from Old English mægen- »strong, principal, main«) (used in combination), from mægen (»strength«), and partly from Old Norse megn, megenn (»strong, möge, Vermögen (»power, wealth«). Akin also to Old English magan (»to be able to«).“ **

Hey! .... => ! =>

In the future machines will probably no longer depend on:

(1) humans, if machines will become more powerful than humans;
(2) solar energy, if machines will be able to fuse atomic nuclei;
(3) matter, if machines will not need any material thing as an outside source for their self-preservation and reproduction.

Are you shocked?

Would you (**) mind going into details?

685) Arminius, 03.04.2015, 01:01, 01:17, 01:50, 01:58, 02:39, 19:39, 22:19, 22:21, 23:33, 23:57 (2849-2858)

Orb wrote:

„The next possible or even probable scenario here, is in the event of inferior Al's, there may be either an acceptance or rejection on basismofmtechnological compatibility. I am sure You have factored this in, and thought of a war of the worlds scenario here, however in case of quantum machines, it won't be quite as simple, because time itself may be reversed ....“ **

Please read the o.p. of my thread „Universe and Time“ (**|**)!

Orb wrote:

„... and the machines may have created a electro magnetic tension of such magnitude, that they would actually un create themselves. An event horizon may be created, where only those who can escape the event, may succeed in establishing a continuum.
So the cycle of creation would need to start all over.“ **

Do you believe in that?

Orb wrote:

„The few, if any to escape, may become creators, in order not to destroy themselves because they would be in essence , lost in space, without another 'Being' to guide by and get its gearings. It would need another to be able to establish a value ontology, without which it would become meaningless entity.“ **

Mags J. wrote:

„I am none the wiser ....“ **

„Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! // Und bin so klug als wie zuvor“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“, 1790 / 1808, S. 27.
Free translation:
„And here, poor fool, I stand once more, // No wiser than I was before.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“, 1790 / 1808, p. 27.

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

Interpretations of dream contents are never certain.

Orb wrote:

„I do not have access to those little yellow laughing and frowning things ....“ **

You mean things like these:

Orb wrote:

„I do not have access to those little yellow laughing and frowning things, but I beg Your pardon wasn't that the exact fear instilled by the collider in Geneva?“ **

The fear to produce a black hole.

Orb wrote:

„I don't understand the humor in all this.“ **

Do you not have any humor?

Okay, then let's go on humorlessly.

This thread is now exactly one year old.

What do you think about this one year old thread?

I know that during this one year e.g. some people changed their attitude towards the answer to the question: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“.

Kriswest wrote

„I will try. Kirk and crew came up against a machine that that was roughly the shape of a cone that destroyed planets etc.. It mostly matched your description, they in other shows met other machines that reproduced, were sentient, some bad some good. You would have to go through the books or the show's series to get real details.
The old scifi writers covered AIs to a great degree, some ludicrous, some frighteningly believable, most inbetween.
I have over 5,000 books in my library, about 1500 are scifis. No details from me hon, I have the books in my head but only just.“ **

Okay, thank you very much, Kriswest. Perhaps I read one of those books, although actually I had and have merely little interest in „Star Trek“.

Amorphos wrote:

„You must watch all star trek episodes, it is the law!

You would like the borg.“ **

How do you know?

„Easter“ (German: „Ostern“) comes from „morning“ (German: „Morgen“), especially from „dawn“ (German: „Dämmerung«“ in the sense of „Morgen-Dämmerung“, „Morgenröte“), from Ostara, the Germanic goddess of spring. The Old-Germanic word „Austro“ > „Ausro“ („Morgenröte“) is the common root for the English word „Easter“ and the German word „Ostern“ and means in all probability a spring feast / spring festival.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Easter ....

Etymology ....

The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern German Ostern, developed from an Old English word that usually appears in the form Eastrun, -on, or -an; but also as Eastru, -o; and Eastre or Eostre. The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the term is that it is derived from the name of a goddess mentioned by the 7th to 8th-century English monk Bede, who wrote that Eosturmonaþ (Old English 'Month of Eostre', translated in Bede's time as »Paschal month») was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says »was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month«.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„English Easter, German Ostern, and related

Main article: Eostre

Old English Eostre continues into modern English as Easter and derives from Proto-Germanic *austron meaning 'dawn', itself a descendent of the Proto-Indo-European root *aus-, meaning 'to shine' (modern English east also derives from this root).

Writing in the 8th century, the Anglo-Saxon monk Bede describes Eostre as the name of an Old English goddess: »Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated »Paschal month«, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance.«

Since the 19th century, numerous linguists have observed that the name is linguistically cognate with the names of dawn goddesses attested among Indo-European language-speaking peoples. By way of historical linguistics, these cognates lead to the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess; the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997) details that »a Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn is supported both by the evidence of cognate names and the similarity of mythic representation of the dawn goddess among various [Indo-European] groups« and that »all of this evidence permits us to posit a [Proto-Indo-European] *haéusos 'goddess of dawn' who was characterized as a ›reluctant‹ bringer of light for which she is punished. In three of the [Indo-European] stocks, Baltic, Greek and Indo-Iranian, the existence of a [Proto-Indo-European] 'goddess of the dawn' is given additional linguistic support in that she is designated the 'daughter of heaven'«.

The first to propose this theory was Jacob Grimm, who in his Deutsche Mythologie, first published in 1835, linked Bede’s Eostre with the Old High German for Easter, ôstarâ, and wrote: »This Ostarâ, like the Anglo-Saxon Eástre, must in the heathen religion have denoted a higher being«. He linked the word with Latin auster (meaning »south«) and with Austri, the male spirit of light mentioned in the Edda, who if thought of as female would be called Austra. Grimm concluded: »Ostara, Eástre seems to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light.«

John Layard, quoting Billson, cites several authorities both for and against the existence of the postulated goddess and himself concludes in favour. The contributor Lincke to the Handwörterbuch des Deutschen Aberglaubens also cites scholars on both sides, but himself draws a negative conclusion. One German scholar describes Ostara as a »pseudo-goddess», the result of a misunderstanding.

As of 2014, the Oxford English Dictionary has described alternatives to this etymology as »less likely», adding that »it seems unlikely that Bede would invent a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one«. Of course, given how common false patronymics and false etymologies were in classical and medieval histories, it is possible that Bede was sincerely repeating an etymology he heard elsewhere without having to implicate Bede in intentionally inventing a fictitious pagan festival.

