701) Arminius, 30.04.2015, 00:15, 19:00, 21:14, 21:28, 23:37, 23:59 (2937-2942)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

No human consciousness, no human cells. Are you sure that machines are already completely independent? (This includes that they also do not depend on a program which is or can be [for example: temporarily] controlled by humans.)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

But in conclusion that would mean that also the weight of each human body „is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense“ and „is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses“ respectively the bodies, so that each body, regardless which one, is merely an affectance concentration and its weight entierely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding it (?).

You are saying that „»weight« is just another term for gravitational pressure“. But „pressure“ seems to be something like a force and similar to „pushing“. I conclude that you are saying that gravity is a force but not caused by a force, although you told me at an earlier time that gravity was not a force.

Your text (**) is based on a proton pseudos and on propaganda („affirmative action“ and other forms of political correctness, thus dictatorship) which is also based on a proton pseudos. So all conclusions can only be false because the first premise is false.

No argument? (**). You need more than 100 words for saying nonsense, and if someone friendly says with a few words that your text is based on a false premise and propaganda which is also based on a false premise, then you have nothing better to do than to say even more nonsense. So your reaction is a typical reaction of an idiot.

Orb wrote:

„As consciousness is now defined.“ **

By whom?

Orb wrote:

„But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.“ **

Why?

Amorphos wrote:

„Orb wrote

»As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.« **

Perhaps observation?“ **

That is not enough!

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.

Amorphos wrote:

„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 don’t 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.“ **

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).

Undefined Automaton wrote:

„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?“ **

They seem to lack this ability, yes, but they do not really lack this ability. The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are, for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. „X“ and „Y“) and the human group „X“ does „x“ and the human group „Y“ does „y“, then it is very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants are great specialists - but they do always the same.

702) Arminius, 01.05.2015, 00:27, 00:52, 03:10, 03:45, 22:20, 22:42 (2943-2948)

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?

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Coolness is not an issue (at least not for me) when it comes to buy a car. The old cars (e.g. those of the 1960s) were already perfectly functioning cars - coolness and too much electronics have nothing to do with perfectly functioning but merely with luxury. So when it comes to have perfectly functioning cars, cars with too much electronics (gps and so on) and coolness are not needed and oftener defect than the older cars were and are (!). Cars with too much electronics show what the future will be all about - therefore my question again: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Orb wrote:

›As consciousness is now defined.‹ **

By whom?«

Consciousness: Remote Recognition.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„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 didn’t say that ALL philosophical issues would be resolved.“ **

So „consciousness is now defined“ (Orb **) as a „remote recognition“ by you, James. But how do you define „remote recognition“? You say what and who does not have consciousness as „remote recognition“ - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?

Amorphos wrote:

„Maybe consciousness doesn't even require intelligence.“ **

How would you define „consciousness“ and „intelligence“ then?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

But it is said that all machines are still under human control.

Zinnat wrote:

„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?“ **

It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations. You can find many information about this theme in several books, on the internet, and sometimes also on the television.

Zinnat wrote:

„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 ....“ **

That is right, Zinnat, of course.

Zinnat wrote:

„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?“ **

No, because that does only mean that they are not able or not allowed to do it by themselves. Like I said: Evolution takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.« ** **

Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.“ **

Yes, but like I said: They do not need to be independent in order to be part (namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Pets, for example, evolved and evolve because of the help of the humans.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

It is not an Illusion.

Please, define „observation“.

Zinnat wrote:

„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?“ **

It depends on the definition of „observation“. How do you define „observation“?

Zinnat wrote:

„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).« ** **

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?

Please, define „observation“.

703) Arminius, 02.05.2015, 00:39, 01:50, 03:05, 17:18, 17:49, 18:21, 22:37, 23:00, 23:39, 23:56 (2949-2958)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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 ... ?“ **

Intelligence refers to (a) one person and (b) a group. A group needs very intelligent persons who are able to lead the group and to promote intelligence in the group, so that the group can become more and more intelligent. So intelligence itself must be promoted when it comes to the goal of an intelligent group, and this can best be done by very intelligent leaders.

What do you think about a cyclic universe?

Such an universe starts and ends again and again, so that every and any situation appears again and again, each life would be lived again and again, everything and anything repeats again and again.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) of humans, thus machines are under control of humans (programming, sending signals). I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

That is exactly what I mean. Currently the development is still at the first step, because machines are still under the control of humans, although the second step is already possible.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity.

Is it possible that you are occupied by your idea?

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

By whom or what are they made? By God(s)? By nature?

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

By nature. Do you have evidence?

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Show us your evidence, Zinnat.

Zinnat wrote:

„This is from your quote of wiki- ....“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„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.

Arminius wrote:

„That is right, Zinnat, of course.“ ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

But why do you not tell us your definition of „observation“? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.

Each one does not have a reminiscence of it or just never experience it.

Did the history essentially end with Hegel, especially with his 1807 published work „Phänomenologie des Geistes“?

