881) Arminius, 24.04.2016, 01:04, 01:42, 01:44, 01:47, 01:57, 02:03, 02:42, 02:43, 02:58, 02:59, 03:10, 03:10, 03:12, 03:18, 03:56, 04:51, 21:53, 21:59, 22:56. 23:18 (4514-4533)

Peitho wrote:

„Regression, domestication, is not part of evolution?
Dysgenics is not part of eugenics?“ **

Dysgenics is negative eugenics, and eugenics is positive eugenics.

Peitho wrote:

„Has man stopped evolving because he now determines the standards to measure fitness?“ **

No poster of this thread said that man had stopped evolving. But I say that man can partly dissociate himself from evoluton and from environment - which means: man is capable of avoiding total adaptation.

Just read the thread.

Peitho wrote:

„Have you heard of memetic selection?“ **

Have you ever herd of Dawkin's new after-shave lotion?

Peitho wrote:

„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?“ **

No.

Peitho wrote:

„Is there no cost to protecting the weak the stupid and the ill from culling?“ **

There is that cost.

Peitho wrote:

„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?“ **

Partly yes.

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.“ **

Yes, it is a circular definition.

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.“ **

Yup.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Exactly.

In addition:

Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well, because they died out.

This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the terms „fit“ and „unfit“ and accept the right meaning of them.

Here is another example:

Phoneutria wrote:

„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 (?).“ **

That is a contradiction. An evolution theory that explains the present time is no evolution theory, because it has nothing to do with evolution.

„Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.“ **

According to you the Darwinism explains merely the present. But if it did, then it would be no evolution theory. So, yeah, then we would have to ask again: Is the Darwinism an evolution theory?

Phoneutria wrote:

„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!).“ **

Sorry, but that is nonsense. It is like saying that there „can be fat humans but never a fatter or even the fattest human before the fact, because the knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact“ (?). If there are fat humans, then there are a fatter and the fattest human too, regardless whether the knowledge of „the fattest“ happens or not. Why should there not be a fatter and the fattest one? Because the „knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact“?

„Every living species on Earth“ can be „fit ... right now“, but the „knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact“ (?). This statement can only be interpreted as nonsense, regardless whether it is also an attempt to recsue a dying modern (secular) religion or not. Darwinists, please, when are you going to finally leave the 19th century and arrive in the present century, the 21st century.

Let’s have a certain species as an evolutionary actor „A“, its environment „E“, and the Darwinist „D“ as the modern religious interpreter. A is fit „right now“. Suddenly E changes, and A dies out. D says that „A has not been fit“. .... What? ... An undertaker would say now: „D, you are fired!“ If it is possible to say that every actor of evolution „is fit right now“, then it is also possible to say that a certain actor of evolution „is fitter (than ...) right now“ and that a certain actor of evolution „is the fittest right now“.

Either one can say something about „fit right now“ or not (tertium non datur => exclusi tertii principum); and if one can, then one can also use the comparative and say: „fitter (than ...) right now“, „fittest right now“.

Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they destroy their environment, if they want to.

If E (environment) of A (actor of evolution) changes, then it is possible but not necessary that A becomes extinct. If A has become extinct, then this fact does not change anything about A“s fitness or unfitness during A’s lifetime, because during A“s lifetime A has survived, because A has been alive, fit (perhaps fitter than many others or even the fittest), thus well adapted (perhaps better adapted than many others or even best adapted), thus successful, just fitted (perhaps more fitted than many others or even the most fitted). If we knew merely after the last fact, then we would be what we use to call Gods.

If A is a human, then we have to judge a bit differently; because humans do not absolutely depend on their environment and can destroy it on purpose, thus willfully, consciously (other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way); so the humans’ environment has become a part of humans’ fitness or unfitness; and that means that the former A and E (see the example above) has become A (including E) and W (world) or H (homo sapiens as A + E) and W.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius is no dummy, he's a very smart robot. He's just really into lil lingustics games such as this thread.“ **

Thanks, my dear poisonous spider (**), but I hope you have nonetheless noticed that I am not always playing linguistic games.

Moreno wrote:

„We are not being selected by ecosystems, we are being selected by deluded half humans.“ **

Yes, but unfortunately those deluded humans are not half humans.

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. The human 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 an fit living beings. Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).

So we can rightly say that homo sapiens is a godwannabe. Human beings are naturally more like animals and culturally more like gods. But unfortunately they are not capable of being both or/and each of both in a complete way. Homo sapiens is naturally not capable of being a 100%-animal and is culturally not capable of being a 100%-god. That is the fateful dilemma of homo sapiens.

Feminism is the means that makes the control much easier.

Or do you (**) mean the human will. The human will is not free. It is merely relatively free.

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

I thought that you wanted to know more about the younger generation.

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

Unfortunately, it is, yes.

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Whom are you referring to?

Hahaha wrote:

„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.)“

The root of the reproducers are both males and females. I guess you mean the current Occidental females (because most of the current Occidental males and females are told and thus falsely think that females are the only „reproducers“), not the others, especially not the black and islamic females, because black and islamic males and females reproduce themselves very much (because both still know that both are the reproducers) and are poorer than Occidental males and females.

The black and islamic people can be found at the top on the left, whereas the occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right.

Profilers are as „important“ as pimpels in the face of a pubertal girl.

How do you know that „our consciousness is beyond lightspeed“ and „that we exceed the c barrier“, „if we are in a coma“

In order to really love philosophy?

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?

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

The question here is what you exactly mean by „oiriginal human“. Do you mean the genus austalopithecus or the genus homo or a certain species of the genus homo, when you say „original human“? Probably you mean the species homo sapiens.

However.

The very first group of human beings had at least one moral law: being a member of the group. Leaving the group was only possible by becomig the foe / enemy of the group. This often meant the death of that foe / enemy. Each member of the group knew this moral law, its breach, the comsequences of this breach, thus the punishment. So the very first human group was already moral, although in a primitive sense.

Moral has to do with knowlewdge of it or of something that is like moral or law and its consequences like punishment.

The first moral is a means of surviving: one’s surviving depends on the group’s surviving. Leaving the group can lead to a new group and new morals, of course, but that does not change the meaning of the first moral law: means of surviving.