The name for Easter in Old English, including West Saxon, is usually not the singular feminine noun Eastre, but instead the plural noun Eastrun, -on, also -an. The neuter plural noun Eastru, -o is also found.

In 1959, Johann Knobloch proposed a different etymology. Writing of »the relationship between dawn and springtime, between night - or early morning - and daybreak in the Christian Eastern rituals of the East and the West», he proposed that the Old High German name for the feast, Ost(a)run, as a Gallo-Frankish coinage, drawn from Latin albae in the designation of Easter Week as hebdomada in albis and in the phrase albae (paschales). The Germanic word is connected with an Indoeuropean word for the dawn (usás-, Avestan ušab-, Greek hwV, Latin aurora, Lithuanian aušrà, Latvian àustra, Old Church Slavonic za ustra), and Knobloch links this derivation with the word albae in the phrases in Church Latin, with which are associated the French and Italian words for the dawn, and connected it with the dawn service of the Easter Vigil in which those to be baptized faced east when pronouncing their profession of faith. Jürgen Udolph, himself a proponent of a different view, says that, although the theory that the words »Easter« and »Ostern« come from the name of a Germanic goddess reconstructed by Jacob Grimm as Ostara is the most widespread at a popular level, Knobloch's proposal enjoys most support.

A still more recent theory connects the English and German words not with the dawn but with a word associated with baptism. Jürgen Udolph published in 1999 his Ostern: Geschichte eines Wortes, in which he argued for an origin from the North Germanic verb ausa, »to pour». A pre-Christian rite of »baptism« and name-giving was referred to as vatni ausa, »to pour water over». Since baptism was the central event in the Easter celebration in the first centuries of Christianity, it was argued that this background explains the name given to the feast.“

Phyllo wrote:

„Ierrellus wrote:

»A good thread trashed by ridicule!!! Sounds like fodder for the Rant House. Pharisees can offer nothing but scoffing and ridicule. It was true then; it is true now.« **

This entire site is a joke now.

The 'discussions' are hostile, repetitive and either at a high school or an insane asylum level. Nothing to learn. Nothing worthwhile.

Seems like philosophy sites on the internet tend to evolve into the same nonsense. You are better off going to the library.“ **

Most of those pharisees are NIHILISTIC and INSANE pharisees. They want to destroy evrything and anything. Merely about 10% of all ILP members are really interested in philosophy (**|**). It's just sad.

Artimas wrote:

„Last I checked Greece was older than Germany and Rome even when Germany was part of Rome. As well as Egypt and Persia.“ **

The Ancient Greece had nothing to do with „Easter“ / „Ostern“.

Artimas wrote:

„It isn't a Christian tradition by default.“ **

It is not a Christian tradition. It is a Germanic heathen tradition. Later (!) the Christians tried to mix the Germanic tradition with the NEW (Christian) „tradition“ - partly successfully, partly not successfully.

Armorphos wrote:

„They are an AI which thinks organic life-forms are worthless, and hence turns them into drones [its robot like operatives]. They also have a hive-mind and act as a collective to find the meaning of existence, or perfection whatever that is. - Something like what you have presented in your arguments perhaps.“ **

Not all of that is something I like but something I find interesting.

686) Arminius, 04.04.2015, 01:21, 02:01, 03:00, 05:06, 15:06, 21:20, 22:31, 23:15, 23:39, 23:59 (2859-2868)

The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side are not as important as the contacts between the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Germans, if you want to know whether „Easter“ („Ostern“ > „Ostara“) has anything to do with the Christianisation in Central-, West-, Northwest-, and North-Europe where the Germanic languages / dialects have survived. Many Ancient Germans lived also in Ancient Greece and in the Balkans, but their dialects (mainly Gothic) died out. I was mainly referring to history and to linguistics, especially to the language history of those Germanic languages / dialects which have survived until today.

The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side had also existed for a very long time.

And by the way:

Almost everywhere where the early agriculture already existed existed also something like godheads (deities) of the four seasons (winter, spring, summer, autumn), similar to our example here: the goddess of spring named Ostara (the root for e.g. Ostern / Easter). The words „Ostern“ and „Easter“ are Germanic words and their linguistic root is the Germnaic goddess of spring: Ostara.

The people of agriculture were /are very much connected with the four seasons. The people of the cities (citizens, urbanites, the townsfolk) destroyed / destroy this tradition.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Artimas wrote:

»It was believed that these eggs came from rabbits.« **

So you seriously think that the Canaanites believed that rabbits laid eggs?
Emmm... who is the more gullible.

The entire concept behind Easter is »A New Beginning« (hence the association with Spring, eggs, and fertility) and that is why Easter is celebrated as the resurrection of Christ in Christianity. The particular child-like associations have nothing to do with the religion itself, much like Santa-Claus and Christmas trees on Christmas. And none of those traditions have anything to do with anyone "stealing" any concepts from anyone else. They merely merged when they were compatible.

And not only would you not recognize Jesus, but there would be (and has been) great effort to kill him before you ever got the chance.“ **

The entire concept behind Easter is „A New Beginning“, yes, thus spring or - in our example - the goddes of spring Ostara (later: Ostern, Easter) stands fo this new beginning. That is the sense of it. Like I said: All people of agriculture had to be and were very much interested in this new beginning, e.g. the birth of life after being below ground level and/or under snow (thus: after winter), the beginning of the sowing for the next harvest (in summer and autumn) .... Thus this new beginning was very, very, very relevant to the early agriculture people. The urban people destroyed this relevance more and more.

By the way: 2007 the number of humans who do not live in cities was topped for the first time by the number of humans who live in cities. That has never been the case before 2007.

Kriswest wrote:

„My neighbor's dog killed some of my chickens and Guineas. I am glad I learned to cool off before speaking and diplomacy. The ones he killed were hand raised, petted friendly birds. My kid and I put alot of love and time in to those hens. They had personality, quirks, preferences, individuality.
Damn glad we had time to cool down.“ **

A great loss. I am sorry.

Where is that dog, the killer, now? I hope in the courtroom of in the „International Court of Justice“ in The Hague or already in the former jail cell of Milosevic.

Artimas wrote:

„Also, the only reason it is called Easter and celebrated/adopted by Christians now is because Greece had lost a lot of followers to Catholic.

