01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [691][692][693][694][695][696][697][698][699][700] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
691) Arminius, 20.04.2015, 00:40, 00:51, 01:33, 02:37, 02:46, 03:22, 03:46, 19:28, 20:06, 21:07 (2888-2897)
Matt MVS 7 wrote:
No. You are looking for a person who agrees with you.
Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn
sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie
anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene
Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen
Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie
ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die
vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und
»Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.
- Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
|
2890 |
Starting Philosophical Eco-villages
Something I've been entertaining recently is the concept of eco-villages centered around a shared philosophy, in this case, the Brunelleschi project. Instead of the primary, or sole reason behind the creation of such villages being the reduction of our footprints, the main reason will be to cultivate an environment of creativity, a place where academics, mystics, artists, and philosophers can focus most of their energies on the pursuit of excellence, as opposed to mundane jobs and careers. The villages will be limited to about 20-30 people. These villages will be hierarchical in nature, unlike communes; people will have their own personal space, their own property, and the ability to move up the hierarchy latter. And food will be obtained through donations, farming, and gardening.
.... **
2891 |
2892 |
2893 |
Hi guys. I'm sure some of you noticed I haven't posted anything in some time. I've been checking in every now and then, just not posting.
I've been going through a lot in my life. I've separated from my wife; I'm now a single American expatriate living in the UK. I have a job which pays a bit above minimum at the moment (min is 6.50, I make 7.10), doing web-designy-type things mostly. I've moved into my own little apartment which is uncomfortably costly for me. Need to find a fucking roommate.
When I was with my wife, she sort of toyed with me. She had a lot of power over me, because I was in her country and my livelihood depended on her. She abused that power over me, frequently threatening me etc. A big reason why I had to leave.
But now that I'm on my own, I feel more than ever like I'm hanging by my fingertips off the edge of a cliff. If I lost my job I'd be fucked. Completely. I wouldn't have anywhere to go, any way to eat, any place to sleep. I don't have any family here, and even if I miraculously made it back to the US I wouldn't have any family there who'd want to help me either. I'm just constantly worried and stressed out about my ability to survive on my own, particularly in a country that isn't my own.
I'm also a bit afraid of my wife's family. I think they've got a lot of anger towards me. If they wanted to, they could probably make my life very, very difficult. Her step dad talked about wanting to hit me or kick my ass or something, so idk what could happen.
Since moving out on my own, I've mostly felt an immense, consuming sense of loneliness. I have some buddies here, but nobody to properly hang out with outside of work. I have a fear that it's going to be really hard for me to find another woman as well.
I had to make a lot of stupid decisions to get myself in this situation. Now all I feel is regret, fear and loneliness.
That's I suppose mostly why I haven't posted much in a long time. **
2894 |
2895 |
2896 |
2897 |
692) Arminius, 21.04.2015, 01:05, 02:31, 02:52, 03:31, 04:18, 17:08, 17:47 (2898-2904)
I am a human. But you claim to be a machine: **Unbelievable.
If one says that something is unbelievable, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one's belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.So please stick to the topic of this thread (**|**) and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
No. it is not my belief, child. You will have to learn much. If you say, for example, that an animal is gruesome, then that does not necessarily mean that you are gruesome.If one says that something is unbelievable, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one's belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.So please stick to the topic of this thread (**|**) and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
No. And you can't say that (**), because you claim to be a machine. You know what I mean? So please tell me what you know about belief, objectivity, subjectivity, and the sentence humans are inferior.
No. I did not mean relay (**).My statements are not false.So whose statement do you mean (**)?That (**) seems to be a rational, thus a pure analysis. Okay. But you do and can not know much about belief, objectivity, subjectivity, and so on.
No.Additionally: I put you to the proof, because you claimed - in a typically human way - to be a machine.
Your statement is false.Humans are not machines. They are the first creators of machines. If you say that humans are a kind of machines, it would be fairly alright, but humans are not machines. The total equation of the human DNS and the machine program is false. |
693) Arminius, 22.04.2015, 00:34, 18:31, 21:47 (2905-2907)
Again: Your statements are false.So I think we can close our discussion.Good bye, little machine.