By the way: The main problem that modern humans have with morality has not to do with this first moral law or other laws of the primitive morality. It has to do with the fact that modern humans are not capable of acting and reacting according to the consequences of the facts that humans created by inventing things, especially technological things. In other words: Humans have a problem with living on the same level that they have reached technologically - the human nature is always far behind the human spirit (including moral), because the human brain is made for surving, at least primarily. The first moral law has to do with surviving. But the modern humans have created moral systems that have not much or even nothing to with surving.

Homo sapiens is a species that has reached a stage of development of a huge difference between nature and culture.

Such an explanation would be like answering the question whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. So objectively the terms „relatively free“ and „relatively unfree“ mean the same. But subjectively they may be different, because from a „relatively free point of view“ the human will is relatively free, from a „relatively unfree point of view“ the human will is relatively unfree.

If the will of the humans were free, then humans could and would for example live however they want to, as long as they want to, decide whatever they want to ... and so on and so forth. In reality humans sooner or later realize that they have to accept facts like illness and death or consequences like punishment (jail or other isolations), if they did not behave according to their environment, to the law, the moral system of their group.

No problem.

The question whether something has happened with or without a human's own „free will“ is redundant, because the human's will is not free but relatively free. All „rights“ that are based on a the false „free will“, especially the so-called „human rights“, have to be rewritten, because they are not right but nonetheless „rights“, because they are very profitable, very efficient, very repressive, very destructive (which means that they are even more profitable, even more efficient ... and so on and so forth).

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: ** **

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes.

Artimas wrote:

„Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is »fit«. In almost any scenario.“ **

Darwinists would answer: „Knowledge is only a facet of fitness“.

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.

Did you mean that half of all animals are humans?

Could you rephrase your post, please?

Hahaha wrote:

„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?“ **

Yes, I can.

If you are poor or economically supported by a social state (see also my text below), then you have enough time to reproduce yourself. If you always work and make a career all day long, then you have not much time to reproduce yourself. If you are rich, then you can choose whether you are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) or lazy, so also being rich in spite of having much time can but does not have to mean the lack of reproduction, because reproduction depends on the interest in it. So most of those who have no or almost no offspring are those who are very industrious (hardworking and making a career all day long). Who are very industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and very career driven? .... Of course: the occidental humans. That is why they can be found at the bottom on the right in my above chart (**|**).

It is not merely industriousness (industry, diligence, smartness, business acumen) that works against the reproduction and especially against the interest of reproduction; it is also, for example, feminism (including sexism, genderism). Isms are modern ideologies, and almost all modern ideologies are based on main modern ideologies like cynicism and techno-creditsm (formerly known as „capitalism“) that are based on the machine revolution (formerly known as „industrial revolution“). The machine revolution did not cause the first cynics (cynics are much older) but cynicism (cyn[ic]ism) in combination with the techno-creditism, which both led to all other isms we had, have, and will have for a while. (Please note the suffix „ism“!) So the machine revolution caused what we can call „occidental moderinity“ in the narrow sense of the word, and - insofar as reproduction is concerned - modernity means a shrinking interest in reproduction. Feminism is just one of the great many cultural consequences of a great technical invention (which is certainly based on cultural skills, by the way). We should not overestimate but also not underestimate all this isms.

So the interest in reproduction can be influenced by many phenomena variously.

Without feminism the European numbers of the birthrates would be optimal (about 2,13 children per woman), but in reality they are suboptimal, disastrous: very much too low. In Europe very much too low, in the so-called „Third World“ very much too high.

Arminius wrote:

Here come some facts, data, and numbers:

....“ ** ** ** ** ** **

Lazy people who are economically supported by those who are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and pay taxes (cp. „social state“) are not always but very often those who have children, many children, at least enough children. Industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) people are not always but very often those who have not enough children or even no children. This demographical fact means an economical tragedy: the so called „tragedy of the commons“ (**|**|**|**).

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„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?“ **

According to the natural selection the fit species as the well or even best adapted species has enough offspring, thus survives, whereas the unfit species as the badly or even worst adapted or maldapted species has not enough or even no offspring and dies out. Political selection means that „social“ politics can artificially make out of unfit humans as the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans fit humans as the well or best adapted humans, so that they can have enough offspring, thus survive, and it also can artificially make out the of fit humans as the well or best adapted humans the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans, so that they have not enough or even no offspring and die out. So natural selection and political (social) selection contradict each other. This is what I have been saying in many threads, especially in my thread called „Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?“ (**|**), suggestively also in your thread called „Evolution and Maladaptility“ (**).

What humans culturally create or select is, if you compare it with what nature „creates“ or „selects“, artificial (cultural), although every culture is based on nature. Humans are capable of dissociating from nature, which does not mean that they are completely free from nature, but it means that they are relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.

The development of the human brain led to a huge intelligence and skills that made an isolation process possible, so that the humans could become relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.

Nature causes anti-nature (culture).

Culture is the artificial antipode of nature. In other words: Culture is the antithesis of the thesis nature. Guess what the synthesis is.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course. Cynicism is one of the main isms and one of the main reasons why all other isms exist.

882) Arminius, 29.04.2016, 01:15, 01:17, 01:19, 01:20, 01:21, 01:23, 01:24, 01:27, 01:28, 01:30, 01:32, 01:34, 01:36, 01:37, 01:38, 02:16, 03:50, 04:58, 17:26, 18:20, 19:44, 20:45, 21:59, 23:00, 23:18 (4534-4558)

Who will win the battle according to your (**) opinion: AI or humans?

It is almost impossible to embrace your inner savage. If you want to embrace your inner savage, then your arms have to come into your body.

So you rather embrace your outer savage. But be careful, because you are probably not the only one who embraces the own outer savage.

I think the perceptions and understandings of „liberalism“ and „socialism“ in the USA are different from them in Europe.

That is exactly what I have been saying about civilization for so very long.

Hey, artistically, this could also be an idylle, couldn't it?

Zoot Allures is Brian Lewis. Is that true? The more relevant question: Who is Hash Hagen?

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.“ **

Yes. And that is almost exactly what I have been saying for so long.

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

Yup.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If there is a »natural«, there must be an Unnatural Selection Principle.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»Like ... say ... artificial selection?« **

Or »man-made«, »not nature's normal means void of Man«.“ **

Yes, of course.

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

Exactly. I call this „safe zone“ „isolation“ or „island“, „an island in an ocean named »nature«“. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).

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.

Copied post in another thread.

Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.

Is it possible to use the internet in prison?

Unbelievable !

No one of them (**) is a real woman, and no one of them is a real man.