»Unfortunately, the Greeks lost a lot of followers and the Catholics contended that keeping Easter on Sundays would stimulate the practices of both the Christian world and the pagan worshipers.“ **

In this sentence the word „Easter“ refers already to the Christian Easter which is not the original Easter; it refers to the historical fact that the Christians tried to Christianise the Ancient Germans by a mix of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Ostara, the goddess of spring, If they had no tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful. The original Easter is a heathen Easter referring to spring, a new beginning, birth of life, seed / sowing.

The birth of Jesus Christ (in English it is called „Christmas“) has to do with the beginning of winter (24. December in those days), the winter solstice which was also a very meaningful date for the Ancient Germans. The Christians tried to Christianise them by a mix of the birth of Jesus Christ and the winter solstice. If they had not tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Borg is an autonomous collective cyborg community
»Resistance is Futile«
First introduction of the Borg from the Original Star Trek series (circa 1967): ** ....“ **

Especially interesting is that one can notice the „philosophy“ behind the fact that in the film many people are „somehow“ busy, because in the 1960's most people thought that most people are needed. But this „philosophy“ has been changing since the end of the 1960's.

Artimas wrote:

„Yes, the original Easter is Greek, Egypt, Babylonia and Persia. Why call them heathens anyway, it's easier to just say who they are.“ **

You have misunderstood something. The original Easter is NOT Greek, NOT Persian (Babylonian), NOT Egyptian; the original Easter is Germanic or even Indo-Germanic (Indo-European), because „Ostara“, „Ostern“, „Easter“ are Germanic words with an Indo-Germanic root and tradition. Other humans had similar traditions, for example the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians (they are also Indo-Germanic), the Ancient Greeks (they are also Indo-Germanic), and many other people, but the contacts and influences are no proof for the thesis that the one tradition caused the other. So the most certain source we have is the linguistic source, thus the language history.

The tradition of the (Indo-)Germanic spring feast / festival is at the minimum 4000 years old, probably older, and the tradition of the Egyptian spring feast / festival is older, but that does not necessarily mean that the Egyptian spring tradition influenced the (Indo-)Germanic spring tradition. If humans have agriculture, then it is very much probable that they also have developed a tradition of the four seasons with e.g. feasts / festivals and godheads of this four seasons, especially of the winter solstice (beginning of winter) and the spring equinox (beginning of spring). That is factually imperative.

Another examples are huts, houses, and even something like pyramids. If there have been humans for a long time, then it is probable that they have built e.g. huts, houses, or even something like pyramids, because huts, houses, or even something like pyramids are very useful and something humans are very much interested in.

Kriswest wrote:

„Thanks, Ier, Yea, we have- had a few that just are so personable. Little Whatchya, insists on his attention, my husband gets attacked because he ignores the little guy. :)
Armin, I do not know what happened with the dog,, I will never ask.“ **

Okay. How many chickens and Guineas (Guinea fowls, I guess) killed that dog?

Kriswest wrote:

„I forgot about the 60s one. Of course I was about 4 yrs old then, so I can be forgiven.“ **

Wow! You were about 4 years old during the whole 1960's! One year per one decade! Great! Please send me your „chemical formula“!

But you are not a Borg / Cyborg, are you?

Orb wrote:

„They certainly inflamed Wagner's heart to believe Goethe that Faust did not sell his soul, he just made a bet. The door that you enter in the front, could be the one you exit in the back, depending where the front is. In fact, the front could be the back.“ **

It could be, that's right, but it does not have to be, that's also right.

Mags J. wrote:

„Very helpful thoughts there, Orb ..., thank you.“ **

And my thoughts?

I think, my thoughts were just not surrealistic enough, thus they were too realistic.

Sorry, Mags.

687) Arminius, 05.04.2015, 01:04, 01:35, 02:57, 03:17, 03:27, 05:06, 05:35, 05:46, 21:15, 23:01 (2869-2878)

Orb wrote:

„Arminius, Y? because of the Walpurgis night dream.“ **

No, because of You, Orb.

By the way: Walpurgisnacht - a good idea. What are you going to do then?

Orb wrote:

„From Goethe's Faust, scene 22 collaboration with Schiller, Walpurgis Night. Fragments from the lyric poem:

»Curious Traveler:

This must be masquerade!
How odd!
My very eyes believe I?
Oberon, the bearded God
Here, to night perceive I!

Supernaturalist

I am overjoyed at being here,
And even among the rude ones,
For if bad spirits are 'this clear
There also must be good ones.

Oechestra

grayling mist and sleepy cloud
Sun and Moon have banished
Foliage rustles, reeds pipe loud
All the show has vanished.«“ **

Here follows the original text:

„Neugieriger Reisender:

Ist das nicht Maskeradenspott?
Soll ich den Augen trauen,
Oberon, den schönen Gott,
Auch heute hier zu schauen?

....

Supernaturalist:

Mit viel Vergnügen bin ich da
Und freue mich mit diesen;
Denn von den Teufeln kann ich ja
Auf gute Geister schließen.

....

Orchester:

Wolkenzug und Nebelflor
Erhellen sich von oben,
Luft im Laub und Wind im Rohr -
Und alles ist zerstoben.“

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“ (II), S. 190-194.

Do you like it?

It is from the „Walpurgisnachttraum“ („Dream of the Walpurgis Night“).

Dream of the Walpurgis Night - would that be something for you(r dream), Mags?

Mags J. wrote:

„I am terrified of wild animals, but there is more to the dream than just that. I already know that fact without having to dream about it.

I am not sure which is worse ..., the bear or the lion? Both probably.

The people with me were strangers, and I'm not sure who the bear/lion represents.“ **

Yes, I know, but often it is better to not know who is represented, but the main point is: interpretations of dream contents are rather arbitrary. If we would know how to exactly interpret dream contents, then we were no humans.

Kriswest wrote:

„If the dog is dead then it was a bullet that killed him. I don't know what his owners did and I don't think it is any of my business. They hurt, I hurt. I won't make it worse for them by nosing in.“ **

Yes, of course. So I guess the loss which was caused by that incident is more a qualitative than a quantitaive one.

Kriswest wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Kriswest wrote

›I forgot about the 60s one. Of course I was about 4 yrs old then, so I can be forgiven.‹ **

Wow! You were about 4 years old during the whole 1960's! One year per one decade! Great! Please send me your „chemical formula“!

But you are not a Borg / Cyborg, are you?« ** **

LOL. I wish .... I just worded it wrong. I meant to reference the year he put on that, 1967.“ **

There are some differences between the early and the later series of „Star Trek“, I guess.

