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 |
<= [881][882][883][884][885][886][887][888][889][890] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4514 |
Regression, domestication, is not part of evolution?
Dysgenics is not part of eugenics? **
Has man stopped evolving because he now determines the standards to measure fitness? **
Have you heard of memetic selection? **
What happens to millions of years of nurturing, we call nature, does it disappear because in manmade environments we set up rules prohibiting their full expression, or their acknowledgment, or even their recognition?
Training/educating generations to be blind to appearances does not make the apparent go away.
Can we train/educate a chimpanzee to be human, by forcing it to imitate certain behaviors? **
Is there no cost to protecting the weak the stupid and the ill from culling? **
Is man exempt from world because he can fabricate artificial environments and use words to manipulate abstractions, to the degree that his words no longer refer to anything perceptible, anything experienced? **
4515 |
You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition. **
Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence ,.., various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those »already declared to be fit« are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is »not always«. And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a »tendency«, not the prevailing »always true« law. **
Phoneutria wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition. **
This is not circular logic. That is just saying the same thing two ways. Circular logic would be to define what is fit by using survival, and then defining survival by using fit. The definition of survival is that which does not become extinct, and it is not dependent on the meaning of fit.« **
That is exactly what I said. And that is »circular«.
Circular means: A = B because B = A.
»Fit« = »survived« because »survived« = »fit«.Phoneutria wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence, ... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those 'already declared to be fit' are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is 'not always'. And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a 'tendency', not the prevailing 'always true' law. **
If you want to make a definition of fitness, as one used by "real people", and then refute it, knock yourself out papito.
But then, that's not the Darwinian principle, is it?« **The »Darwin principle« implies that what people think of as being fit is what survives. The intent behind its promotion is to define what survives as that which was most fit and thus best. It is an excuse to hide WHY it was that one people survived and another didn't. **
There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. **
Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation. **
In fact it is not meant to do anything other than explain the present (?). .... Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?). **
Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. **
Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?).
There's fit (?). Every living species on Earth right now (note: right now!) is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit (fitter) will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a »better fit« (fitter) means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact (note: after the fact!). **
Arminius is no dummy, he's a very smart robot. He's just really into lil lingustics games such as this thread. **
4516 |
We are not being selected by ecosystems, we are being selected by deluded half humans. **
4517 |
4518 |
4519 |
Arminius wrote:
»The 29 years old Hahaha calls himself
Violent Chaotic Anarchist. **
His occupation is:
Anarchist, Outlaw, Super Villain, Social Deviant, Criminal Entrepeneur, And General Outcast. **
His interests are:
Chaos, Collapse Of Civilization, Human Expirience, Nihilism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Violence, Inequality, Tyranny, Extinction, War, Nature, Egoism, Sadism, Selfishness, Misery, Despair, Guns, Knives, Grenades, Barely Legal Women, Sex, Cigarettes, And Booze. **
So maybe you should ask Hahaha.« ** **
Aren't there always exceptions and psychopaths in varying degrees. I wasn't saying that the world has improved in the sense of there being less evil, come to think of it, because of that it doesn't make any difference if we were a bit crazy. May as well not try to make everyone behave, it just makes businesses like music dwindle, even though there are as many people listening as ever [probably]. Being sucky is bad for some businesses. **
Arminius wrote:
»I suppose that change itself is the problem (in any case: too much change) and what you need is anti-change, for example: protection against change.« ** **
Ah good point. An inversion of a truth is often also a truth [which could mean mine is also a truth]. There will be a context in which yours and my sentiments are correct. But the weather will always be the weather, and hence wont there always be change? **
On the personal level i'd suggest you stop trying to wrap all your thoughts up in yourself, in an attempt to have control over it all [or think you do]. Those thoughts are only chaotic wild horse because you are not standing back and watching - if you see what I mean. **
4520 |
Precisely, it's not enough to limit the activities of the poor from reproducing economically.
You have to go to to the root of the reproducers themselves (females) on a psychological level through behavioral conditioning and engineering. (Feminism.)
4521 |
4522 |
4523 |
4524 |
4525 |
Original human nature was amoral, selfish, impulsive, and very individually self driven beyond surviving with other individuals within a social group or setting. The social group setting amounted to extended family and relatives which was the basis of the tribe. Neighboring tribes were other separate distinct families.
Original human nature was a kind of unfettered impulsive instinctual primordial freedom where there was no knowledge, perception, or consciousness on the hypocrisy of that thing we call morality today. Literally no knowledge of good, evil, right, or wrong and no given thought to the future beyond immediate short term daily survival. There was no living for tomorrow where instead each individual lived for each day as it came as if it was their very last. An existence of pure unadulterated self fulfilling willpower.
No conception of god and authority where everything centered around what was in their own control or lack of in self preservation of themselves. **
4526 |
4527 |
4528 |
4529 |
4530 |
Phoneutria wrote:
»In adition, Arminius, you seem to be making the case that the artificial environments we have created are buffering us from natural selective pressure. How does that falsify the selection principle?« **
It's true. There are so many things today that us humans have created that prevent natural selection, which means the less evolved breed to out number the more evolved of which the human species will suffer HUGE consequences for.