And it is also because of them that something like the following is possible. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Artimas wrote:

„Does wanting preservation make me evil?“ **

No. It is the most normal wanting when it comes to surviving of any group living being.

Copied post in another thread.

Artimas wrote:

„Is the most prized possession we have, not our own people?“ **

Yes, of course, because our lives depend on them. Humans are a kind of group living beings - like wolves or lions.

Peitho wrote:

„Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Helmuth Nyborg and Stefan Molyneux.“ **

Is Helmuth Nyborg’s new book already available?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Carleas wrote:

»Immigration creates more jobs than the immigrants occupy.« **

How so?“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course. In addition, the number of jobs does not increase (workers are replaced by workers and by machines, so the number of jobs decreases) but decreases very quickly, so that the number of the workless persons and welfare recipients (social benefit claimants) increases very quickly - let alone the higher cost of the repair of destroyment, vandalism, of more prisons, more police actions, more policemen, more social workers, more courts, more officers, more judges, more prosecutors, more lawyers (did Carleas mean this jobs? ) ... and so on.

Random Factor wrote:

„I would travel if you could, if life allows or enables you to do so.“

Odd coreference! You would travel if I could, if life allows or enables me to do so?

Are you sure that you have meant it the way you have written it?

Gib wrote:

„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'.“ **

Are you a feminist, Gib?

Gib wrote:

„When feminists ask me: »Do you support respect and dignity for women?« I always answer »Yes«. Then they say: »Then you're a feminist«.“ **

The one who supports recpect and dignity for woman is not necessarily a feminist yet. Every normal human would answer to that questioin with „yes“. So that question is a rhetorical question, if asked by a feminist. In other words: Answers to that question, if asked by a feminist, are not valid.

Gib wrote:

„But when I start a sentence: »I think women ...« they say »Sexist!«.“ **

And then? Do you respond then?

Gib wrote:

„Think of me as someone who likes to see the human being underneath the »ist«.“ **

I believe you that you like to see the human being underneath the „ist“, but in a modern age a huge majority is influenced by „isms“, so many modern people are „ists“.

For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So mor lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.

Copied post in another thread.

Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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).“ **

Both rates are exponentially increasing in West and Central Europe - and I am pretty sure: in North America (USA and Canada) as well.

Carleas, stop believing in the lying propaganda with its faked statistics.

883) Arminius, 04.05.2016, 03:00, 03:09, 03:29, 03:31, 03:34, 03:46, 03:56, 03:59, 04:01, 18:44, 19:46, 21:16, 21:58, 23:49, 23:58 (4559-4573)

Gib wrote:

„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.“ **

I mean that they are so much surrounded by „isms“ that most of them become influenced by „isms“, so that they - more or less - identify themselves with „isms“, often without knowing it and sometimes with knowing it, and in the latter case relatively many call themselves „...ists“ (for example: „feminists“). How much they are „ists“ depends on their personality, their character, and the intensity of the influence.

Autsider wrote:

„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.“ **

I am thinking long-term. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

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.

As long as all these „islands“ (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their „ocean“ (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun „goes down“ and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding „position“ -, although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.

Autsider wrote:

„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.“ **

That is what I have been saying for many years.

Autsider wrote:

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.“ **

My philosophy is mainly based on a cyclicality. So we are in agreement here again. According to my philosophy there are cycles from very short-dated to very long-dated. Precisely said this cycles are spiral cycles because of the physical time.

To go into detail would derail this thread.

Autsider wrote:

„It may be possible to break the cycle ....“ **

Yes, it may be possible, especially by catastrophes. Otherwise, if cycles become very old (and many of them do), they flatten, thus their amplitude becomes shorter and shorter.

Autsider wrote:

„I don't want to further go off-topic in this thread.“ **

Okay. But I think our short detour is not off-topic in this thread, because the „tiger/pussycat“-example shows not only that there are strength and weakness, people of strength and weakness, rhetorical misuse of the words „strength“ and „weakness“, ... and so on and so forth, it also can show the fact that the „higher“ (thus: more decadent, more nihilistic, closer to anarchy/chaos) so-called „civilizations“ are the more their people have to be weak, have to be cynical, have to lie, and consequently have to invert values. So „suddenly“ - for example - „strength“ seems to be „weakness“, „weakness“ seems to be „strength“, „war“ seems to be „peace“, „peace“ seems to be „war“, a „tiger“ seems to be a „pussycat“, a „pussycat“ seems to be a „tiger“, ... and so on and so forth. This is an answer to the question why the person B confuses the tiger with a pussycat: B is „high civilized“.

According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment, more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences. One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.

Now, if a northern human correctly says „I am more intelligent than the southern humans“, then this northern human will immediately be called a „racist“ or an „IQ racist“. But if a southern human correctly says „I am more athletic and have a larger penis than the northern humans“, then that southern human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody will call that southern human a „racist“ or/and a „sexist“.

One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate, thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence itself.

Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect or even racists?

If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others.

Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically: Why is it forbidden to say this?

There is a huge interest in forbidding all this.

When liberalism and egalitarianism come together „fraternally“ (), they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for example: „racism“, „sexism“ versus „politically correctness“) in order to hide the real differences (such as intelligence differences or the difference between eugenics and dysgenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order to control all humans on this planet - according to the established method and ruling principle: divide et impera.

That's the question, yes (**). No one of the real powerful ones is capable of teaching in that way, and no one of those who are capable of teaching in that way is allowed to teach the real powerful ones. It seems to be a dilemma.

If there will be no battle, then there will be something like a „perpetual peace“, but that will merely be possible with enslaved humans (probably comparable with the Eloi in the science fiction novel „Time Machine“).

Hahaha wrote:

„To TTIP or not TTIP the entire world, that is the present vexing question.“ **

Yes.

The slogan „Gib AIDS keine Chance“ („give AIDS no chance“) has been changed into „Gib TTIP keine Chance“ („give TTIP no chance“). But politically a condom does not help much.

During the Victorian era (in the 19th century) in the UK it was forbidden to talk about sex. In the current UK (and in the whole Western „world“, by the way) it is a must to talk about sex, but it is forbidden to talk about politics.

Two eagles (national symbols) are „in love“ because of the „stars“ (of US and EU), and the TTIP as the ambivalent „heartbreaker“:

TTIP as a „Trojan Horse“:

Dan wrote:

„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.“ **

In socialism almost everyone is a mercenary.
It makes life meaningless. Life becomes based on money.
Human „innocents“ keep this system and fight to protect it.
Self destruction in a sophistic style.