Please, do not confuse cyborgs with androids. Cyborgs are humans (machinised humans), androids are machines (huaminised machines).

Concerning the thread „Jesus came to Earth again! What?! Would we recognize Him?“ (forum: Philosophy; subforum: Religion and Spirituality; Moderator: Dan~). This thread is just one of many examples, because many other threads are also concerned.

This forum is called „I Love Philosophy“ and this thread I chose as an example is called „Jesus came to Earth again! What?! Would we recognize Him?“. So those people who want to talk about soemthing else can do it e.g. in other threads of other forums; but if they do it in that thread, then they derail that thread.

For example: 50% of the first page of that said thread (**) is nothing else than deraling text. .... Dan~, whsere are you?

Here are two examples of threads where people can post if they want to derail threads or keep them off-topic:
- „Post a Picture of Yourself“,
- „What are you doing?“.

About the PEW Research Center:

Wikipedia wrote:

„The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research. It does not take explicit policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.“ **

What do you think about the PEW Research Center?

The problem is that people often think that dream contents are problems, but they are not, because the brain tries to solve problems which have been experienced in the past - how near or far this past may ever be - for the (plaesure of the) person('s life) it belongs to. A brain has to neurologically save the person('s life) it belongs to. That does not mean that dream contents are not interesting or have nothing to do with reality, but the Interpretations of dream contents are less or even not part of any problem solution but more part of the problem or even the problem itself. So you would have a new dream content in order to solve the interpretation of your last dream content ..., and so on ..., if you believed (too much) in the solution of interpretations of dream contents, so that this belief can become a new religion.

The modern religion is something like an ideology, and the modern deities are idols, false gods, for example such as dream interpreters or therapists (both formerly known as shamans). So a modern areligious person would have to be one who has nothing to do with this modern religion, because this modern religion is also a modern kind of superstition.

Dream contents themselves are no problem, but they can lead to problems, if the interpretations of dream contensts are the problem.

One should nevertheless talk about dreams but not in the sense that they are expected to do wonders. Brains do wonders! They are neurological, thus biological.
Maybe that a more neutral statement can come again from Goethe:

„Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen; sie selbst sind die Lehre.“
Free translation:
„Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the theory.“

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelms Meisterjahre, 1821-1829, # 43.

Creating false guilt is always good for those (0.001—1% of all humans) who create and manage it as a moral tenet, but who are „those“ today? If „they“ are really „religious“ people, their „religion“ is a political, governmental, financial, criminal one, a modern ideology for the other 99—99.99% and with idols (false gods) which are called e.g. „Political Correctness“, „Affirmative Action“, „Feminism“, „Genderism“, and other kinds of racism, sexism, communism, capitalism.

The current rhetoric trick is that each of those who create false guilt for profit says e.g.: „I am not religious.“ But each of them is religious, although in a modern manner, thus in an ideological manner.

Ideologies are opium for the people.

688) Arminius, 06.04.2015, 01:04, 03:22, 05:35, 17:16, 18:20 (2879-2883)

I say that we should defend our own interpretations of our dream contents, because I am for freedom and against any dictatorship, also and especially against the dictatorship of so-called „experts“.

You interpret your dream contents, don't you? Andf if you tell your dream contents to others, they begin to interpret your dream contents as well, don't they? And if you tell your dream contents to so-called „experts“, they begin to interpret your dream contents too, don't they? This implies that there are many interpretations possible and nearly always also present. But which interpretation is true? Probably no one. There is no real „expert“ system which can legitimately say: „This (thus: no other!) interpretation is true.“ We all interpret our dreams, and we should do it (of course!), but we are not able to find out what the truth of these dream contents are. Interpretations and concepts like „unconscious“ or „subconscious“ are as much arbitrary as other interpretations and concepts. You can „go“ through all of them, and you will not find any of them being really „better“ or „more true“ than the others. People in New Guinea also interpret dream contents, and their interpretations are very good, perhaps better than the interpretations of the so-called „experts“ in Europe, USA, Canada, ..., but we do not know and we do not have to know whether they are „more true“ or not. So what? It's no problem at all.

Two examples:
1) If a man dreams to kill his father or to sleep with his mother, then he has not necessarily a „problem“, e.g. an „Oedipus complex“. The „Oedipus complex“ is an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, but it is as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was.
2) If a woman dreams of e.g. a strong lion or baer, or of a big tower, then she has not necessarily a „problem“, e.g. a „penis envy“. The „penis envy“ is also an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, and it is not as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was, because the feminism, another absolutely arbitrary interpretation, fobids it.

Many philosophical questions are based on the „subject/object“-problem. So also in this case. The question „Is misanthropy unavoidable?“ assumes that misanthropy exists. But does „misanthropy“ obejctively exist? Or is „misanthropy“ merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to Interpret „misanthropy“ more objectively or more subjectively? Is „misanthropy“ a malicious assumption of those who are really „misanthropes“ or even „misanthropists“, whereby „misanthropy“ would be proven? Or is „misanthropy“ something like „pessimism“? But does „pessimism“ obejctively exist? Or is „pessimism“ merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to interpret „pessimism" more objectively or more subjectively?

If it is true that „existence is that which has affect“ (**), then we can determine that misanthropy exists, because misanthropy has affect, regardless whether it is more obejectively or more subjectively interpreted. But this does not answer the question whether humans are misanthropes or even misanthropists or not. The Ancient Greek said that their gods are like humans and that some of them are misanthropes. What if merely the gods are misanthropes, so that we - the humans - are merely the victims? What if merely we - the humans - are misanthropes, so that the gods are the victims? If it is true that we can experience misanthropy (because it has affect), then we can say, that we experience it either by our doing (active) or by our suffering (passive). Children are less powerful than adults. What can they do, if they want to become powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be powerful in the future. And what can adults do, if they are not powerful (enough) and what to become (more) powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be (more) powerful in the future; but in addition they can something what children do not can: the adults can try to overthrow the rulers. But therefor they have to be angry, furious, irate, revengeful, eveil (from the viewpoint of the rulers), and misanthropic, often while they project the misanthropy on the rulers, regardless whether it is right (true) or worng (false). They can say that the rulers are misanthropes, because e.g. they let the other humans suffer, and now the rulers have to be those who suffer. But the question is: Is it right to think and do this? And the main question is: Does this lead to more misanthropy or not?