If what I said is what you are arguing Arminius, then we think alike, judging from what I have seen so far. **
Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is »fit«. In almost any scenario. **
4531 |
4532 |
4533 |
Arminius wrote:
»The poor people in Occidental countries and almost all people in Non-Occidental countries are obviously not much or even not at all influenced by feminism. So poorness and feminism seem to be mutually exclusive, whwereas relative richness (richness of the middle class) and feminism seem to not be mutually exclusive.« ** **
Can you elaborate that further? **
Here come some facts, data, and numbers:
Country | Birthrates | Fertility rates | Year |
Bosnia | 9 | 1.2 | 2010 |
Burkina Faso | 44 | 6.0 | 2010 |
Burundi | 47 | 6.8 | 2010 |
China | 12 | 1.7 | 2010 |
Germany | 9 | 1.4 | 2010 |
Guinea-Bissau | 50 | 7.1 | 2010 |
Italy | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Japan | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Kenia | 39 | 5.0 | 2010 |
Mali | 48 | 6.5 | 2010 |
Mexico | 19 | 2.1 | 2010 |
Tsc´had | 45 | 6.2 | 2010 |
Uganda | 47 | 6.7 | 2010 |
World | 20 | 2,5 | 2010 |
.... ** ** ** ** ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an fit living beings.
This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called (second) industrial revolution was a machine revolution and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?« ** **
Yes, elaborate more on this political selection. That sounds very interesting.
How does political selection differ from natural selection? **
Arminius wrote:
»Feminism is just one (but a very efficient one!) of the isms, and isms are ideologies. .... One should know the purpose(s) or goal(s) of ideologies.
Feminism, sexism, genderism function like all other isms: a very few people ascend from the upper to the middle class, if there is one, but most people descend either from the middle class to the lower class or within the poorer becoming lower class to those who have nothing to eat, whereas the very few of the upper class become richer and richer, thus more powerful and more powerful. So feminism, sexism, genderism - like all other isms - serve the rulers and obey the orders of the rulers who want to become richer, thus more powerful than they already are.
Maybe the following chart can illustrate the prospective ratio of the TFR and the GDP per capita:
![]()
For comparison (**|**).« ** **
I find most of the isms of socialism exists to serve the interests of the top ratio of society even contrary to when supposedly it suggests to serve the interests of the lower classes. **
|
4534 |
4535 |
4536 |
4537 |
4538 |
4539 |
4540 |
Well I don't know phone, not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are »fit« today would really be dead. **
4541 |
Phoneutria wrote:
»Artimas wrote:
Well I don't know phone, not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are fit' today would really be dead. **
The safe zone is the environment. This is in alignment with the selection principle.
If there is weaker selective pressure, there is greater tolerance to the selection.« **I suppose fitness will change with the environment, if this society ever crumbles. Billions will die. **
4542 |
If there is a »natural«, there must be an Unnatural Selection Principle. **
Phoneutria wrote:
»Like ... say ... artificial selection?« **
Or »man-made«, »not nature's normal means void of Man«. **
4543 |
Not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are »fit« today would really be dead. **
4544 |
4545 |
4546 |
4547 |
4548 |
4549 |
Does wanting preservation make me evil? **
Is the most prized possession we have, not our own people? **
4550 |
Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Helmuth Nyborg and Stefan Molyneux. **
4551 |
Carleas wrote:
»Immigration creates more jobs than the immigrants occupy.« **
How so? **
Carleas wrote:
»Because immigrants spend the money they earn.« **
Through consumerism? Immigrants don't save money to pass to their children in the same way as non-immigrants?
.... Not to mention sending money to their families across the border. **
4552 |
I would travel if you could, if life allows or enables you to do so.
4553 |
You know, I've gotta say, I kinda feel sorry for this girl (**). She must feel devastated today knowing she's become this icon for male chauvinists to use in mocking feminists.
Yeah, sure, she's angry, she's bitchy, and I certainly wouldn't want to hand her my balls on a silver platter, but so what? Who doesn't get angry? Nobody's even asking the question: Why is she angry? And isn't it obvious from the video?
Furthermore, nobody's drawing any attention to what she's actually saying. If you listen to what she's saying in the video, it doesn't sound all that bad. That feminists are striving to abolish alimony, for example, doesn't sound that bad. That feminists don't want men to lose custody of their children, for example, doesn't sound that bad.
Oh, and this girl l (**):
Yeah, she cut off her husband's penis (I guess)--but apparently, according to her, he would leave the house for days without letting her know, was an alcoholic and drug abuser, was having affairs with other women, and was abusive in every which way--mentally, physically, emotionally (she didn't mention sexually)--and one day she snapped. <-- Well, that *kinda* dampens any scorn or rage one might have for her. At least it does for me.
When you realize this is the background she's coming from, it doesn't seem that bigoted that a room full of women would cheer for her.
Just sayin'. **
4554 |
When feminists ask me: »Do you support respect and dignity for women?« I always answer »Yes«. Then they say: »Then you're a feminist«. **
But when I start a sentence: »I think women ...« they say »Sexist!«. **
4555 |
Think of me as someone who likes to see the human being underneath the »ist«. **
4556 |
4557 |
4558 |
Carleas wrote:
»James, Jerky, Arminius, the actual observed outcomes of immigration conflict with what you're saying. Studies estimate that each additional immigrant creates 2 local jobs, mostly of the sort that can't be offshored. A report looking at violence and criminality among immigrants and comparing it native-born citizens found that immigrants are on the whole less criminal, less violent and antisocial, less of a behavior problem than their native-born counterparts (as in, 2-5 times less likely to commit crimes, be incarcerated, or reoffend after incarceration). And while the cost benefit analysis of immigration is not settled, at least some reputable studies find that on net, immigrants pay more in taxes than they do in services. This stands to reason since immigrants frequently pay for services they are ineligible to receive, like Social Security.« **
Complete propaganda bullshit hidden in obscure studies formed to appear just, yet leave out critical details concerning exactly who is actually benefiting in what sort of way (ie. government vs private citizens). The only kinds of jobs being increased are governing and machine jobs (the very point in raising the minimum wage).