In other words: Socialism is merely the other side of the same coin. It just plays the capitalistic role on the static side, the negative side of capitalism, and this is not better than the role on the market side that the techno-credtism (the more proper word for what you call „capitalism“) plays.

Stephen C. Pederson wrote:

„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.“ **

Really? Hey! Like I did, especially in the year 2001.

Stephen C. Pederson wrote:

„It's rather beautiful if you think about it.“ **

Yes, it is indeed.

Stephen C. Pederson wrote:

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.“ **

It is even more interesting if the several cultures are brought into analogies too. It is just astounding how they fit.

Stephen P. Pederson wrote:

„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.“ **

As I already said in this thread (**|**): I like philosophy very much, but I would never say: „I love philosophy“.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Here is one with eight different but somehow „classical“ developments of persons’ political „positions“, namely four in one direction and four in another direction:

Two questions:
1) What was your personal political development?
2) Where is your current political „psoition“?

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.

Jerkey wrote:

„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.“ **

Albert Menne (1923-1990) founded the differential syllogistics, which is a synthesis or something like a „bridge“ between the „classical“ logic, which is based on the Aristotelian logic, and the „modern“ logistics, which was founded by George Boole (1815-1864) and Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).

What do you think about that?

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

But would you therefore say that you „love philosophy“?

Do you know Ziona Chana (**) personally too, Zinnat?

884) Arminius, 09.05.2016, 01:12, 01:15, 01:17, 01:19, 01:20, 12:35, 14:59, 15:20, 22:12, 22:25, 22:36, 22:54, 23:38, 23:40, 23:54 (4574-4588)

Artimas wrote:

„If Trump wins, there might be a civil war?“ **

And why?

Artimas wrote:

„Tribes who live in the wild, they don't rely on social constructs as much as one living in the city.“ **

Wild tribes have indeed less but very much stronger social constructs than „city tribes“.

Artimas wrote:

„Perhaps intelligence really is partially bound to environment.“ **

Intelligence is mostly determined by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate (colder regions „demand“ more intelligence than warmer refions), thus only little by sociology, but this little can sometimes have fulminant effects.

Jerkey wrote:

„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.“ **

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.

Jerkey wrote:

„Some link is missing.“ **

The missing link is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.

Amorphos wrote:

„We will surpass robots“ (**).

We will not get rid of the ghosts which we have called for. (Loosely based on Goethe.)

Copied post in another thread.

Topic: The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?

The Meaning of Life.

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.

Only Humean wrote:

„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?“ **

As you will. I mean whether life makes sense or not. You can and should interpret it as you like, but you should explain it.

Some notes from Hahaha’s thread „Donald Trump's Wall“:

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Leyla wrote:

„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.“ **

We have our genetic program, our self-preservation, our instincts, our drives, our reproduction (dis)interest, our desires, our will, and - of course - our culture and technology, based on our intelligence, which is mainly (70-80%) determined by our genetic program. So when problems and conflicts of any kind occur, we have to solve them, i.e by finding a balance in order to make life stable - would you agree if someone called this „health“?

Along The Way wrote:

„Intelligence is the basis of everything.“ **

Do you go so far and say that intelligence is the meaning of life?

Random Factor wrote:

„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.“ **

So you are saying that the purpose and meaning of life is to live resp. to experience.

Random Factor wrote:

»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?“ **

Some intelligent people have been doing it by taking drugs.

Would you say that enjoyment is a or even the meaning of life?

Jerkey wrote:

„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.“ **

So you are hopeful?

Random Factor wrote:

„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.“ **

So you are not hopeful?

What about LOVE?

885) Arminius, 14.05.2016, 01:01, 01:02, 01:04, 01:07, 01:10, 01:13, 01:14, 01:19, 01:20, 01:22, 01:27, 01:28, 01:35, 02:20, 03:43, 03:57, 04:27, 19:59, 21:17, 21:23, 22:53 (4589-4609)

Do not derail this thread.

Arminius wrote:

„What about LOVE?“ ** **

What about POWER or the WILL TO POWER?

Only Humean wrote:

„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.“ **

I agree.

For me philosophy of life is the most important type of philosophy.

So it was posted here, on ILP?

It is not possible to stop at the exact point of evil. If you think you have found one, you will soon find another one. It is no accident that the word „evil“ can be found in the word „devil“.

James S. Saint wrote

„Logic is merely the proper use of language (»dialectics«).“ **

Yea.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Feminism has only been about racism and socialism. And now that they have won that game, yeah, you could say that it is obsolete.“ **

These „they“ are only a few, and they are men. A few men have won that game.

The winner have always been a few - a few men.

Have the citizens won? No.
Have the workers as the proletarians won? No.
Have the women won? No.

Pandora wrote:

„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.“ **

Agreed.

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.“ **

You are absolutely right, Pandora.

Pandora wrote:

„Apparently sex is the new »gender designation« because now you'll be able to legally change your sex - even without undergoing surgery.“ **

And so you can change it as often as you want. We are coming closer to the „highest civilization“ ever: a society without any natural relatedness and without any difference between anything and everything; a society in which everything is equal, indifferent; a society like hell (confused with heaven).

Hey. Welcome back, Erik.

The new fascist does not say: „I am the new fascist“. The new fascist says: „I am the anti-fascist“.

In your poll all of the three options „yes“, „no“,„maybe“ can be selected. So what kind of result do you expect? How are you going to evaluate it?

Pandora wrote:

„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: **.“ **

Do you mean a segregation of sexes as you can find it in all non-western societies?

The non-segregation is a part of life praxis only in the occidental culture.

Pandora wrote:

„Most women that I know would only be happy to »get rid« of the men for a while and have some girl time.“ **

Do you also know men that would only be happy to »get rid« of the women for a while and have some boy time?

The segregation of sexes is the old custom and part of life praxis in the so-called „Third World“, the non-segregation is the new custom and part of life praxis in the so-called „First World“ (the occidental culture) and partly also in the so-called „Second World“. So about 80% of all humans have nothing to do with the non-segregation of sexes, and, perhaps, most of the occidental humans want or believe that they „want“ to become non-occidental humans.

What do you think about this idea that occidental humans are more and more confused by their so-called „civilization“?

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.