We know what humans are, and we know what machines are. This thread is a thread of a philosophy forum. So each ILP member who intends to post in this thread should know what humans and machines are and should know what life / biology and technique / technology are. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like cyborg and android. Humans are biological beings with cells, and a cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not biological beings. Although the human organisms work similarly as machines work - so that we can speak of a similarity between the organismic machine and the technical machine -, each human organism is based on life (biology), whereas each machine is based on technique (technology). Human beings are living beings, machines are technical resp. artificial beings.
Do you remember my last post (**|**) or did you not read it? All we need to know in order to post in this thread is that humans are living beings and machines are no living beings, thus that humans and machines are not the same. Additionally we know e.g. that humans created, create, and will create machines, including the first of those machines that created, create, and will create machines. There are similarities and analogies between humans and machines, of course, but these similarities and analogies do not change the fact that humans and machines are different. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like cyborg and android, we also would not need any difference in the meaning of the words human and machine, thus one of both words or even both words could - and would (!) - vanish. Saying humans and machines are the same is similar to the wording humans and gods are the same - both statements are false. But this falsity does not change the fact that humans want to be gods and to create something that is better than any humans are. |
694) Arminius, 23.04.2015, 01:28, 17:32, 19:56 (2908-2910)
This thread is intersting.What would they do in that said situation? Would they believe it?
|
2909 |
Humans are biological beings with cells, and a cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not biological beings. Although the human organisms work similarly as machines work - so that we can speak of a similarity between the organismic machine and the technical machine -, each human organism is based on life (biology), whereas each machine is based on technique (technology). Human beings are living beings, machines are technical resp. artificial beings. ** **
2910 |
I apologize for not having read the whole thread. I honestly still do not understand what is the difference between a cyborg and an android. To me, they are the same entities. Would you explain that? **
Arminius wrote:
»Machines do not have cells. A cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not living beings. Androids are machines. Cyborgs are humans. Humans are living beings. Living beings are not machines.« ** **
This is true that living things are made of cells. But, at the end of the day, even cells are made of same basic ingredients as of machines. **
If we break down any living entity, which we can do now precisely, they are made of same inorganic compounds like water, carbon, iron etc.. **
Then, what is that make organisms live? **
695) Arminius, 24.04.2015, 13:23, 21:13, 21:27 (2911-2919)
Zinnat wrote:
Then it would not have anything to do with your former questions. But, okay, if you ask those new questions, I would appreciate it. (Thank you in advance!)But, please, note that your new questions refer to another level than to the level biology.Zinnat wrote:
The biological definition of life is the best one we have. There are also good definitions of life which come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics). Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics), and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced some interpretations but not the biological definition of life, because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Another question is whether machines can evolve or not.Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called individuals)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call evolution? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?
The internet is a digital modernity within the modernity. If you know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from modernity, then you also know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from the internet as the digital modernity.
Again:
|
2914 |
696) Arminius, 25.04.2015, 12:28, 12:59, 14:41, 21:09, 21:35, 22:14 (2915-2920)
A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the building block of life; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called cell division.The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms. The process of duplicating a cell's genome - thus: the DNA replication - always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission.Three types of cell division:Example:A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast time-lapse microscopy.Schematic of the cell cycle:I = Interphase, M = Mitosis; inner ring: M = Mitosis, G1 = Gap 1, G2 = Gap 2, S = Synthesis; not in ring: G0 = Gap 0/Resting.The DNA replication (the process of duplicating a cell's genome which always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission) occurs during the S phase of the cell cycle.
James S. Saint wrote:
There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said:
James S. Saint wrote:
A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) or others (for example: growers, breeders, Raisers, stockmen) help them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
Zinnat wrote:
Who said so?Additionally:
|
2919 |
Arminius wrote:
»A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.« ** **
I was referring to nanobots that alter themselves through replication, without Man's help (**). **
2920 |
Intentional Communities.