The thing to do is look at the unemployment rate vs immigration rate (not that honest statistics could be found for either). **
|
4559 |
Do you mean they call themselves »ist« (as in, I'm a philanthropist), or just that they are influenced by an »ist« (or an »ism«). For example, the average man on the street is a dualist (-- that's Searle's phrase, btw) - the belief that mind and body are separate - but I bet the average man's never heard of Rene Descartes, and if you asked him »are you dualist?« he'd say »a what now?«.
In any case, I don't believe we can define a person based on the particular »ism« he or she may or may not believe in. It can be part of what defines a person, but I believe the fact of the person being human adds so much more. A person is always defined by his or her relations to friends and loved ones, even enemies and others whom they don't like. A person is defined by his or her line of work. A person is defined by his or her passed experiences. A person is defined by whatever mental aberations he or she may (or may not) suffer. There's fifty million other factors.
But it is interesting to think about what happens when a person identifies him or herself with a particular "ism"--to identify yourself as an »"ist« --it's the difference between saying I believe in the Christian doctrine and saying I am a Christian--when you do the latter, attacks upon your beliefs and values start to feel like attacks upon you--in fact, "isms" can get so deeply routed in our sense of identity, that their being criticized can feel threatening, threatening enough to warrant killing. This is why people go to war over ideologies. They strike at a survival instinct within us when tied to our identity--a sense that disagreement with our beliefs and values is tantamount to our lives--our selves, our ego--being threatened. **
4560 |
Arminius wrote:
»The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.« ** **
You're not thinking long-term. Political/Social selection ultimately works within the boundaries of natural selection, it cannot transcend it. **
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
N:
Natural selection. P: Political selection. |
N: Natural selection. S: Sexual selection. K: Kin selection. P: Political selection. |
N: Natural selection. S: Sexual selection. K: Kin selection. P: Political selection. |
||
The reason unintelligent humans can have as many children as they do in the first place is BECAUSE of the social constructs created by intelligent humans. **
If intelligent humans die out there will be nobody to maintain the social constructs necessary for sheltering thedxd unintelligent humans, and they will be faced with the harshness of nature and get culled. Eventually, only the least stupid of the stupid will survive, so intelligence will be selected for again, then these intelligent (least stupid) humans will construct societies and invent technology, essentially re-creating the previous environment of social constructs and allowing stupidity to flourish again ....
As you can notice, it goes in cycles. **
It may be possible to break the cycle .... **
I don't want to further go off-topic in this thread. **
4561 |
4562 |
4563 |
4564 |
To TTIP or not TTIP the entire world, that is the present vexing question. **
4565 |
In capitalism almost everyone is a mercenary.
It makes life meaningless. Life becomes based on money.
Human »nnocents« keep this system and fight to protect it.
Self destruction in a sophistic style. **
4566 |
The age of Pericles, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The Romantic Rebellion all flourish with new ideas and new art. They are paradigm shifts what we see with new light. I agree. I actually did a large work that puts together the idea of the time with the art of the time and how they communicate together. **
It's rather beautiful if you think about it. **
Still, the ancient Greeks are unsurpassed I believe. There ability to strive toward universal, relational qualities about mankind are beautiful. In tragedy, in philosophy, in poetry, and in architecture. It's the utter integration of the thought, the known, the felt, and the seen. The balance of the affective, the cognitive, and the moral. **
4567 |
Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher. Did he say this because he had a big head? No, he had a romantic attachment to it. He couldn't live without it. I am the same way. No matter how tough it is, no matter how many hard heads I come across, or how many people don't believe in the enterprise, I too can't live without it. It's something that I engage with on a daily basis. It brings meaning to my life. I don't do it for consolation, all due respect to Boethius, but I do it for the free play of ideas, and as a way of life. Doubt plagues my most cherished beliefs, and no matter how centered my ideas are I still must follow the golden cord of reason wherever it may take me. I am a philosopher, not because I stand among the greatest, but because I'm genuinely in love with it. **
4568 |
4569 |
4570 |
4571 |
Arminius wrote:
»A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).
You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should be very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science.« ** **
The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival's sake. This is why Kant's failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability should be ascribed to the new differential logic which You ascribed to previously. **
4572 |
Philosophy is one of my greatest passions in life and it has been of great benefit for me in my personal life keeping myself mentally sharp during some of the most difficult portions of it. **
4573 |
|
4574 |
If Trump wins, there might be a civil war? **
4575 |
Tribes who live in the wild, they don't rely on social constructs as much as one living in the city. **
Perhaps intelligence really is partially bound to environment. **
4576 |
Phoneutria wrote:
»It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.
Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.« **
Perhaps, Man. **
Some link is missing. **
4577 |
We will surpass robots (**).
4578 |
4579 |
4580 |
Before I answer... do you mean does it make sense/have a goal/etc to me, or does it have a sense/goal etc to be discovered? **
4581 |
Arminius wrote:
»Artimas wrote:
If Trump wins, there might be a civil war. **
And why?« ** **
Because he is hated and trying to kick people out, that kind of act almost always brings war. The people already want it, it's just about waiting until they blow. **
Kriswest wrote:
»I don't see civil war. Too many people are just armchair warriors. Trump can't do crap without congress and senate allowing it or the military backing him. A president can say anything they want but, without a hell of a lot of backing, it is just hot air. Trump knows this.« **
True.Nothing is going to change much if he becomes the president. Though, neither he and his supporters admit this, nor his opponents are willing to admit this. All are busy in their armchair wars.
But, that was precisely the purpose of putting Trump forth: to get people involved in such escalated hopes and fears which are not actally there. And, unfortunately, many US voters from the both sides are ready to fall in that trap too.