Dissatisfied people don't want the end of history, because they always invent „victims“ like the workers as the proletariat, the women, the homosexuals (gays, lesbians, „transsexuals“), the underclass, the blacks, the non-whites, the immigrants, the maniacs, the non-smokers, the children, the body, the animals, the plants, the environment, the planet Earth, and so on. But is this historically really significant / meaningful?

One is not able to remember what was before and after one's life with memory. One just needs a memory. If the memory of a person does not work, then .... What is then? What happens to this person then? - However. A person does not remember what happened during the time when the memory of this person did not work. And in a cyclic universe the memory refers even to both past and future. There is merely one existence for merely one entity (being) in a cyclic universe, and this existence is always identical with itself.

It has to be organised, thus there has to be a structure with an accepted hierarchy.

704) Arminius, 03.05.2015, 22:56, 23:13 (2959-2960)

When it comes to understand the „end of history“ in the Hegelian sense, one has to know what Hegel exactly meant by „Staat“ („state“), especially by „Rechtsstaat“ („constitutional state“, „state of law“), by „Geist“, especially by „absoluter Geist“ („absolute spirit“ [but unfortunately „Geist“ is not perfectly translatable]), and, of course, by „Geschichte“ („history“), and by some or many more words and concepts.

Have you ever been to Europe?
If so, then when?

705) Arminius, 04.05.2015, 01:36, 02:21, 04:05, 14:07, 20:30, 22:49 (2961-2966)

Orb wrote:

„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.“ **

Nobody, thus also no philosopher, can really be sure of the term „end of history“, because the definitions of „history“ are unfortunately too many and too different. Therefore it is worth to talk about it philosophically in order to find something like an universal definition, but I think that exactly that is not possible. We do not know for sure how „history“ and „historicality“ can be exactly defined. Can they be defined by e.g. existence philosophy? Should we at first try to define what „historical existence“ is? I did it - for example in this thread with the following post:

„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 existence‹is 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«).“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„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 .... **

Some of them may be too important, so that we need to rate them among evolution but not history; some of them may be too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among events but not history; but some of them may be neither too important nor too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among history.

Arminius wrote:

„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.«“ ** **

Probably we have to wait before we judge. Maybe there will be a great war because of e.g. Israel. A great war definitely means history.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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«.“ **

An when the Devil, who is worshiped by the Godwannabes, appears as Lucifer or as the Antichrist, then his motto („make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise, until it is too late to choose otherwise“) is especially dangerous. Right?

I think that the complete understandability of the universe, especially of its beginning and of its end, is more an issue of philosophy or/and theology than of physics or/and mathematics, because especially the question of the physical beginning and the physical end of the universe can merely be answered, if the framework conditions are defined and not merely calculated / computed. Mathematics allows too much, even the calculation of things humans can never completely understand by using other scientific disciplines than mathematics. I think the humans are not able to completely understand such things, although they are able to calculate / compute them.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

I also can.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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).

But that is not what I meant. I meant the whole „story“, especially the beginning and the end of the universe. I did not mean the „ontological principles“, because I said that it is an issue of philosophy or/and theology (for example your „ontological principles“), but I meant that „humans“ are not able to understand the whole universe in the way they try it merely with physics and mathematics, because nobody of them understands the beginning and the end of the universe, and if one of them did, this one would also understand why the universe has a beginning and an end, thus this one would understand something which was before the beginning and after the end of the universe. Your RM:AO does also not refer to the time when the universe was made, if it was made, and how it began, if it did, and how it is going to end, if it is going to. And the answer that the universe has no beginning and end, can be logically explained, yes, but it is - nonetheless - not the last answer to the question whether e.g. there is something outside of the universe.

Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.

.... You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?

706) Arminius, 05.05.2015, 01:39, 02:22 (2967-2968)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

I also can't really believe that history in the narrower sense has ended.

According to the fact that I am merely asking whether history has ended or not I can say that in some cases is has and in other cases it has not ended. So the conclusiobn is that histoy has probably not ended.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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).“ **

Cyborgs are such a fundamental change that I would say that such a development is more evolutionarily than historically significant, and this does not mean that it is not historically significant.

Information is very important - naturally and culturally (our current economy, for example, should be much more orientated towards Information than towards energy).

707) Arminius, 06.05.2015, 02:40, 03:12, 09:11, 09:31, 23:45 (2969-2973)

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„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“ (**)?

Currently it seems to be more probable that the machines and some machinable humans but not the „traditional“ humans will be those „super soldiers“ you are talking about (**).

It is possible and probable that the concept „dark matter“, the concept „dark energy“, and other concepts are the „tabooed admission“ that the current physicians do not understand the universe.

Artimas wrote:

„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?“ **

„But“ is not a well chosen word in your sentence, Artimas, because it does not change (for example: relativise or even falsify) the meaning of the statement that wisdom is more than knowledge, e.g. that wisdom is the use of knowledge in a wise direction. It takes knowledge to know how to use knowledge, yes, and if one uses the knowledge in a wise direction, then this one is wise, can be called „a wise person“ or „a person with wisdom“.