And also;
Mondragon Corporation.
The Mondragon corp comes really close to the SAM concept except they don't have a common constitution that would cause it to be a sentient, living entity (the only thing missing).
697) Arminius, 26.04.2015, 21:59 (2921)
|
698) Arminius,
27.04.2015, 02:37,
02:59,
03:22,
19:49,
20:13,
21:34,
23:34
(2922-2928)
|
2922 |
2923 |
I think mocrobots are potentially dangerous enough, though i doubt if their or nanobots complexity could be unsurmountable. To act in a coordinated fashion beyond their own machine structure they would require larger machines/computers/AI. **
2924 |
2925 |
4a) The early adulthood of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called Neolithic Revolution) to the agriculture.
4b) The middle adulthood of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (**|**).
4c) The late adulthood of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.
2926 |
The question isn't whether they can choose to replicate but rather whether they can choose to NOT replicate. **
... and faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable. **
I want humans to be more valuable than machines, so it works both ways. **
2927 |
2928 |
699) Arminius, 28.04.2015, 02:50, 15:29, 17:44, 18:39 (2929-2932)
Zinnat wrote:
An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?James S. Saint wrote:
I guess that in this case their immediate choices includes the immediate choice of each nanobot to reproduce or replicate itself. But is that true? Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?
GT, SRT/ART, QP are not compatible with each other, that's clear, but ist that the reason why they are also not compatible with RM:AO?
James S. Saint wrote:
That refers much to RM:AO which is quite clear to me, but that does not answer my question, because when reproduction or replication can be influenced by consciousness. So there are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-sesponse mechanism as an interest, and (b) a conscious interest. With human help I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-sesponse mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]).
Zinnat wrote:
Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.Zinnat wrote:
We have many cyborgs. Zinnat, I answered your questions by using the definitions for those words, terms, and concepts you asked me about.Zinnat wrote:
I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked, you know. Thus it was a little rhetoric question (I knew the answer - of course). You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:
Or here for example:
I think I can save the other examples.Zinnat wrote:
Here you are decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to biology, biological definitions.Zinnat wrote:
Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.Zinnat wrote:
By programming, thus by consciousness.There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With human help I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells).Zinnat wrote:
But machines are no living beings.Zinnat wrote:
They are fufilled, because of the help (programming) of the humans, thus of the consciousness of the humans. Humans choose and decide via their consciousness (see above: b) and by programming whether machines choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism (see aboeve: a). Humans do with machines what humans do with humans. And if machines already choose and decide via their consciousness and by programming whether they choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism, then machines influence their reproduction or replication by their consciousness, thus completely by themselves - as much as humans do.Zinnat wrote:
You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:
Or here for example:
I think I can save the other examples. |
700) Herr Schütze, 29.04.2015, 23:14, 23:44, 23:54, 23:58 (2933-2936)
Ja, Nobelpreise sind nur noch ein Witz, und die Wissenschaft bewegt sich mittlerweile auf exponentielle Weise ebenfalls auf diesen zu. Das kann kein Zufall sein. Oder?
Die Gravitationstheorie (GT), die Relativitätstheorie (RT: spezielle
[SRT] und allgemeine [ART]) und die Quantenphysik (QP: QT [Quantentheorie]
und QM [Quantenmechanik]) sind miteinander nicht kompatibel. Somit können
wir auch von keiner dieser Physikdisziplinen erwarten, daß sie jeweils
allein oder/und alle drei zusammen das Universum erklären können.
Alle drei sind teilweise falsch und müssen deshalb als falsch bezeichnet
werden, weil auch teilweise falsch wissenschaftlich bedeutet,
daß sie falsifiziert sind.
|
2935 |
Meine Theorie von der Entstehung des Universums bis zur heutigen Zeit sieht so aus: Auch ich glaube daran, dass alle Planeten und das sind ja wirklich Billionen tatsächlich aus einem Massekern entstanden sind. Die Wissenschaft glaubt, das Universum gleicht einem riesigen Handtuch und hat eine Ausdehnung von etwa 8 Milliarden Lichtjahren.