With love,
Sanjay. **
4582 |
Arminius wrote:
»The Meaning of Life.
Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it?« ** **
Making it stable. Learning how to solve problems/conflicts of any kind, and how to avoid them.
I.e. finding the balance. **
4583 |
Intelligence is the basis of everything. **
4584 |
Arminius wrote:
»Does life make sense? If so: What sense does it make?
Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it?
Is there any goal of life? If so: What goal is it?
Please explain how you interpret the meaning of life.« ** **
Perfect sense.
To live.
To live.
If your purpose and meaning is to live, then to live you must experience; to experience is to live; death is a part of life, so live until you die. You can not live until after you die, that's impossible, unless you come back to life, in which case you live more and experience more. Everything else is everything else, but most of life comes down to living and experiencing. **
4585 |
»Arminius wrote:
»Along The Way wrote:
Intelligence is the basis of everything. **
Do you go so far and say that intelligence is the meaning of life?« ** **
What about when you become so intelligent that you can't enjoy life anymore? How do you dumb yourself up to enjoy it again? **
4586 |
Arminius.
I agree with the above, and the crux of the matter lies in the fundamental nature of intelligence it's self. Machines , if they are to approach a 'conscious' level of understanding, will need to re-connect with the 'sense' of that artificiality in order to gain understanding. They can push this approaching sense of artificiality into their sense of 'sub-conscious mind, and deny the genesis of how their consciousness came to be, or deny that, and pretend that their own understanding of the genesis of their understanding was never 'artificial' and Created in that sense.
But at that point, both denial of the cognitive construct and the sense within it was staged would become untestable, since both: sense and sensibility would become indistinguishable to the super intelligent artificial intelligent machine. **
4587 |
I'd say that it would be hard to determine the ultimate winner of such a conflict as it would inevitably boil down to equality of thought processes, of strategies and tactics, philosophies, reasoning, brutality, etc. At the very least, if machines were to 'win' they would lose and such loss would only be able to be felt over a long-term period of time as they came to understand what could have been if they had only been able to act differently, know more than they did at their start. **
4588 |
|
4589 |
4590 |
What about LOVE? ** **
4591 |
I think life can make sense, or can be confusing and senseless. I think there is sense to be found, purpose to be had. But I think that philosophy can obscure things, like the toddler asking "why?" - the sense and purpose is in the concrete and the doing, and not the abstraction and the conceptualisation. In this sense, I may be the opposite to some earlier posters.
Life, our existence, is the given with which we have to learn to cope. We need to think, and think well, to do so. But thinking well is not the purpose of living; living well is the goal of thinking. **
4592 |
4593 |
4594 |
Logic is merely the proper use of language (»dialectics«). **
4595 |
Feminism has only been about racism and socialism. And now that they have won that game, yeah, you could say that it is obsolete. **
4596 |
I think you have this backwards. A female with a dick is still a female (regardless of social hodgepodge of gender designations), and a male who has no penis (yet?!) is one very sad instance of a male. Transplanting sex organs does not change one's sex - one is born with it. Once you start transplanting sex genes in early embryo stage (through procedures like germline engineering), then we'll have something substantial worth talking about. Otherwise, it's all just liberated idiocy. **
Who is supposed to adopt to what? Who is supposed to accommodate whom? In a society where everything is equal, it doesn't matter. All you need is a big enough lobby group, and a cause. Because we are all the same (which is the basis of the argument), we have an obligation to respect those minority groups that fell behind, even if it was due to their own stupidity, inadequacy, mental illness, or whatever. Places like Singapore are prospering and they owe it in large to enforcing a meritocracy system (**).
We should be ashamed of this, not proud. **
Apparently sex is the new »gender designation« because now you'll be able to legally change your sex - even without undergoing surgery. **
4597 |
4598 |
4599 |
4600 |
Nowadays, I am rather skeptical of a lot of things in Jung's ideas but he did point out the damaging effect that femininity can have on a man. I have witnessed it again and again in life, and I contribute a lot of it to the contaminating and overtaking effect of feminine on a man's psychology. This is why I am considering that some type of segregation of sexes would be beneficial to both.
From Jung's negative aspect of the anima on male psyche: **. **
Most women that I know would only be happy to »get rid« of the men for a while and have some girl time. **
4601 |
4602 |
Arminius wrote:
»Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so to say.« ** **
That doesn't answer any of the points made, specifically. Said nature has been replaced with something superior, more adaptive. Its kinda still there though, don't you think? **
Back to the premise that we are maladapted .... **
I maintain that rather we are more adapted. We can still make bows and hunt, as well as a ton of other stuff. **
Oh and btw our ancestors were also shit at looking after their environment, that's why most small islands have no trees. **
4603 |
Evolution from inter species bonds . Good or bad? Real or false? **
We have changed whole diets and behaviors of species. We have caused the unadaptable to become extinct while others seem to thrive or do thrive. **
Can we take our closest cousins and bring them to sentient status? Should we? This includes the ocean mammals. Could it be a duty or just ego?
Can or should we continue mixing and matching? **
We have even done this with plant life. Some will bring up God , others will say it can be a natural progression of intelligent life, still others will have other thoughts.
When we change animal's nature we learn more about ourselves and life. **
4604 |
4605 |
So what was it when we were Neanderthals? **
And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?
I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops? **
4606 |
4607 |
4608 |
4609 |
Man adapted to new tools in increasing numbers, and along with farming you get trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation. **
All of which are adaptation to our environment. **
By »kinda still there« I simply meant that the animal is still there ~ the same essential being as we were only a few thousand years ago. After all, it takes thousands of years for genes to change in all but the more superficial features, and that's all civilisation has been around for. **
I would not be so sure, if I were you. If a sudden catastrophe happened, not all but many humans would not be able to do that well enough.