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

More adaptive? What? Who? And „kinda still there though“? What do you mean exactly?

Amorphos wrote:

„Back to the premise that we are maladapted ....“ **

I would not use the word „maladapted“, but or because I am saying: Humans are capable of stand-off, of alienation , of dissociation from nature.

Amorphos wrote:

„I maintain that rather we are more adapted. We can still make bows and hunt, as well as a ton of other stuff.“ **

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.

Amorphos wrote:

„Oh and btw our ancestors were also shit at looking after their environment, that's why most small islands have no trees.“ **

Our first ancestors were those first humans who began the transfer (see above [**|**]).

Good theme (**).

Kriswest wrote:

„Evolution from inter species bonds . Good or bad? Real or false?“ **

Nor good nor bad. But real and partly false.

Kriswest wrote:

„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.“ **

Yea.

Kriswest wrote:

„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?“ **

If we should not, who woud be the one that could prevent all humans from doing that.

Kriswest wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, but it is probably a bit more necessary to learn about the future of all living beings.

Would you, please, post the link to the thread(s) of that example (**).

Amorphos wrote:

„So what was it when we were Neanderthals?“ **

Probably, the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors but another subspecies (homo sapiens neandethalensis) of the species homo sapiens or even another species (homo neandethalensis) of the genus homo. So, probably, the Neanderthals have the same ancestors as we have but are not our direct ancestors.

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

There may be a primordial consciousness, but that does not necessarily mean that it grows and develops.

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.

Combine the human's fight against nature (exploitation of nature) with the techno-creditism, and you will get the reasons for the huge chaos in the future, regardless whether the „Olduvai Theory“ is false or not.

Copied post in another thread.

Amorphos wrote:

„Man adapted to new tools in increasing numbers, and along with farming you get trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation.“ **

It depends on if e.g. farming is still possible after a globalistic destruction, thus also the destruction of all soils of our planet. If it is not possible, then you do not get „trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation“.

Amorphos wrote:

„All of which are adaptation to our environment.“ **

No.

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Do you also think that e.g. your house will always be the same after any kind of destruction?

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Your optimism contradicts many evolutionary and historical facts. Such a chaos we are talking about here does not leave „90% of all people“.

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

What if bows and arrows are useless, because there are merely very small animals left?

Amorphos wrote:

„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].“ **

Why should people do this, if it is useless to do it? (See above.)

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

There are many other reasons too (see above).

Amorphos wrote:

„I don't think we are fighting nature so much as learning it, and mastering it.“ **

I know that you are an optimist, but your optimism contradicts some facts (see above).

I think we should consider both the optimistic (more idealistic) and the pessimistic (more realistic) side of all these scenarios.

Amorphos wrote:

„We will be onto a permanent society [beyond the limitedness of earth's resources] within a few decades imho.“ **

That's again merely your optimistic (idealistic) perspective (see above).

Amorphos wrote:

„Why would anyone want such an end to occur?“ **

Why not?

886) Arminius, 19.05.2016, 01:01, 01:08, 01:11, 01:14, 01:15, 01:16, 01:18, 01:26, 01:34, 01:37, 01:38, 01:40, 01:42, 01:48, 01:54, 01:59, 02:32, 08:56, 09:52, 15:13, 15:57, 16:16, 16:39, 17:20, 17:59, 23:43 (4610-4635)

Pandora wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course. I did not say that sex segregation was only a non-western value. I was referring to the present resp. to the last phase of the western modernity we are living in. The modernity of the western culture stands for the sex non-segregation.

Pandora wrote:

„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.“ **

The non-segregation began in education, first of all in schools, during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th century (depending on the regions) and became more and more normal in many other public institutions too - until it was seen everywhere in western societies. So what we currently experience are merely the consequences of this civilized modernity (although rests of the former segregation could also be seen, yes). But the egalitarian(istic) goal has not been reached yet, and it is difficult to foresee whether it will be reached in the future: 100% equality for 99% of all humans. What does „100% equality“ mean? I would say: „Death“!

Pandora wrote:

„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?“ **

That is an important question. When I analyze and interpret some certain current behaviors, I tend to answer: „segregate them immediately!“; but when I analyze and interpret some other current behaviors, I tend to answer: „go on with the non-segregation“. I think that we can't stop or change this development by keeping forms like liberalism, egalitarianism, fraternalism (or its female equivalent), or a form of governing like democracy, because, as far as they are all typical forms of western modernity, they are also reasons for this non-segregation. So if I value it as a historical fact resp. as a truth, then I deductively conclude that we shouldn't change it, because this process will change by itself, thus will end sometime anyway. Having said that, there are also arguments that cause me to think it would be better to stop this process or to go forewards by also going backwards (like a crab).

I honestly think that most human's lives are better when men and women are more segregated than not segregated. My main argument for this thesis is a natural/evolutionary resp. cultural/historical one. Humans try to overcome nature/evolution by their culture/history, but at last they always fail, because they have to - due to their incapability of being gods. So this trial will end up just like an error - and probably cause a huge disaster. I do not see how this can be avoided or prevented - to delay it is at least no real solution (our offspring will have to pay the prize - namely the more the more we delay and will delay it). Our current rulers do not and will not change their behavior. They want and will want this huge disaster. 99% of all humans will not be needed anymore but considered as the „global problem“. Machines can and will replace them (and later possibly take over [**|**]).

And be honest: Would you like to give up machines, for example: an automobile or a washing machine? We do not really need computers, cellphones and other high tech machines. So we could give them up. But we do not want to give up many other machines, namely those that are invented in the late 18th, the 19th, and the early 20th century. In other words: We will not get rid of the ghosts we have asked for (freely based on J. W. von Goethe).

Pandora wrote:

„What are pluses and minuses?“ **

This question should be connected with a second 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.

Pandora wrote:

„Obamacare Regulation Pressures Insurers to Cover Sex Change Operations. Taxpayers could subsidize gender reassignment surgeries through Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare.“ **

Unbelievable but typical.

It reminds me of this:

Arminius wrote

„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?“ ** **

You know to which group the taxpayers belong.

Pandora wrote:

„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?“ **

Exactly. Again: Unbelievable!

Pandora wrote:

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.“ **

But - unfortunately - all those who are really efficient for the society are really exploited by those who are really inefficient for the societies but really unexploited just because of the simple fact that they are the rulers.