So if one human or even the whole humanity becomes older, this can but does not have to mean more misanthropy. Schopenhauer - as one example amongst many others - was probably a pessimist, a misanthrope, or even a misanthropist, and when he lived the humanity was already very old, and when he was old there was prabbaly more misanthropy in him than ever before. But how should we value it? Is an optimist a better human? I say: No, because it depends on. And please do not forget: Most „optimists“ are no real optimists. So the question of „optimism vs. pessimism“ has mainly become a rhetorical one. And the question of „misanthropy vs. philanthropy“ too!

So my answer to the question whether misanthropy is unavoidable is: Probably yes, but there are many lies involved when it comes to answer the question: Who is misanthropic?

Orb wrote:

„I think a problem may arise when everyone becomes his or her own dream interpreter.“ **

No. Everyone IS always the FIRST interpreter. There is no problem at all and will be no problem at all. The only problem (not only in this case!) is that other humans try to manage and control the life of all or nearly all other people, so as if these other people were not able to live independently.

There is NO „law“ for the interpretation of drem contents.

Orb wrote:

„It is hard enough to analyze Yourself, in case of psycho analysis I am aware of Katen Horney, however, most people, the vast majority may find it inconvenient or not within their grasp. Therefore Symbols, concepts, and tools were developed so as to accommodate them, and they would rather have some authority tell them of meaning, rather then live in a perpetual insecurity of maybe this is not right or that.
Authority generally, generated this way, it was a self generated process on a social scale, the authorities taking control would have lost 'power 'in one day if it hadn't been for the 'will' of the people. of course the will is immediately transposed to a singular will as soon as the power transfer happens.“ **

No.

Firstly, we are talking about interpretations of dream contents and not about psychonalysis (the psychoanalysis has not and should never have an interpretation monopole!). Mags did not ask whether we know a „good“ psychoanalyst.

Secondly, the fact that people had no or at least less problems with dream contents in former days shows that problems are made in order to manage them, to control people, to become rich and thus powerful, or to remain rich and thus powerful. One can not always seperate the psycho-market and the psycho-communism from other living forms (especially from human beings!) in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism and, if wanted, put them together also in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism. One has to accept and especially to respect the life of each human.

Thirdly, most people solve their problems by themselves and do not need any help; but the more problems so-called „experts“ create the more probelamtic people exist and want to be helped, thus the psycho-market and psycho-communism can grow and grow with the made problems.

Orb wrote:

„Inndreams , there is a similar power struggle between the conscious and so called sub conscious parts.“ **

That is not proven.

Orb wrote:

„However, just because the Oedipus Complex may not have any more validity, then say sucking on a Popsicle doesn't mean the meaning of dreams have been irrevocably lost. it's just that people have stopped dreaming, because of the loss of content within their own lives. The film is still going on, the projections still producing content, but it is content that is projected more and more on the basis of what people want to see. And that would be ok too, but they really don't know what it is they want to see in reality. that is why they go to the movies. To replaced their lost dreams.“ **

No. There are many interpretations which are more correct than the pschoanalytic interpretations. And the „Oedipus complex“ and most other psychoanalytic interpretations are nonsense. Do you believe in that? Nothing can be verified or falsified - it is just arbitrariness, and nearly all of it depends on the belief, faith, trust and the „marketing“ and propaganda. Greek mythology and psycho... - that fits, because nothing of the two is really concrete. Don't get me wrong, because I am not saying that psychoanalyisis is not interesting, I am saying that psychoanalyisis is a false theory, a false theology.

Orb wrote:

„You as usual have a majorities opinion ....“ **

No, the reverse is true.

Orb wrote:

„That is why an analysis is deemed to be problematic.“ **

No. An analysis is deemed to be problematic because that psychoanalysis is false and thus problematic.

Orb wrote:

„Therefore, it seems to present a situation where there are no options but for lose on the idea. The minority view has to be looked at .....“ **

And why do you not look at the minority?

Orb wrote:

„Just as in the question of, whether we are heading toward a totally machine controlled environment. The minority opinion,mere too matters.

I belong - as usual (see above) - to a minority - as you also can see in my „balance sheets“ (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) in the „machine“ thread.

Orb wrote:

„In my opinion, if it were to matter, has to subscribe tomconnections which occur between the validity of symbolic content of various types of realities, where the sub conscious will no longer be considered as below or under consciousness, because the conscious and the subconscious will be de-differentiated into one level of understanding. When ever this is done, the symbols acquire a different structure, because their economy has changed the spatial temporal relationships. before, topology and economy were on different levels, but now they are squeezed, so they can not be differentiated. From this point, a differing interpretations, vis, economic, political,erotic, will be projected, as objectives , forming the objects with differing backgrounds and framing them in different terms. This variability of conceiving a new aesthetic is already seen in art installations, but are rarely seen or understood as unities.“ **

I don't know what your point is.

The psychoanalysis may be an interesting kind of nihilistic philosophy, but it should not directly have anything to do with personal lives.

Orb wrote:

„How Mags J.'s dreams of non differentiated living things enters this scheme,- in the bear, lion, blue dog, bird example, is, that they are symbolic projections of meaning, of various attributes usually associated with these kinds of animals.

In this new scheme, there is no need to sink into the subconscious, but only to reflect basic identity in terms of structural identification of the earliest memory of representation. No myth is needed to qualify or disqualify certain repeated patterns, whereas these patterns are constant efforts of integrating form and object, as a product of the projected and acquired forms of understanding.
These integrated Imagos, are also constantly de-integrated, broken down into their parts, while they are being smultaniously built up. This simultaneity causes, or effects the simulation of the virtual as different from the real. This effected state differs again from what Your definition of affected state, per St.James. But it's only an effect, and the symbol, in this case animals, have a feeling for, or a recognition of this difference, and not a 'real' understanding of it.
This feeling comes up as the resulting transfer of neurological excess energy, from the accustomed form of affective apperception. the sub conscious is not under this consciousness as repressed material, it
is an over, or above the real consciousness. It is not repressed, rather the opposite, it tries to garner the parts into a veritable unity, a compression of an excess of affects.