Project 2501 wrote:

„If knowledge is power ...“ **

If ..., yes. Knowledge is not power but can mean power.

Arminius wrote:

„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 ....“ ** **

If knowledge is not always power, then one can hardly say that knowledge „is“ power; so one should rather say that knowledge can mean power but is not power.

It is very probable that those with the most knowledge do not have the most power, and it is also very probable that those with the most power do not have the most knowledge (in order to remain powerful they need merely an average knowledge and a few people with more than the average knowledge who depend on them). For example: each boss of a company does not always have more knowledge than the underlings of this boss; the situation, especially in the long run, that some underlings have more knowledge than their boss is more probable.

Please, do not misunderstand me, because I am not saying that that „new tech“ (**) is not possible, but most of those „news“ are nevertheless mere propaganda, and the machines will probably be superior to humans. Perhaps you will be able to buy you a human Aryan for your fun at home and a machine Aryan for your wars in the whole world.

708) Arminius, 07.05.2015, 00:22, 00:32, 00:38 (2974-2976)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, and I think it is mostly because of non-scientific lobbyism. There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science to an end. Another point is that scientists themselves get more and more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the brainwashing of the people by propaganda.

Here follow some more examples:

- „War is peace.“
- „Stupid is intelligent.“
- „Smaller is bigger.“
- „7 is 13.“

Brainwashing.

Another examples for the „tabooed admission“ that the current physicians do not understand the universe are the concept „big bang“ and the concept „inflation of the universe“.

709) Herr Schütze, 07.05.2015, 22:29, 23:26, 23:40, 23:43 (2977-2980)

@ Ditmar Lindner.

„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 **).

Außerdem gibt es die 20 Millionen vertriebenen Deutschen und deren Gebiete, die ebenfalls nicht wiedervereinigt worden sind. Von „Wiedervereinigung“ kann also nicht die Rede sein, sondern allenfalls von „Wiedervereinigungsverhinderung“ (was ich übrigens auch schon in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren, also noch vor der „Deutschen Einheitsverhinderung“ von 1990, geahnt habe).

Sie bewahren es nicht dort, sondern es wird dort von denen aufbewahrt, die es 1945 geklaut haben.

Wie genau soll und kann das geschehen?

Woher weiß Otto von Kanada das?

710) Arminius, 13.05.2015, 20:06, 20:11, 20:27, 20:44, 20:48, 20:57, 21:32, 21:47, 22:38 23:21 (2981-2990)

Project 2501 wrote:

„Arminius, very insightful, won't you say more?“ **

Perhaps, yes. It depends on how you (want to) go on with your interesting thread.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„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‹.“ **

It is sad enough that one has to explain this again and again. The brain is a part of the body, scintifically spoken: a part of biology, especially neurology. Brain is not mind, and both are not psyche. Brain is scientifically accessible, but psyche and mind are scientifically not accessible, because they are scientifically not objectifiable. So psychology is not a scientifical discipline. Psychology has no scientifical object. It can merely be a part of a theory.

Nobody knows what psyche really is. That is the reason why it is used for everything. 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.

Zinnat wrote:

„What else evidence is required when we see it happening all around automatically!“ **

Please explain what you concretely mean.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.!“ **

Yes.

Does the planet Earth have more affectance than its moon called Moon? And if so: Why?

Where does affectance originally come from?

Where does affectance originally come from?

I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well defined. Psyche is no scientific object.

Sociologists are as useful as a hole in the head.

It is not debatable. And my text is no critique.

No one can say what „psyche“ really „is“.

Again:

„I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well defined. Psyche is no scientific object.“ ** **

Fuse, two questions:

1) Do you really know what the sciientific object of physics is?
2) Do you know what „psyche“ really is?

You conFUSE „physics“ with „dark-matter-ology“ or „uinversology“. The scientific object of physics is „nature“ with its „bodies“. There is no doubt about it. The word „physics“ is derived from the Greek word „physika“ which means „nature“. It is well known what „nature“ and its „bodies“ mean.

If you, Fuse, knew what „psyche“ really is, then you would be God or one of the Godwannabes who claim to know what it is, although they do not know what it is. The word „psyche“ has always been an abstraction, a philosophical or/and religious term without any concrete meaning, without any material aspect; so psyche is merely an abstraction like a whiff (puff or tang), thus no thing, no-thing, nothing.

Arminius wrote:

„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

Orb wrote:

„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 it

Hence, 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.“ **

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. The „feelings“ and the „thoughts“ are not what „psyche“ means. The „feelings“ are feelings, the „thoughts“ are thoughts, and the „psyche“ is psyche. Why are you so stubborn when it comes to accept what words, terms, and concepts mean? The natural base for thoughts is the brain, and the brain science is called neurology which is a part of biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. The natural base for feelings is also the natural living body, and the science of the natural living body is biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. What you are saying about „feelings“ and „thoughts“ is hocus-pocus when it comes to bring them in a discipline which they definitely do not belong to.

==>