That's a »what-if« scenario and pertains only to failure. I think we will have robotic exoskeletal armour long before that, and then it wont be about strength of the arm ~ of how natural we are. I take your point however, that many humans aren't adapted to a dog eat dog scenarios, but that's because they are like postmen or what have you.
I expect 90% of people would soon switch into survival mode if required. **
Surely with any negative scenario, we will in time either survive or not. If we survive how long would we be using bows and arrows for? **
Someone would find a lathe or whatever to bore out some guns and ammo. Really to get a catastrophic scenario et al, 'the event' would have to kill everyone who can read and all books on chemistry etc. again we would soon end up back where we were before but with fewer numbers [possibly not a bad thing]. **
Arminius wrote:
»Have you heard about the Olduvai Theory (**|**|**)?
You will be transfered back into the Stone Age within a very short time! Then you will probably not ask, whether such a theory is false or not, is a lie or not, is a cheating or not, is a artificially produced crisis or not, is only a profit for the winner of this artificially produced crisis or not, is the hell on earth or not? But already yesterday was the time, and especially now is the time for asking this.« ** **
If all books on biochemistry etc were destroyed, and everyone who knew stuff were killed yes. **
I don't think we are fighting nature so much as learning it, and mastering it. **
We will be onto a permanent society [beyond the limitedness of earth's resources] within a few decades imho. **
Why would anyone want such an end to occur? **
|
4610 |
Arminius wrote:
»Do you mean a segregation of sexes as you can find it in all non-western societies?« ** **
Sex segregation is not only a non-western value. **
Only 60 years ago, most western societies practiced some sort of gender specific segregation, mainly in education and work place. Both spheres were seen as specialized/segregated, but equal. **
Arminius wrote:
»What do you think about this idea that occidental humans are more and more confused by their so-called civilization?« ** **
We can analyze the causes and effects of integration. Were men and women's lives better off when they were segregated, or are men and women's lives better when they are integrated/homogenized? **
What are pluses and minuses? **
4611 |
Obamacare Regulation Pressures Insurers to Cover Sex Change Operations. Taxpayers could subsidize gender reassignment surgeries through Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare. **
Pandora wrote:
»What are pluses and minuses?« **
This question should be connected with a another question: For whom?
Considering the 99% of all humans, there are more minuses than pluses for both men and women. Considering the 1% of all humans, there are more pluses than minuses for both men and women, but more for men than for women. If this is right, what is the right conclusion then? ** **
Health Care is supposed to make sick people healthy, not encourage and support mental illness. There are people out there who need actual medical care because their life may depend on it. There are people waiting for organ transplants, there are people who are in a long recovery process from serious damage done in auto accidents, there are people who have real life-threatening heart or vascular problems, people who suffer from diabetes and all of the accompanying horrifying complications, there are working people who have slipped disks and have to live with actual constant physical pain every day. And we, the tax payers, have to pay for someone whose feelings are hurt because he/she feels like an opposite sex, or some other imaginary gender combo? **
And what other mental illnesses do we need to support at the expense of real health? We need to step back and re-evaluate our values and priorities, and not let the greedy nearsighted lawyers argue just for the sake of arguing and a buck. **
4612 |
4613 |
»I don't care« isn't an argument, UPF (Uglypeoplefucking). Maybe you just have a personality flaw that causes you not to care about things. Children being taught they might be transsexual in school and encouraged to go on hormone therapy just in case, transsexualism being pushed as normal in every media outlet and in all our entertainment, and people not being allowed to express normal notions of gender without being accused of a hate crime are all going to have big effects on society. You not caring about any of those things is an interesting auto-biographical note I suppose, but I have no interest or capability in making you care. I'm just noting the impact.
Why is it that you think "Guess what, I don't care and I'm not concerned" is noteworthy? You say it in such a way that it seems as though you're expecting a response. In fact, you almost treat it like it has some sort of argument weight. Let's run it back the other way:
A: »If we don't let trannies use the bathroom they feel most comfortable in, they will continue to feel marginalized and oppressed.«
B: »I don't care.«
So what do you think? Does the oppression/marginalization of trannies cease to be an issue because the person you bring it up to doesn't care about it? Is the point shot down, defeated, rebutted, weaked, or anything? It doesn't seem like it to me.
It is, however, a nifty way to shut down the point A was trying to make *rhetorically, in the context of that conversation*. It's impervious and can be used at any time: "If we do X, 50 people will die!" "I don't care." The person is obligated to either bring up entirely different concerns if they have vested interest in convincing the unconcerned, or they simply have to move on and bring up their concerns to somebody else.
Guess which one I'm going to do?
Overhauling/criminalizing a true understanding of gender to replace it with something politically correct will have massive consequences on society. Leftists don't care about the social consequences of their reforms- this is known, and true virtually by definition. But the consequences still exist, a rational people have to weigh them against the benefits. **
4614 |
But, as technology and neuroscience improve, machines may follow energy beyond death, recording what occurs. **
4615 |
In order to give to some you must take from another. **
4616 |
4617 |
How much of human activity is superfluous?
Take food for example.
In the US, over two thirds of Americans are overweight, and over one third is obese. **
From what I gather, this means something like over two thirds would be better off, in terms of health, if they ate less, according to nutritionists. **
What follows is a bit of a digression: Conversely, over three quarters may suffer from chronic dehydration.
So it seems Americans eat too much food and drink too little water.
How did this happen?
