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 |
<= [701][702][703][704][705][706][707][708][709][710] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2937 |
Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots. **
2938 |
What we call the weight or mass of bodies is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense. Spreading out from such locations the density of the affectance rapidly diminishes such as to appear as mere vacuum. The gravitation and weight concepts have relevance to us, so we measure those values as if mass bodies were pulling at each other across the relative vacuum between the affectance concentrations (the bodies). So in RM:AO weight exists merely as a value that can be calculated, as does mass, but they are not individual entities or necessary properties. It is like calculating an average value. The average value doesn't exist as an actual entity or even an actual quantity, but it is still important to calculate such things.
The effect that we call »gravitation« aberrantly exists. But there is no force that is causing it. Rather it is due to the migration of the ever-replenishing concentrations. What we call »weight« is just another term for gravitational pressure.
It is conceivable that one could alter the ambient affectance field between two mass objects in such a way as to cause them to become weightless with respect to each other, no longer migrating toward each other, and neutralize the gravitation. And it is also conceivable that one could alter that field to cause the masses to migrate more strongly, increasing their relative weight. The weight of the masses is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses. And that field can be manipulated, although it takes a lot to get it done. I can explain the principle for causing weightlessness, but making something that can actually do it is a lot trickier. **
2939 |
2940 |
2941 |
As consciousness is now defined. **
But that is begging the question of what consciousness is. **
Orb wrote
»As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.« **
Perhaps observation? **
If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has consumed the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably dont do this.
For a computer to be more than a rock it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience. **
2942 |
Hello everyone,
I'm new "here" so please excuse me if I didn't phrase my proposition to your standards. (Do tell me if anything's wrong with it)
The following has been keeping my mind occupied :
If a group of an organism (E.g. Ants) is to be considered to increase in it's ability to make intelligent decisions if the group increases in size and the way humans are growing more interconnected (thus our "group" increases) whilst seemingly not growing in this ability.
Would this mean that said group is not capable of realising it's potential and could this also imply that humans seem to lack this ability? **
|
2943 |
The intelligence of a group is entirely an issue of the rules which govern the group. A group of monkeys with the right rules in place can solve problems that human's cannot solve except by having similar rules. A mind and a society are abstractly the same thing. Each requires a system by which it solves problems (the definition of intelligence) through cooperative interaction between subordinate components. **
2944 |
Now we look back on all the bad cars of the past and wonder why we bought and admired them. This is because it takes time for societal recognition of the fact that a perfectly [ehem] functioning vehicle which you thought looked new and cool, is actually shit and not cool. **
2945 |
Arminius wrote:
»Orb wrote:
As consciousness is now defined. **
By whom?«
The issue of what constitutes consciousness is a common topic in philosophy. The word consciousness merely means with-awareness.
con·scious (knshs)
adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.The Question
But a common question arises concerning the limits of that definition. If something reacts to touch, it is displaying an awareness of such touch, else how could it respond? So is it conscious of its environment?In the case of a charged particle such as an electron, a behavior is noted that indicates that an electron is very aware of any other charged particle nearby, even without being directly touched. So is an electron conscious?
In the case of a person in a comatose state, it is hardly ever argued that they are conscious. Some will argue that there is a degree of mental activity still going on and thus perhaps a degree of consciousness, but certainly not what we call fully conscious. Yet the ears still react to sounds and send signals through nerves into the brain. They are in a sense, aware that they have been touched by their environment. So are the ears and nerves conscious?
The Distinction
There is a clear distinction that can be made between the more common usage of the term consciousness and the apparent awareness that inanimate objects display. That distinction can be made by the attempt at recognition of the source of stimulation.In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.
But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.
Also in the case of the comatose person, the ears and nerves make no attempt to recognize the remote cause of the sounds to which they respond. Recognition requires memory, association, and locating algorithms not present in the ears or signaling nerves.
Thus it can be said that inanimate objects and creatures that have a disabled mental functioning, are not conscious even though there is still purely physical awareness of environment.
Since that distinction can be made, other philosophical issues can be clarified.
The Universe
It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious?There is strong evidence that the universe does not attempt to recognize any source of stimulation any more than that electron. It merely reacts to immediate surrounding conditions and nothing more. As long as the immediate surroundings are the same, the reactions are the same. Thus it can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.
God and the Materialist
This conclusion gives the atheist and/or materialist just cause for denying that a universe, exclusive of living or artificial mechanisms within, is conscious. Fortunately for those religious people who understand that God is not the universe itself, such a conclusion is irrelevant.Also just as it is said that God is outside of time, meaning that time has no association or relationship to God, God is also outside of consciousness. The ever-present God has no need whatsoever for recognition algorithms or memory banks.
I didnt say that ALL philosophical issues would be resolved. **
2946 |
Maybe consciousness doesn't even require intelligence. **
2947 |
It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more. **
2948 |
Arminius wrote:
»Nanobots manipulate.« ** **
No, that is not true for two simple reasons.