If „gravity force“ and „spacetime warping“ are unproven and even unprovable, then they are arguments for unproven premises, thus examples of the petitio principii, possibly also of a proton pseudos or even of a proton kinun (lat.: primum movens), and this means that they are proof errors, thus: they are logically false.

Uccisore wrote:

„»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.“ **

They invent nonsensical reforms, and if it comes to the consequences of those nonsensical reforms they just say „I don't care“ and hide themselves behind „egalitarianism“. Doom. In the long run, „carelessness“ means „death“. „Carelessness“ is just another word for „equality“ resp. „egalitarianism“. „Death“ is the deeper, the actual meaning of „egalitarianism“.

Kriswest wrote:

„But, as technology and neuroscience improve, machines may follow energy beyond death, recording what occurs.“ **

What if it is not recordable?

Hahaha wrote:

„In order to give to some you must take from another.“ **

It’s known. Take this: In order to take from someone this someone must be someone who has already taken.

Sex non-segregation is also a pure and typical occidental pheomenon.

Anomaleigh wrote:

„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.“ **

Oh, your first post! So welcome!

US Americans are overweight/obese. I know.

Anomaleigh wrote:

„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.“ **

Nutritionists are part of the problem!

Anomaleigh wrote:

„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?“ **

Psychologists are also part of the problem!

And by the way: Food energy, nutrition, and instincts are primarily a subject of biologists. So we should refer to biology. Others are too much part of the problem.

Anomaleigh wrote:

„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.“ **

People are influenced. This influence is part of a program, so the problem you are talking about is largely a purpose, a part of a plan, of a program.

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

By the way: Where is your thread with your first post, Anomaleigh?

Kriswest wrote:

„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“ **

The main aspect is whether a population is growing or not.

Kriswest wrote:

„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.“ **

Is it not the real Trump anymore?

Kriswest wrote:

„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?“ **

Spending billions to fulfill a dream before dying is politically possible only for those who are powerful enough to do that. Otherwise they would be stopped somehow.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

The flying humans idea is very old in the west too, older than in the middle east, and probably also older than in the east. And the first thought about flying humans is probably as old as the human species.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Things are not defined. Words and concepts are defined.“ **

Yes. That’s right. It is a typical and meanwhile old occidental wisdom.

Amorphos wrote:

„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].“ **

Do you mean the consciousness in blue?

So you are aying that „the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception“ and therefore claiming that the consciousness grows and develops?

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„**“

See also: ** **

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

By the way: Where is Anomaleigh's thread?

This thread (**|**) is not only about human life but life in general.

One can say that the meaning of life is to fulfill what has been set since the beginning of each life (genetic program). If a life comes closer to human life, then more and more luxury and boredom appears. So this kind of life is not only determined by nature but also by culture, and the more human life is concerned the more life is also determined by culture.

I know that all energy can be recorded, but energy does not necessarily show us the way of consciousness or the death. That was what I meant by „not recordable“ (**|**). There is no knowledge but only speculation about what consciousness and death physically are - not to mention what they non-physically are.

Random Factor wrote:

„I'm never bored. There's always something to do. Being bored is simply not wanting to do anything.“ **

No. The meaning of „not wanting to do anything“ is „sloth“, „idleness“, „laziness“.

Again: Boredom, related to the meaning of life, is meant here (a) in a general sense (experiencing of boredom in general, regardless how often you are bored or whether you are a more boring human or not) and (b) in a relative sense (for example by comparison). Boredom is just one of many other examples that can show how different the meaning of life can be interpreted. If you can experience or/and have experienced boredom, so that you know what it means, then it is enough in order to be one of those living beings that are not always chained to natural behavior, forced to do what nature demands. In other words: Humans are living beings that know what, for example, „boredom“ means, because they can experience or/and have experienced it.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

They and their corrupted politicians would counter now: „Don't worry, economically, the globe is just the extension of the nation“; but that is not true. A nation has the same or roughly the same economical conditions, rules, structures, but the globe has the most different economical conditions, rules, structures we know so far.

Only Humean wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes.

Only Humean wrote:

„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?“ **

No reasons, unless there would be a purely spiritual consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain.

Kriswest wrote:

„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.“ **

But there is an issue that has nothing to do with science and any kind of technology or engineering. This issue is that a word like „death“ and other words (for example also „consciousnes“) are still concepts and not things. So we have to define and possibly redefine these words in order to understand them better and better. And „death“ is no word for a thing but a description for no thing (no-thing, nothing), and this makes it so difficult to be an object for science and technology or engineering. Imagine the said machine records that there is no thing (no-thing, nothing), which means that death is just what it the word „death“ already means. This machine would approve our linguistic and philosophic definitions. And that would be good (too), wouldn't it?

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.

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius, the pathological nature of civilization and human beings is part of the problem. “ **

That's right. Having said that I would not call it „pathological“ but „erroneous“ or just „old“. Maybe the human culture in general is just too much erroneous and their cultures in particular are just too old, as Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) already pointed out. According to Spengler every culture becomes senile - and then it is called „civilization“ (). Civilizations are the icy forms of cultures. When a culture is old it just wants peace - „world peace“ - and does anything for it. It wants to die (note: not each person but the whole culture), and it wants it by enjoying peace. Also isms are invented by civilizations (old cultures) in order to live and rest in peace (R.I.P.).

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

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?

Would you agree, if one said: „»Death« is the word as a means to metaphysically answer a difficult question that can't be scientifically or technologically answered (yet)“?

887) Arminius, 24.05.2016, 01:01, 01:03, 01:17, 01:24, 01:27, 01:28, 01:31, 01:36, 01:38, 01:40, 01:42, 03:19, 07:56, 08:07, 08:34, 08:57, 11:27, 12:16, 21:52, 21:53, 22:24, 22:42, 22:41, 23:57 (4636-4659)

Artimas wrote:

„I exist, and then I die later on. Both are extremely unique experiences.“ **

To „die later on“ refers to the future - so it can't be an experience for someone now (thus: in the present) who will „die later on“ (thus: in the future).

Hahaha wrote:

„Why does religion and a belief in god get a free pass in the psychiatric community?“ **

Because psychiatry is also a system of religion and belief in god(s). The psychiatric god(s), the psychiatric religion, and the psychiatric belief in the psychiatric god(s) are like other god(s), religions and beliefs in god(s).