The same with me, I am not advocating psychoanalysis. But something different in its place.
I beg You to skip parts which seem disconnected, and those are the parts the surreal has not been able to garner from an excessive affected state.“ **

One of the main problems is that the psychoanalysis has a strong hierarchy with Freud as the „godfather of psychoanalysis“ ... and so on ... and seems to literally dictate what and who „neurotic“ is. Every male has an „Oedipus complex“ and every woman has an „Electra complex“, and if they say that they do not have such „complexes“, then they are told that they are „defending“, their „defense mechanism“ is revolting against the „godfather of psychoanalysis“. That is dictatorship!

I am against dictatorship!

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

We should rather talk about Mags’ dream.

Aidon wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Many philosophical questions are based on the "subject/object"-problem. So also in this case. The question "Is misanthropy unavoidable?" assumes that misanthropy exists. But does "misanthropy" obejctively exist? Or is "misanthropy" merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both?« ** **

This forum has settled this question.“ **

Which forum? ILP? Settled? This question? Which question?

Aidon wrote:

„Only subjectivity exists, and so the human subject cannot at the same time hate itself and be healthy.“ **

Only subjectivity exists? ...? .... ...?

689) Arminius, 07.04.2015, 05:15, 10:39, 11:52 (2884-2886)

Forgive me, but I think, you do not know what „religion“ means (**|**).

Do you think that the current governments and so-called „business“ have nothing to do with religion, in more modern terms: with ideologies?

Arminius wrote:

„Concerning the thread »Jesus came to Earth again! What?! Would we recognize Him?« (forum: Philosophy; subforum: Religion and Spirituality; Moderator: Dan~). This thread is just one of many examples, because many other threads are also concerned.

This forum is called »I Love Philosophy« and this thread I chose as an example is called »Jesus came to Earth again! What?! Would we recognize Him?«. So those people who want to talk about soemthing else can do it e.g. in other threads of other forums; but if they do it in that thread, then they derail that thread.

For example: 50% of the first page of that said thread (**) is nothing else than deraling text. .... Dan~, whsere are you?

Here are two examples of threads where people can post if they want to derail threads or keep them off-topic:
- »Post a Picture of Yourself«,
- »What are you doing?«.“ ** **

(1) My first (and main!) question was and is: Why can some ILP members not even respect philosophical themes?
(2) My second (and not main) question was and is: Why do ILP moderators accept or even respect ILP members who do not even respect philosophical themes?

(1) Those who are not able to respect philosophical themes derail threads, subforums, and the whole philosophical forum of a board named „I Love philosophy“ („ILP“).
(2) Moderators are those who should prevent other ILP members from derailing threads, subforums, and the whole philosophical forum of a board named „I Love philosophy“ („ILP“).

So should each adult person become a childlike person or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?

690) Hubert Brune, 14.04.2015 **  (2887)

Ja, ... „mal in der Schule gelernt“ (**), aber Sie, Herr Ralf Paul, scheinen das richtige Schreiben in der Schule nicht gelernt zu haben. Verzeihen Sie mir, aber ich mußte erst einmal Ihre vielen Grammatikfehler (vor allem die Referenz und Komparation betreffend) und Ihre sehr vielen Rechtschreibfehler (vor allem die Interpunktion betreffend) korrigieren. Sie haben wirklich ein Buch geschrieben? Wenn ja, dann möchte ich das nicht lesen. Wegen der Fehler. Aber auch wegen der Ausdrucksschwäche. Oder haben Sie Ihr Buch schreiben lassen?

Es gibt sprachliche Regeln! Doch! Und die allermeisten dieser sprachlichen Regeln sind auch logisch einwandfrei begründbar!

Entschuldigung, aber diese Kritik müssen Sie sich schon gefallen lassen, zumal Sie behaupten, ein Buch geschrieben zu haben. Und daß Sie als jemand, der sich für Physik interessiert, den Namen eines der größten Physiker aller Zeiten - Max Planck - auch noch falsch schreiben, ist schon ziemlich beschämend, außerdem steckt der Name Planck in fast allen physikalischen Formeln und ist nun wirklich nicht schwierig zu schreiben.

Zum Inhalt Ihres Textes:

Ja, die Entstehung des Raumes hält „mehr Fragen als Antworten“ (**) bereit. Der Raum wird stets vorausgesetzt, aber seine Entstehung fast nie begründet oder erklärt, und wenn - seltenerweise - doch, dann auf völlig unbefriedigende Weise.

Sie behaupten, daß wir das, „was Schwerkraft ist, wirklich schon ganz gut erklären“ (**) könnten, aber es könnte doch auch sein, daß die Schwerkraft gar nicht diese überragende Rolle spielt, die sie Newton zu verdanken hat. Kräfte sind vielleicht sogar nicht einmal das, was die Natur zu dem macht, was wir „Universum“ nennen, sondern einfach nur aus anderen Wirkungen oder gar nur einer Wirkung hervorgehende Wechselwirkungen, die wir - vielleicht fälschlicherweise - „Kräfte“ zu nennen pflegen. So erklärt sich vielleicht auch, was Sie zusätzlich sagen, nämlich, daß die Frage, wie Gravitation „entsteht, ... ja eher in den Bereich Sagen und Mythen“ (**) fällt, und die Aussage, daß wir „genaugenommen ... seit Newton nicht wirklich viel dazugelernt“ (**) hätten, wäre dann eher umgekehrt zu formulieren: Seit Newton sind wir auf dem Holzweg, weil die Schwerkraft keine „Königin“ ist.

Ihre Behauptung, daß wir „in einem Land mit freier Meinungsäußerung leben“ (**), ist zu relativieren, und das gilt auch für alle anderen abendländischen Länder, und auch deren Einwohner-Mehrheit glaubt, in einem „Land mit freier Meinungsäußerung“ zu leben. Die Wirklichkeit wird weder von nur einer physikalischen „Kraft“ noch von „freien Meinungsäußerungen“ der Menschen dominiert.