1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots? **
Arminius, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God .... **
But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to? **
Arminius wrote:
»Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.« ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.
If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.« ** **
That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions. **
Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human's capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.
Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority? **
Arminius wrote:
»But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).
Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).« ** **
|
2949 |
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
The intelligence of a group is entirely an issue of the rules which govern the group. A group of monkeys with the right rules in place can solve problems that human's cannot solve except by having similar rules. A mind and a society are abstractly the same thing. Each requires a system by which it solves problems (the definition of intelligence) through cooperative interaction between subordinate components. **
You do not see the intelligence itself as an issue?« ** **
I'm curious what you mean by that ... ? **
2950 |
2951 |
Arminius wrote:
»Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?« ** **
Only the ones designed to do so, such as natural or artificial forming crystals. Everything responds to its environment. Even human cells will not replicate if in the wrong environment (starved of any means). To stop cell reproduction, the environment must change (and does). To stop a nanobot from reproducing either the environment must change or a signal must be received into the nanobot that alters its reproduction state (merely shifting a molecule out of alignment).
In a sense, nanobots are more capable than cells because they can be signaled to start and stop. How to process that signal is about the only thing holding them up at the moment. **
2952 |
2953 |
Nanomachines will evolve by two methods. First humans will select and encourage reproduction of the more effective machines and secondly, as the machines reproduce on their own, any more effective accidental results will be utilized both naturally and by human choice. So of course they are going to evolve. And as Drexter speculated, they ARE going to be out in the world reproducing on their own. **
A nanobot is merely a virus and there are 100's of thousands of viruses, mostly man made, floating out in the world and evolving today already. As soon as man learns how to do something, he can't stop himself from doing it.
Man is going to exterminate Man simply because he finally can. **
2954 |
Arminius, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity.
The fact of the matter is that no actual nanobot (1 to 100 nm and according to Dexter premise) has been artificially made so far thus there is no question of manipulating ones. Yes, nanobots certainly exists but they are non man-made. **
When you go in the details and check the authenticity of the pictures of so called nanobots provided on the net or the media, you will find that none of those would be an artificial one but made by nature. **
The trick is in being played here in the definition of the nanobots/nanotechnology to mislead people because no one pays attention to the details but only at the headlines.
Secondly, most of us do not discern this but nanobots and nanotechnology are two entirely different things. Nanotechnology does not entail manufacturing real nanobots. **
This is from your quote of wiki- .... **
Arminius, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.
That is right, Zinnat, of course. ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Please, define observation.« ** **
Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.
Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.
Arminius wrote:
»You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?« ** **
That may happen sometimes but not in this case. On the contrary, most of the posters do not understand what nonobots and nanotechnology actually stand for, and what is the difference between the two, as i tried to explain above.
Arminius, i do not like to tweak the definitions to in order to fit those in any particular case. Let them what they are, both in spirit and the letter.
But, as far as the consciousness is concerned, i certainly have a different definition that what is perceived in the west.
They consider that consciousness manifests from the complexity/evolution in the organic/live forms, but in my opinion, it is other way around. Consciousness creates complexity in organisms. It is a precondition to life, not a byproduct. **
2955 |
2956 |
2957 |
2958 |
|
2959 |
2960 |
|
2961 |
Hegel's definition of the end of history is ambiguous as he defines it, according to the encyclopedia of philosophy, probably because he was not really sure of it. **
According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o); Rule (leadership, a.s.o.); Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.); Classes; State; Great War; City and country as contrast; Education, especially in schools and universities; Science; Order of sexulality / demographics, economics; Historiography / awareness of history! Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder Existenzialien - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige Zwischenspiel der eigentlichen Geschichte bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines Schemas der historischen Existenz ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or existentials - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting interlude of the actual history and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a scheme of historical existenceis the main goal of this book.Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der Nachgeschichte, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the post-history as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der große Krieg, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the Great War, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«). ** **
2962 |
There was still many very significant historical events after Hegel; the Internet, the formation of Israel, the collapse of the USSR, the overthrow of the USA, the space race age, artificial intelligence .... **
Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der große Krieg, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the Great War, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.« ** **
2963 |
Arminius wrote:
»The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.« ** **
It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is »The Destroyer«, the »Left hand of God«. They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: »If you can kill it, you can control it«. **
2964 |
2965 |
Arminius wrote:
»I think the humans are not able to completely understand such things, although they are able to calculate / compute them.« ** **
Perhaps »humans« can't, but I can. **
Unlike »humans«, I know that proper logic can indeed answer all questions of ontological principles (what can or cannot possibly or probably exist). The universe is affectance and it is logically impossible to ever have or have had absolute zero affectance. Although, perhaps interestingly, it is also impossible to know the exact state of the affectance at any one time (though often one can measure pretty damn close).