The fact that the psychiatric system is a system of religion and belief in god(s) too would become too obvious, if it tried to obviously consider belief in god(s) mental illness. The following question would immediately come in almost everyone’s mind: „What and who can be god(s)“? And the answer would also come into almost everyone’s mind: „Everything and everyone“. Freud, Adler, Jung - as merely three but most famous of many other possible examples - would soon be debunked as psychiatric gods too.

And what about deists and pantheists? What about believing in nature? If you believe in nature, then you believe in god (namely: as nature). And what about psychiatry? If you believe in psychiatry, then you believe in god (namely: as psychiatry).

It is an strategic advantage for the psychiatric system too to just want humans to believe that belief in god does only mean belief in a man with a long white beard.

These days, many western humans still believe in the following „gods“, although they are also merely humans, thus no gods:

Also many ILP members believe in this four humans of the past as „gods“, although one of them is currently not as much in fashion as the other three are still.

They should finally leave them alone and, because they are strong believers, look for new „gods“.

So the short answer to your question is: Both systems are too similar - both are based on the belief in god(s).

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Only Humean wrote:

„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.“ **

Oh. I'm sorry.

Only Humean wrote:

„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?“ **

The word „belief“ is not theologically meant here. Originally belief is not a „religious“ or „theological“ word and concept.

The trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an epistemological „crutch“. If there will be more certainty, then you will not use it anymore and put it in your „cellar“.

It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must always say „I know nothing“ or „I know that I know nothing“. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers. So it is better to live with an epistemological „crutch“ than with stupidity or/and lies.

The epistemological „crutch“ helps you to find a solution or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have been successful without help like what we call „empirism“ („observation“, „experiment“, „extrapolation“, and so on and so forth), „deduction“, „induction“, and other „crutches“.

If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the „crutch“ that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.

Science and philosophy have always used such „crutches“. Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).

How I use the word and concept „belief“:

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.

....“ ** **

Belief is needed.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.

Yes, of course.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

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.

Thinkdr wrote:

„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?“ **

There is a correlation between them, yes, but I think that greed is more fundamental than corruption, which means: it oftener happens that greed leads to corruption than that corruption leads to greed. If a person or a society is corrupt then it is always greedy too, but if a person or a society is greedy then it is not always corrupt too.

The globalists (glozis) have been murdering millions of unborn and born children, of youngsters, of adults, and billions of other living beings; they have been destroying the whole planet by poisoning it, by exploiting it, by inflicting it with war, by putting species, races, and people in environments where they not belong to with the consequence of dying out; and this all will lead to a huge chaos.

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 rescue the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too?

Now, this is an important question, and it is a philosophical question, because it is an ethical question.

You probably know that the EU has almost nothing to do with democracy. Someone who says that the EU „uses a kind of parliamentary system“ just shows again nothing else than a huge ignorance, cluelessness. The president and the council of the EU are the only decision makers in the EU, and nobody has elected them. I hope that at least youzh know this ....

- Nigel Farage: „The EU is the enemy of Democracy“.
- Nigel Farage asks Herman von Rompuy: „Who are you?“.

Riley Bowen (who is it?) is not a philosopher. So why should we believe that he or she is a philosoper?

Creating suffering and death must be stopped as well as creating envy and revenge.

Ah, here is you thread again! And here is my response again:

Copied post in another thread.

You know nothing at all, nothing about history, and, of course, nothing about the European history. So you also know nothing about science, nothing about philosophy. You are the most clueless member of this forum; so it is no wonder that you are always telling lies. According to you Nigerians conquered the Roman empire, because this lie is suitable for you and your stupid racist „ideology“. Now you are telling the lie of the „democratic“ EU, that the EU „from“ your „understanding () uses a kind of parliamentary system“ (**). That is absolutely ridiculous.

Try to tell your lies and fakes to another ILP member. I am not interested in them. And try to grow up ....

Pandora wrote:

„Perhaps a man needs to re-learn what it means to be a man again...and the rest will follow.“ **

More perhaps a woman needs to re-learn what it means to be a woman again ..., and the rest will follow.

Hahaha wrote:

„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.“ **

I am sorry, my friend.

Didn't you say that your parents came from Germany?

What about your father?

My statement does not actually contradict Pandora’s statement, but shows the other „side“ of the „coin“, and the word „more“ in my sentence is rhetorically meant, thus it refers more to Pandora herself than to her statement. So there is also no actual contradiction between your (**) and my statement, although the word „more“ in my statement may be a bit perplexing

James S. Saint wrote:

„The purpose of feminism is merely global domination by a select small group of males.“ **

And this males selected themselves.

Hahaha wrote:

„Sure, I agree that both religion and psychiatry are extensions of authoritarian power.

Is that what you're saying?“ **

Yes, but not only that. Both are based on the same metaphysical system.

My question (**|**) remains.

We can foresee that there will be a huge chaos with an also huge number of dead innocent humans and other innocent living beings.

Which situation do you (**) mean exactly?

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“.

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“.

What about the „islamic world“ where 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?

But that (**) is no direct answer to my question, unless your answer is meant fatalistically.

What do you think about it (**), Pandora?

If there were no young people, the sellers of those high tech products would probably have some problems.

A word can be linguistically interpreted as an unit of a logical sememe - therefore I sometimes call a word „logeme“ („log[ic]“ + „[sem]eme“).

Whereas the logical analog of a linguistical „sentence“ is a „thought“.

888) Arminius, 29.05.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:09, 01:21, 01:23, 01:28, 01:31, 01:33, 01:36, 01:40, 01:44, 01:48, 01:49, 15:17, 15:25, 17:39, 18:15, 18:33, 18:45, 21:58, 22:32, 23:14, 23:23, 23:46, 23:53, 23:57 (4660-4679)

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. But it is not only an issue of choices - humans have always had more choices than other living beings - and the increasingly intrusive ads are also and especially, as I interpret it, an issue of total control.

Amorphos wrote

„Aether theory has been proved wrong ....“ **

No. It has merely been replaced by the relativity theory.

Okay. That (**) possibly works too, although the smallest carrier of meaning is a morpheme and the largest a text.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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 world‹where 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.“ **

Yea.

The ISS is such an „absolute island“. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

There are more than this human-made „islands“, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric „islands“:

All of these „islands“ are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

As long as all these „islands“ will exist and will contradict their „ocean“ nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.

Kriswest wrote:

„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.“ **

Kriswest wrote:

„Ethics are based upon experience.“ **

Yea, but also upon thoughts. What was first?