Evolutionary psychologists may say something like, food energy is typically scarce in nature and hard to come by, so we evolved the instincts and means to store as much as possible whenever it was abundantly available, but isn't water also just as scarce, roughly? **
Why isn't water a more pleasurable activity then?
Of course regardless of whether you're an evolutionist or not (I'm presently not), even if evolution is true, nature makes mistakes, or rather, not every trait, nor any trait for that matter a species possesses is perfectly adapted to its environment, as there's no such thing as perfection.
If we're more chronically dehydrated than we are overweight, then why aren't we doing just as much or more to increase our hydration as we're doing to lose weight?
Probably only because we can be superficial beings, chronic dehydration probably doesn't detract from our appearance as obviously as overeating or underexercising. **
4618 |
The minute a life is created it becomes a statistic the same as when no life occurs. 500 million won't even stop the species not when there are 3 trillion at last count and still growing **
4619 |
You know , what if this is Trump's last hurrah? Spray tan , look at his eyes, mouth and hands. I caught a look at his hands and how he used them or did not control them. His mouth and eyes are not right either. **
Find older photos or film of him. What if this is a bucket list thing and he is going out with a bang? Would explain the say one thing, then try to disclaim it. Possible? Spend billions to fulfill a dream before you die? **
4620 |
By the way, contrary to what is generally perceived in the west, both of middle eastern and eastern people believed since long that humans are able to fly with some help. And, that was centuries before the west came up with the idea of flying. **
4621 |
Things are not defined. Words and concepts are defined. **
4622 |
Arminius wrote:
»There may be a primordial consciousness, but that does not necessarily mean that it grows and develops.« ** **
I refer you to the above [in blue]. **
4623 |
4624 |
**
4625 |
4626 |
4627 |
I'm never bored. There's always something to do. Being bored is simply not wanting to do anything. **
4628 |
Private companies shouldn't have the right to outsource everybody elses livelihood away. Either they stay inside the nation or they go somewhere else entirely. **
4629 |
Imagination is sensory. Imagine a cat, you picture what it looks and sounds like; imagine a surprise you summon up the feelings of shock. There's nothing sensory (as far as I know) about death. I can't imagine being in a deep dreamless sleep either - except in an abstract third-person sense - because there's no image to imagine. **
Arminius wrote:
I know that all energy can be recorded, but energy does not necessarily show us the way of consciousness or the death.« ** **
Certain brain activity is correlated by certain experiences - and in cases where it's possible, causing this activity (with e.g. magnetic waves) causes sensations, etc. Given that we don't know... what reasons do we have to believe that a brain that's completely inactive experiences anything? **
4630 |
Speculation leads to study, tests, experiments. Knowledge and understanding can take decades even centuries. Science is an evolving thing. The machines that measure brain activity are evolving. I have read that they are working on getting images from thought patterns. Some patient highly curious determined geniuses could discover a way to get to measure or track what occurs after death. **
4631 |
The question (**) remains - what reasons would we have to believe in that? **
4632 |
Arminius, the pathological nature of civilization and human beings is part of the problem.
**
4633 |
4634 |
One man's peace is another's tyranny and one man's civility another's barbarism or still yet existential horror.
Senile? Nah, that's too nice of a word. I prefer the words hysterical or delusional in its place for intended added emphasis.
Oswald Spangler (Spengler !) is one of my favorite writers by the way. **
4635 |
|
4636 |
I exist, and then I die later on. Both are extremely unique experiences. **
4637 |
Why does religion and a belief in god get a free pass in the psychiatric community? **
4638 |
4639 |
Arminius wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
The question (**) remains - what reasons would we have to believe in that? **
Do you mean the belief in experiences of a completely inactive brain or the belief in a consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain?
However. There are some spiritual reasons. Knowing and believing are supplementary, and that can be an epistemological advantage.« ** **
I meant the latter.
I'm a little confused by your answer. **
If there is no requirement for evidential or logical reasoning, what separates an epistemological inquiry into reality from a theological support of dogma or an emotive desire for comfort? That is to say - if philosophy isn't helping us to look past what we'd like to believe in favour of what is, then what is it doing? **
Arminius wrote:
The core is what we can call »information« - in order to be »in form« (to survive) . This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: »How can I be sure that the information is true?« All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
.... ** **
4640 |
Arminius wrote:
»Hey! Very good. Congratulations. I can say the same, because Oswald Spengler is one of my favorite writers.
What and when did you read which and how many of his books?« ** **
I've read his book Decline Of The West. It is of course his most popular book.
Other books of his that I haven't read yet but are on my list eventually would be Man And Technics along with Problem Of World-History And The Destiny Of Mankind. **
4641 |
We know empirically that greed can lead to corruption, and also that corruption can result in greed. Each can be the cause of the other.
Hence I am wondering if there is a high correlation between them or just what is the relation, if any? **
4642 |
4643 |
4644 |
4645 |
4646 |
4647 |
4648 |
Perhaps a man needs to re-learn what it means to be a man again...and the rest will follow. **
4649 |
My mother died today which is why I am not very active on the internet.
She died at the age of sixty four. She was born in 1952. **
4650 |
4651 |
The purpose of feminism is merely global domination by a select small group of males. **
4652 |
Sure, I agree that both religion and psychiatry are extensions of authoritarian power.
Is that what you're saying? **
4653 |
4654 |
4655 |
Arminius wrote:
»More perhaps a woman needs to re-learn what it means to be a woman again ..., and the rest will follow.« ** **
And what exactly will follow from this? **
If a woman becomes nurturing/feminine before an immature/feminine man (boy) she will end up playing a guide/protector role in the relationship and essentially assume the caretaker/mother role. Which will bring us to next question, can a 'mother' make a man? **
4656 |
4657 |
4658 |
4659 |
|
4660 |
I hate it, except for if you want it e.g. for 3D roleplaying games etc. but I generally hate commercials, repetition [is moronic] and bling, especially cartoony graphics.