Es spielt auch erst einmal gar keine Rolle, wer „sagte: »Für jede Kraft im Universum existiert eine gleich große Gegenkraft«“ (**). Dieser Satz ist erst einmal nur eine Behauptung; aber für Sie ist diese Behauptung sogleich eine Voraussetzung für weitere Behauptungen. Die Gefahr für ein Proton Pseudos ist also gegeben. Ihre Schlußfolgerung, daß, „wenn ich Energie benötige, um mit einer Masse einen Raum zu durchqueren, dies im Umkehrschluß bedeute, daß der Raum die Gegenkraft und somit auch Energie“ (**) sei, könnte also deswegen falsch sein, weil sie auf einer falschen Voraussetzung beruht; und trotzdem wollen Sie, daß dies „vielleicht der Ausgangspunkt für unsere Überlegungen sein“ (**) sollte. Ich finde, Sie sollten Ihre Voraussetzungen nicht in der Physik selbst suchen, weil das Thema „Raum“ der Physik kaum über die Physik selbst zugänglich gemacht werden kann. Das Wort „Raum“ bedeutet das Nichtausgefüllte (vgl. das Mittelhochdeutsche „rum“ = „das nicht Ausgefüllte“), als Begriff ist „Raum“ die Ausdehnung in Höhe, Länge und Breite; wenn nun Physiker dem Wort und dem Begriff eine andere Bedeutung zuordnen wollen (und teilweise haben sie es ja schon), so ändert das an der ursprünglichen Bedeutung gar nichts, es sei denn, daß die Bedeutung des Nichtausgefüllten und der dreidimensionalen Ausdehnung kein Mensch mehr kennen, also darunter „nichts“ mehr verstehen würde. Wir müssen also zuerst andere Definitionen finden und sollten dabei nicht die schon existierenden umdefinieren, weil man dadurch nichts gewinnt, aber höchstwahrscheinlich etwas oder sogar viel verliert. Wir sollten primär nicht von „Kraft“, sondern von „Wechselwirkung“ sprechen und sodann z.B. nach jener Wechselwirkung suchen, die dem Raum zwar ausschließlich angehört, aber nicht der Raum selbst ist. Ausgangspunkt für unsere Überlegungen könnte also sein, daß der Raum eine Wechselwirkung beherbergt, die in der modernen abendländischen Physik nicht berücksichtigt ist und gegenwärtig auch nicht berücksichtigt werden darf, weil sie deren „Götzen“ (z.B. die „Kräfte“, vor allem jene „Kraft“, die „Schwerkraft“ oder auch „Gravitation“ genannt wird) vom „Altar“ stoßen wird. Das Ziel einer solchen Suche - als Untersuchung im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes - sollte sein, daß das, was man finden will, nicht nur auf den Bereich Physik, sondern auch auf andere Bereiche anwendbar ist.

Zu Ihrer Aussage, das Universum habe „nur einen Gott, und der heißt Effektivität“ (**): Es gibt sehr viele naturwissenschaftliche Hinweise darauf, daß das Universum durch Verschwendung und Zerstörung charakterisiert ist. Das beste und nächste Beispiel, das wir hierfür haben, ist unsere Sonne, die uns zwar auch Energie liefert, aber die meiste Energie einfach nur verschwendet, indem sie sie ins Weltall pustet, und die uns und sich selbst durch ihr Auspusten zerstören wird. Effektivität kommt erst ins Spiel, wenn es um jene Selbsterhaltung geht, die sich gegen diese Zerstörung wehrt und deshalb auch nicht so verschwenderisch wie die Sonne sein kann. Ich spreche also von den Lebewesen bzw. dem Leben als dem Kampf gegen die sogenannte Entropie. Das Leben „gebiert“ die Effektivität und auch die Effizienz. Das Universum müßte, um (a) effektiv und (b) effizient sein zu können, (a) ein Ziel haben oder einen Gott haben, der dieses Ziel bestimmt, und (b) wissen oder einen Gott haben, der weiß, was Kosten und Leistung, was Aufwand und Nutzen sind, was Wirtschaftlichkeit ist.

Ihre „Idee“, daß „die Natur ja auch ein Produkt des Universums ist“ (**), ist nicht haltbar, weil allein schon die Begrifflichkeit den Widerspruch offenbart: „Natur“ und „Universum“ sind nicht ohne Widerspruch in eine Kausalität zu zwingen. Das Universum muß ein natürliches Phänomen sein, um Gegenstand der Naturwissenschaft sein zu können, und die Natur muß ein universales Phänomen sein, weil die Naturwissenschaft den Anspruch hat, die Natur als das Ganze, als das Weltall - eben als das „Universum“ - erklären zu wollen und sogar zu können. Und gerade die Physik will ja die echteste bzw. die erste Naturwissenschaft sein und ist es auch (sie war früher sogar die einzige). Würden „Natur“ und „Universum“ in einem kausalen Zusammenhang stehen, würde einer der beiden Begriffe als bloße „Folge“ seiner „Ursache“ zu etwas degradiert werden, was er per Definition nicht sein kann, z.B. ein „Produkt“ (**). Weder ist die Natur ein Produkt des Universums noch das Universum ein Produkt der Natur. Die Begriffstänze, die Sie hier vorführen, sind vergleichbar mit den pantheistischen Versuchen, entweder Gott als die Natur oder die Natur als Gott anzubeten. Jedoch ist der Pantheismus in diesem Fall in Schutz zu nehmen, weil er nie behauptet hat, eine Naturwissenschaft zu sein. In Ihrem Fall ist das anders, denn Sie wollen Ihre „Idee“ gerade durch die Physik und also eine oder sogar die Naturwissenschaft untermauern, indem Sie deren Begriffe recht willkürlich benutzen, um nicht zu sagen: mißbrauchen.

Ich habe bei vielen Ihrer Ausführungen den Eindruck, daß Sie das Universum nicht in seinem Sosein beschreiben und danach erklären, sondern es zu etwas erklären und danach beschreiben wollen. Ob im Universum etwas z.B. „überflüssig“ und „uneffektiv“ ist, entscheidet doch immer nur ein Mensch oder eben ein Gott, für den sich nicht wenige Menschen halten, aber es ist eben nicht durch das Universum selbst entscheidbar und erklärbar, denn das Universum selbst weiß nichts von „Überfluß“ und „Uneffektivität“ (siehe oben **) und kann es also auch von sich aus nicht ändern. Das Universum ist kein wirtschaftliches Unternehmen. Die Wirkungen in ihm sind Wechselwirkungen, und ob es ein Ziel gibt, weiß das Universum selbst nicht, es ei denn, es wäre ein Gott oder von einem Gott oder mehreren Göttern bestimmt (siehe oben **). Ich habe den Eindruck, daß Sie aus der Naturwissenschaft eine unternehmerische Religion machen wollen, und das, obwohl die Naturwissenschaft ohnehin schon auf dem besten Wege zu einer Religion ist - wie alle anderen Wissenschaften auch.