2966 |
|
2967 |
Arminius wrote:
»You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?« ** **
Of course they are, but that is irrelevant.
So you are talking about the end of significant cultural or social changes as being »the end of history«. And I still think that the advent of the internet (for example) is a significant change in culture and society and thus is an »historical« event (along with many others previously listed). And in the relatively near future, there is the reformation of the Americas and Europe. So I can't believe that social/cultural history has ended. **
Some people, no doubt, believe that globulization of homosapian ends history because they think that such is the final, never changing state. It is not the final state. The glob will breakup to form a new, unpredictable rearrangement of (hopefully) humanity (else machinery, but probably cyborg-ishness). **
2968 |
|
2969 |
Two options.
If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.
If we are unlucky they will probably use it to lengthen the human life span, breed aryans and make obedient super soldiers. **
Is it possible that you mean cyborgs or even androids when you are saying Aryans (**)?
2970 |
2971 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Wisdom is not merely knowledge, but also the will to use knowledge in a wise direction.« **
But doesn't it take knowledge to know how to use knowledge in a wise direction? **
2972 |
If knowledge is power ... **
B.t.w.: Knowledge is not always power, because it depends on the magnitude and distribution of power in each and every situation. There are (for example) poor people who are wise, but they have no power .... ** **
2973 |
|
2974 |
Remember me telling you that they change their wording from time to time in order to disguise their faults? They used to speak of the four fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). Now it is being stated as:
Wiki wrote:
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known.
They decided to combine electric potential, magnetics, and electromotive all into "electromagnetic" and strong plus weak into "nuclear" and, due to relativity, left out gravitation, reducing the prior four into three. And they eventually stopped calling them "forces", now referring to them as "interactions".
They are growing up and one day will reveal that gravitation can be combined into the other interactions and all be merely the one field of Affectance and its many interactive aberrant properties, "such as gravitation, electromagnetics, and nuclear bindings".
Science is lagging behind. **
2975 |
2976 |
|
2977 |
Was heißt hier Wiedervereinigung, die hat ein Herr Kohl erfolgreich verhindert. Es gibt immer noch ein Deutsches Reich, welches vom Sieger USA besetzt ist. Es besteht nur Waffenruhe mit den USAund über 150 Ländern, die irgendwie zu den USA gehörten. (Ditmar Lindner, 04.01.2015, 12:09 **).
2978 |
2979 |
2980 |
|
2981 |
Arminius, very insightful, won't you say more? **
2982 |
Thomas Szasz wrote:
»The phrase the myth of mental illness means that mental illness qua illness does not exist. The scientific concept of illness refers to a bodily lesion, that is, to a material structural or functional abnormality of the body, as a machine. This is the classic, Virchowian, pathological definition of disease and it is still the definition of disease used by pathologists and physicians as scientific healers.
The brain is an organ like the bones, liver, kidney, and so on and of course can be diseased. That's the domain of neurology. Since a mind is not a bodily organ, it cannot be diseased, except in a metaphorical sense in the sense in which we also say that a joke is sick or the economy is sick. Those are metaphorical ways of saying that some behavior or condition is bad, disapproved, causing unhappiness, etc.
In other words, talking about sick minds is analogous to talking about sick jokes or sick economies. In the case of mental illness, we are dealing with a metaphorical way of expressing the view that the speaker thinks there is something wrong about the behavior of the person to whom he attributes the illness. **
2983 |
What else evidence is required when we see it happening all around automatically! **
2984 |
And btw, light slows as it passes through an affectance/mass/gravity field. So if it is true that there is dark matter between the stars ("high density affectance" - "dense space"), the light passing through those regions would be retarded as though it was passing through a transparent substance, similar to passing through glass. And that effect might be one factor in calculating the actual distance to those stars.
And affectance also affects the degree of red-shifting involved in extreme distances. That effect is sufficient to make the universe appear to be expanding when it actually isn't.
In addition, such an effect might explain why some stars don't appear to be moving away while most others do.
The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that there was a big bang nor that the universe is expanding.! **
2985 |
2986 |
2987 |
2988 |
I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well defined. Psyche is no scientific object. ** **
2989 |
1) Do you really know what the sciientific object of physics is?
2) Do you know what psyche really is?
It is no thing (=> no-thing => nothing), and if no thing is used for everything, then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans, quacks, quacksalvers, and so on. ** **
2990
Yes, Arminius, but Nature is defined as such:
1. The phenomenon of the collective physical world and
2. The basic internAl
features of some thing, when seen as characteristics
of itHence, Nature is the phenomena and it's characteristics, as characteristics, they are perceived and channeled through the neural circuitry which interpret and organize them into laws. these phenomena and it's effects are no different from those aspects and effects of the so called psyche, which manifest in the feelings and thoughts of human beings. **
==>
|