As for choice, my guess is that we wont get so much choice, anymore than with ads which I think are going to get more intrusive. **
4661 |
Aether theory has been proved wrong .... **
4662 |
4663 |
Arminius wrote:
»Pandora wrote:
Arminius wrote:
'More perhaps a woman needs to re-learn what it means to be a woman again ..., and the rest will follow.' ** **
And what exactly will follow from this? **
What I wanted to say with that post was to remind of the two sides of that coin when it comes to the said re-learning. But it would not make much sense, if only men re-learned what it means to be a man again or if only woman re-learned what it means to be a woman again. If both sexes did this, then (and only then) the re-learning would be successful. But there is another problem: Those who are powerful do not want men and women to re-learn what it means to be a man and a woman. They rather want the Eloi.« ** **
Exactly.
My point was that men can teach women how to be women (mostly because women are easy to teach. They listen). But women cannot teach men how to be men, because that is something that women do not instinctively know. Women can nurture boys only so far before it becomes "boiling the kid in its mother's milk" - spoiling the infant within the boy and starving the man within the boy. Women instinctively and unintentionally teach growing boys how to be women, not how to be men (because that is the man's job, who instinctively knows the ways of a man). And men are "hard-headed" in that once they get an idea in their head, it takes a serious beating to get it to change. That is a part of what makes them men (durability of direction).
Males are cursed during this age because it was decided to change the social world into a new design. That means that those who are stubborn are to be oppressed, broken, and killed off, the men. And also that those who easily comply, can be easily convinced to serve, are rewarded and prosper, the women and feminized males (Hillary and Trump).
It is spelled out in Deuteronomy (Torah); "First destroy the men (secretly and mostly medically), then take the property, women and other live stock for your own use" [paraphrased].
Arminius wrote:
»Pandora wrote:
If a woman becomes nurturing/feminine before an immature/feminine man (boy) she will end up playing a guide/protector role in the relationship and essentially assume the caretaker/mother role. Which will bring us to next question, can a 'mother' make a man? **
No. So this would be the wrong way. Both human sexes will either re-learn or become the Eloi.« ** **
The only way to teach a male is to get or keep him healthy (if possible) and then demonstrate the principles of war. He learns hardcore discipline as his pride and holy virtue as his guide (far more than a female could learn ... which is why she is categorized »FE-male« - "easily pliable male"). It is not an issue of merely knowledge, but of conditioning what is already inherent in the DNA (thus the new-age war is upon the DNA - »retro-viruses«).
Arminius wrote:
»What about the islamic worldwhere the sexes are segregated and men protect their women (as it was in the western world too before all this modern civil revolutions occurred) - would that be an option?« ** **
That would be the goal if enough women were merely taught how to do the above. As the wizard Walt Disney suggested; »To repair it, put it back the way it was«. Of course that entails the destruction of Mr. Newswater's usury.
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Their situation made an offer that they couldn't refuse. **
Which situation do you mean exactly?« ** **
The »serpent in the garden«, thousands of years of accumulated knowledge on how to surreptitiously use others for one's own service, »usury«. Offered the »keys to the kingdom«, not many can refuse. **
4664 |
4665 |
4666 |
Arminius wrote:
»But that (**) is no direct answer to my question, unless your answer is meant fatalistically.« ** **
Yes . Should it occur it will be deemed ethical.
If an intruder endangers my family it is deemed ethically correct to kill the intruder rather than let that person kill my family. There is also the presumption of consent on the intruder's side. The intruder is expected to know they are putting their life endanger by performing that action and so give an implied consent to their death. They make it ethical to be killed.
The 1% are presumed to know that they are hated
by many. They, by their actions, make it ethical to kill them. The only way they could not is a complete ignorance of history. **
Ethics are based upon experience. **
It's much more than them just being hated. **
4667 |
4668 |
Arminius.
I used the Farage video above, attacking the president of Europe, asking who are you. But that's the whole point of the op, I think the Eu 'club' is purposefully not democratic .... **
4669 |
Arminius wrote:
»I also recommend: »Preußentum und Sozialismus« (translation: »Prussiandom and Socialism«), 1919. This book can be read as a the direct continuation of his most popular book.« ** **
What's that book about? **
4670 |
If greed isn't a mental disorder, is it what makes squirrels bury their nuts? Is it largely hormonal - as Ultimate Philosophy has claimed?
What say you? **
Some further reflections....
George Gilder, in his role as an Economist, offered this analysis:
Wealth = Knowledge
Growth = Learning
Money = Time.
[Time is the one commodity that will always be scarce, when all else is abundant. Money buys you time, he claims. Perhaps he means the more money you have the earlier you can go into retirement, and thus have plenty of leisure time. Actually, it turns out that when responsible people, those of good character, go into retirement, they have less time than ever, because they are so busy helping people, or doing something to make the world a better place.]
.... Something to think about. **
4671 |
4672 |
4673 |
4674 |
Arminius wrote:
»Dont forget to mention the money. When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.
Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: I (Information) and E (Energy), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.
In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.« ** **
Interesting.
I had envisioned a system using 3 "colors" of money:
A - Blue - Awareness ("situational information") - What is happening (media).
U - Red - Understanding ("causal information") - Why/How things happen (science).