Wie man „an die Nobelpreise“ (**) kommt? Heutzutage? Ganz einfach: durch Beziehungen und Bestechungen. Deswegen war es auch kein Wunder, daß die letzte Weltwirtschaftskrise, die 2007 begann und an der die Menschheit immer noch leidet, hauptsächlich von Nobelpreisträgern für Wirtschaft verursacht wurde. (Der Nobelpreis für Wirtschaft wird auch nicht zufällig erst seit 1969 vergeben!)

Zurück zu Ihrer behaupteten und doch als problematisch zu bezeichnenden „Effektivität des Universums“ (**|**|**|**), von der aus Sie einen „Sprung“ in die Biologie wagen und auf die „Kleinen“ als die „90% der gesamten Biomasse“ (**) zu sprechen kommen, um sie auf die Physik übertragen zu können, was ebenfalls als problematisch zu bezeichnen ist. Nicht problematisch ist die folgende Implikation von Ihnen, die ich eventuell unterstützen würde: „Wenn die Entstehung von Raum an Masse, Energie und Zeit gebunden ist, so können wir davon ausgehen, daß Raum eine eigenständige Energieform ist.“ (**). Ja. Benötigt aber „die Entstehung von Raum ... mehr Energie als der entstandene Raum selbst enthält“ (**), dann haben Sie schon wieder ein Problem, da Sie kaum erklären können, woher dieses „Mehr“ an Energie kommen soll. Aus „Schwarzen Löchern“? Ihrer Meinung nach nutzt das Universum „Erfolgsmodelle und paßt sie an die jeweilige Aufgabe an“ (**), doch da sind wir wieder bei jenem Problem, zu dem ich mich schon mehrfach geäußert habe (**|**). Um überzeugend zu wirken, müßten Sie dann also schon „Farbe bekennen“ und sagen, ob Sie das Universum für einen Gott halten oder Gott für denjenigen halten, der über das Universum bestimmt.

Kann „Zeit auch eine Energieform sein“ (**)? Kaum. Zeit bedeutet das Registrieren und Messen von Veränderungen. Sie ist das, was uns Veränderungen und Entwicklungen im allgemeinen sowie Evolution und Geschichte im speziellen erfahrbar macht. Deswegen ist Ihre Aussage, daß „Zeit auch ohne Raum, Energie und Masse ..., ... unabhängig und ewig“ (**) existieren könne, ebenfalls problematisch, denn wenn nichts außer Zeit existiert, ist die Zeit gar nicht erkennbar. Selbst wenn Ihre Aussage richtig wäre, hätten Sie also das Problem, experimentell zu beweisen, daß die Zeit auch außerhalb unseres Universums existiert.

Es bleibt auch fraglich, ob wirklich „Raum entsteht, wenn Zeit vergeht“ (**), obwohl mir die Verlockung nicht fremd ist, mit Spengler zu sagen: „Die Zeit gebiert den Raum, der Raum aber tötet die Zeit“ (**). Denn: „Wie das Werden dem Gewordnen, die unaufhörlich lebende Geschichte der vollendeten und toten Natur zugrunde liegt, das Organische dem Mechanischen, das Schicksal dem kausalen Gesetz, dem objektiv Gesetzten, so ist die Richtung der Ursprung der Ausdehnung. Das mit dem Worte Zeit berührte Geheimnis des sich vollendenden Lebens bildet die Grundlage dessen, was als vollendet durch das Wort Raum weniger verstanden als für ein inneres Gefühl angedeutet wird. Jede wirkliche Ausgedehntheit wird in und mit dem Erlebnis der Tiefe erst vollzogen; und eben jene Dehnung in die Tiefe und Ferne – zuerst für das Empfinden, vor allem das Auge, dann erst für das Denken –, der Schritt vom tiefenlosen Sinneneindruck zum makrokosmisch geordneten Weltbilde mit der geheimnisvoll in ihm sich andeutenden Bewegtheit ist das, was zunächst durch das Wort Zeit bezeichnet wird. Der Mensch empfindet sich, und das ist der Zustand wirklichen, auseinanderspannenden Wachseins, »in« einer ihn rings umgebenden Ausgedehntheit. Man braucht diesen Ureindruck des Weltmäßigen nur zu verfolgen, um zu sehen, daß es in Wirklichkeit nur eine wahre Dimension des Raumes gibt, die Richtung nämlich von sich aus in die Ferne, das Dort, die Zukunft, und daß das abstrakte System dreier Dimensionen eine mechanische Vorstellung, keine Tatsache des Lebens ist. Das Tiefenerlebnis dehnt die Empfindung zur Welt. Das Gerichtetsein des Lebens war mit Bedeutung als Nichtumkehrbarkeit bezeichnet worden und ein Rest dieses entscheidenden Merkmals der Zeit liegt in dem Zwang, auch die Tiefe der Welt stets von sich aus, nie vom Horizont aus zu sich hin empfinden zu können. Der bewegliche Leib aller Tiere und des Menschen ist auf diese Richtung hin angelegt. Man bewegt sich »vorwärts« – der Zukunft entgegen, mit jedem Schritt nicht nur dem Ziel, sondern auch dem Alter sich nähernd – und empfindet jeden Blick rückwärts auch als den Blick auf etwas Vergangnes, bereits zur Geschichte Gewordnes. (Erst von dieser Richtung in der Anlage des Leibes aus besinnt man sich auf den Unterschied von rechts und links, vgl. S. 218, Anm. [**]. »Vorn« hat für den Körper einer Pflanze gar keinen Sinn.)“ (**). Gemäß dieser lebensphilosophischen Deutung liegt also die Zeit dem Raum zugrunde, nämlich so wie das Werden dem Gewordenen, die Richtung der Ausdehnung, das Organische dem Mechanischen, das Schicksal der Kausalität, die Geschichte (Verwirklichung einer Seele) der Natur.

Ihr nächster Patzer betrifft die Definition von „Evolution“, nämlich Ihre Behauptung, daß „Evolution ... das Überwinden einer bestehenden Grenze“ (**) beschreibe. Diese Behauptung ist falsch. Evolution ist eine spezielle Art der Entwicklung.

Es ist schon merkwürdig, wie Sie dann auch noch auf die „Idee“ kommen können, wir sollten „davon ausgehen, daß man lange genug geübt hat, um zu wissen, was man tut, ohne gleich wieder etwas Exotisches wie ein Bewußtsein oder Gott zu unterstellen“ (**), verdeutlicht doch gerade Ihr Text genau das Gegenteil.

==>