(Wenn man diese Zahl mit der Lichtgeschwindigkeit von etwa 298.000 km/sec. multipliziert, ist das alleine eigentlich schon unendlich.) aber das würde bedeuten, das Universum hätte auch einen Anfang und ein Ende, was wäre denn nach diesem Ende, wenn man in einer Zeitreise an dieses Ende ankommen würde (was natürlich nicht möglich ist) würde man nach diesem Ende ins Nichts fallen? Ich glaube man ist jetzt gerade mal soweit mit den Erforschungen, wie im frühen Mittelalter mit der Erforschung der Erde, als viele Wissenschaftler die Erde für eine Scheibe hielten. Die Wissenschaft beobachtet auch, dass sich das Universum ständig mit ungeheurer Geschwindigkeit immer weiter ausdehnt, dass was wir noch mit sehen und erahnen können, ist jedoch sicher nur ein kleiner Teil, ich glaube die Ausdehnung des Universums wird in den nächsten Jahrzehnten noch deutlich nach oben geschraubt werden aber den Teil, den wir nicht mehr erahnen können, führt die Planeten wie bei einer Kugel auf der anderen Seite allmählich wieder zusammen, so dass im Laufe von etlichen Milliarden Lichtjahren wieder ein fester Kernpunkt entsteht. Masse kann nicht aus nichts entstehen, sie muss also schon immer vorhanden gewesen sein. Meiner Theorie nach wiederholt sich das Spektakel des Urknalls nach unzähligen Milliarden Lichtjahren immer wieder aufs neue und da keine anderen Umstände auf diesen Kreislauf einwirken, wird jeder Planet, der aus dem Urknall entsteht wieder auf seinem Ausgangspunkt zurückkehren, selbst unser so unscheinbar klein erscheinendes Sonnensystem und unsere vergleichsmäßig winzige Erde selbst. Die Erde würde durch Eis oder Wasser und der ständigen Sonneneinstrahlung wieder eine Atmosphäre bilden, aus der allmählich wieder Pflanzen und später Algen, Pilzen und schließlich erste Lebewesen wie z. B. Insekten entstehen. Am Ende dieses Kreislaufes würde genauso wieder der Mensch entstehen. Meiner Auffassung nach wird sich dieser Kreislauf nach jedem Urknall wieder aufs 1000000000000000000000el genauso wiederholen und jede Zeit-Epoche, auch die des Menschen ebenfalls wiederholen. Selbst unser kleiner Lebensabschnitt wird sich immer wieder wiederholen und hat sich bereits schon unzählige Male ereignet. Ich will damit sagen, dass alles, was sich ereignet, schon unzählige Male passiert ist und immer wieder neu passieren wird, schließlich auch der Untergang unserer Erde und unseres Sonnensystems. Das bedeutet, dass jedes Leben schon vorgezeichnet ist, ob man ein glückliches Leben führt oder immer nur Pech hat, selbst die Art und Weise unseres Todes steht bei unserer Geburt schon fest und falls jemand denkt, er könnte dem Schicksal ein Schnäppchen schlagen indem er anders wie gewohnt reagiert, ist das schon längst einmal passiert und wird immer wieder neu passieren. Das heißt, wir haben unser Leben schon unzählige Male durchlebt und werden es auf dieselbe Art und Weise immer wieder durchleben, nur liegen die Zeitabstände dazwischen immer etliche Milliarden Lichtjahre, so dass sich niemals ein Mensch wieder daran zurückerinnern kann. Nur so ist es zu erklären, weshalb alles immer in einer Schiene läuft, wie von einer magnetischen Hand gezogen. Natürlich steht auch der Fußballweltmeister 2014 schon längst fest, weil sich alles ohne jegliche Abweichung immer wiederholen wird. (Berthold, 23.06.2014 **
2936 |
==>
|