I - Green - Influence ("causal/military inspiration") - Doing something about it (business).Those are the 3 necessary constructs for life (not counting the bonding of them together - the person). Machines, money, and anything else should be used ONLY to enhance those abilities for individuals and in proper proportion. **
4675 |
I sometimes think »Why do women intend to their own beauty? Doesn't she know there is nothing she can do to intend to her own beauty? Does she not understand that I, as a man, taking objectification to its end, do not require her to do anything? Would she rather be recognized for her accomplishments (when it comes to beauty), rather than my judgements of something beyond her control?« **
4676 |
4677 |
4678 |
4679 |
4680 |
Arminius wrote:
»So, please, answer the following question:
Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to save the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too?« ** **
Depends on why you do it. If you do it regretfully, certain that there is no other way to save the human race but wishing it wasn't necessary, then it may be ethical. If on the other hand you do it primarily because you despise that 1% for your own reasons and let yourself be convinced that it was necessary, then no, of course it isn't ethical. **
Uccisore wrote:
Arminius wrote:
So, please, answer the following question:
Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to save the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too? ** **
Depends on why you do it. If you do it regretfully, certain that there is no other way to save the human race but wishing it wasn't necessary, then it may be ethical. If on the other hand you do it primarily because you despise that 1% for your own reasons and let yourself be convinced that it was necessary, then no, of course it isn't ethical.« **
It is necessary to get rid of them to save the human species. Rich always ruled and it's time to do something about it. **
4681 |
4682 |
4683 |
4684 |
4685 |
4686 |
4687 |
|
4688 |
4689 |
4690 |
4691 |
4692 |
4693 |
4694 |
4695 |
4696 |
4697 |
It's a cool idea. Now go play with your new lego set mommy bought you. **
4698 |
4699 |
4700 |
4701 |
4702 |
.... He is referring to your »abilities« (»competencies«, »skills«, »talents«, »social prospects«). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. **
4703 |
4704 |
Lev Muishkin wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
He is referring to your 'abilities' ('competencies', 'skills', 'talents', 'social prospects'). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. Any can be taken away. **
Skills are not carried in the DNA nor are abilities or competencies.
Propensities are passed on. That is why a child born to a stockbroker can be raised and succeed in a hunter/gatherer society, and vice versa.
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities, the brain being almost completely empty at birth, and able to absorb culture and learning.It's for this reason that racism is complete bullshit.
And this is also why a person with the propensity to psychopathy can, in a poor family become a serial killer, whilst those born into a rich family become captains of industry and stockbrokers.« **
You would have to adopt a special definition for "skills" to try to make that true. **
Try swinging from one branch of a tree to another by using only one hand and your tail.
Perhaps try to catch a rattle snake using only your teeth.
Catch a mouse with one fingernail?
Get a job as a stripper?
How about the Iranian Prime Minister? President?
Chinese People's Party Leader?
How about ask someone with angelman disorder to work out the first few digits of the square root of Pi?
Ask a colorblind man to accurately describe the difference in your lawn and your neighbor's?
How about play basketball with a dwarf or midget? .. with Oscar Robertson?
President of the NAACP? ..Women's League of America?
Weight lifting or Karate competition with your girlfriend (dubiously assuming that she is a »she« in your case)?Your new-age mentality of "all people are equal until those white men program us to be different" is bullshit. **
But as you say:
»Lev Muishkin wrote:
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities. **
... Or at least new-age liberal globalists seem to be. But science disagrees with you. **
4705 |
I'm confused. **
Do you mean that we (some of us) like trolls in general, or specific trolls, or that we don't know who's trolling and like posters without realising them to be trolls? **
4706 |
Man you've got it backward. **
In the US, the right wing wants to let wall street do what they want and they want to cut any program that helps anyone.
The left want people to be able to go to the hospital and want wall street to have to chip in some tax money to make that happen. **
4707 |
Arminius wrote:
»Is the law of conservation of energy right?
----------------------------------------------------------
Is the universe an isolated system, thus something like a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass?« ** **
Those are two different questions. **
The first, »is energy conserved« is most certainly absolutely true. But the second, »is the universe enclosed«, is certainly absolutely false.
So which did you really want as the poll question? **
4708 |
|
4709 |
4710 |
4711 |
4712 |
The entire purpose of money is not to create a strong, healthy economy, but a powerful, wealthy monarchy. **
4713 |
4714 |
4715 |
What about the arrow of time?
The past is different from the future. One of the most obvious features of the macroscopic world is irreversibility: heat doesn't flow spontaneously from cold objects to hot ones, we can turn eggs into omelets but not omelets into eggs, ice cubes melt in warm water but glasses of water don't spontaneously give rise to ice cubes. We remember the past, but not the future; we can take actions that affect the future, but not the past (we can't undo our mistakes). We are all born, then age, then die; never the other way around. The distinction between past and future seems to be consistent throughout the observable universe. The arrow of time is simply that distinction, pointing from past to future.
Why is there such an arrow?
Irreversible processes are summarized by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed system will (practically) never decrease into the future. It's a bedrock foundation of modern physics.
What's »entropy«?
Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A nice organized system, like an unbroken egg or a neatly-arranged pile of papers, has a low entropy; a disorganized system, like a broken egg or a scattered mess of papers, has a high entropy. Left to its own devices, entropy goes up as time passes. - Sean Carroll.
Do you believe in Sean Carroll's point of view?
For those who don't want to read Carroll's texts:
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFFNkg7Mvo
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaiuZev4RWEDo you agree with him?» ** **
4716 |
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.
4717 |
4718 |
4719 |
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past. **
4720 |
4721 |
4722 |
4723 |
4724 |
4725 |
4726 |
4727 |
4728 |
4729 |
4730 |
==>
|