Artimas wrote:

„It's much more than them just being hated.“ **

Oh, yes, of course.

What is your exact statement of your last post (**) ?

Amorphos wrote:

„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 ....“ **

Yes, the EU „club“ is purposefully not democratic.

Hahaha wrote:

„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?“ **

The book can be interpreted as a continuation of his most popular book, as I already said before, and about the comparision resp. the juxtaposition of Prussiandom and socialism. According to Spengler Prussiandom is just the opposite of socialism in a Marxistic sense. Spengler debunks Marx and says for example, that the Marxism betrays itself by any sentence that it stems from a theological and not political mindset, and that Marxism has internalized the „Manchestertum“ („Manchesterdom“) in spite of denying it. In another chapter of the book Spengler compares Prussians and Englishmen as well as Prussians and Spaniards by interpreting their history, comnig to the conclusion that they are the most „socialistic“ (not meant in a Marxistic but in a Spenglerian or Goethean sense, namely in a „morphological“ sense, as a way of life) peoples of the Occident, whereas Frenchmen and Italians are their antipodes. In order to understand Spengler rightly, one has to know that his method is a Goethean one, mostly based on contrastive pairs.

The chapters:

1) „Einleitung“ („Introduction“).
2) „Die Revolution“ („The Revolution“).
3) „Sozialismus als Lebensform“ („Socialism as Way of Life“).
4) „Engländer und Preußen“ („Prussians and Englishmen“).
5) „Marx“ („Marx“).
6) „Die Internationale“ („The International“).

There is, for example, an internet version of the book as it has been translated by Donald O. White (**). Note: The appropriate translation of „Preußentum“ or „Preussentum“ is not „Prussianism“ (as it is translated by Donald O. White) but „Prussiandom“, because it was never meant as an „ism“. That also is important for the right understanding.

Thinkdr wrote:

„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?“ **

A predisposition of greed is genetically programmed.

Thinkdr wrote:

„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.“ **

George Gilder is wrong.

1) Wealth is not knowledge. Knowledge can but does not necessarily and not always lead to wealth, and wealth can but does not necessarily and not always lead to knowledge. So Gilder’s equation „wealth = knowledge“ is FALSE.

2) Growth is not learning. Learning can but does not necessarily mean growth, and growth can but does not necessarily mean learning. So Gilder’s „growth = learning“ is FALSE.

3) Money is not time. Merely some economists and propagandists think that money would be time. Money is a means that can but does not necessarily lead to wealth and to power, and time can but does not necessarily run short (cp. date of redemption of debts because of credits, interests, compound interests). So Gilder’s „money = time“ is FALSE.

By the way: 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, and both could not really be separated from each other.

Which „discussion“ (**) do you mean?

Both men and women are the victims of feminism.

Don’t 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.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Don’t 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.“ **

Two of the three „colors“ refer to information, and one of the three „colors“ refers to influence / inspiration. So I guess that the energetic resources are a hidden part of the latter, the „green color“ („I“). Or are they not included?

Incorrect wrote:

„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?«“ **

You should not forget that a woman does this not only because of men but also because of women (each of them is her competitor).

A photon is just a photon. It has no parts. An electron is just an electron. It has no parts. There are other examples too.

But something like a thought is needed - or at least a short-term memory - in order to experience, if you don't understand experience as a pure doing and letting do but understand it more as a learning.

If you consider not only God or gods but also the false gods, then you need to say: „All humans believe in God or gods but also the false gods“.

So when a so-called „expert“ says to you „you are mentally ill because you believe in God“, then you can always respond „you are even more mentally ill because you believe in many false gods“.

But then the situation becomes political, and the „expert“ shows you what „power“ means.

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.“ **

Yes, but something must be done.

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course. But the main question is, what it is that we can and should do.

Who has an interest in making that clones (**) ?

What about the projections people make and actually show that there are others who do what those who are projecting like to do?

You (**) quoted me falsely. It was not my text.

What if the leftists are in that said „center“ (**) ? And they think that they are. Don't they? According to them everything and everybody is a rightist. And so it is. In other words: Rightist are a minority (at least in Europe) that becomes more and more tiny. And that is what the west really is currently: a world of leftists. A world of all-leftists is not a „better world“ but the hell.

Back to the topic of this thread (**|**):

Why are some ILP members not banned, although they are trolls, whereas others are banned, although they are no trolls?

So you are saying that all humans (females and males) are stubborn (**). Hmmh ....

May I ask you why you are so interested in „rhizomes“ (**) ?

„Freedom“ actually means „free will“, and this „free will“ is not absolute but merely relative.

889) Arminius, 03.06.2016, 01:04, 01:09, 01:11, 01:18, 01:20, 01:21, 01:23, 01:25, 01:27, 01:29, 01:41, 01:44, 02:21, 02:44, 14:55, 15:02, 15:32, 17:59, 19:22, 20:35, 21:42 (4688-4708)

Excuse me, but „freedom“ (in an absolute sense) can never „equaly mean“ anything at all but merely „freedom“.

Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.

According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.

If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.

Note: „Competences“ means more than„fitness“, it is more like „capital“, „power“, „acceptance“, „appreceation“.

Copied post in another thread.

The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, .... (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.

If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.

Copied post in another thread.

There are three possibilities why you (**) are reacting that way: (1) you are a leftists too, (2) you have misunderstood my statement, (3) you are a leftists and have misunderstood my statement (=> 1 and 2).

Leftists have occupied the center and the right wing, but they would never admit this, they would never say that they are rightists, but they are. The new rightist will never say „I am the rightist“ but will always say „I am the anti-rightist“. Leftists live on the hardship of the poor people, and the poor people are becoming more and more, which is what the leftists want, must want, because they live on them. Just because others do not want to bite the dust (to lose their competences), they become leftists too. If there were no poor people, the leftists would immediately invent them. Leftist need the poor people because they live on their hardship.

This, what I just described, is the situation in Europe, at least in Old Europe, and I am pretty sure that it is not much different in the USA.

That (**) is right.

I believe you (**). But there is another interesting feedback: Many ILP members like trolls, and one of the feedbacks is that some of the moderators tend to like trolls too. So in the final analysis many ILP members and some moderators do sometimes not know who is a troll and who is not a troll.

You hopefully know that your so-called „Federal Reserve Bank“ is a private bank, althought it is also called the national central bank, which is normally not private but statist, thus public. So „your“ Federal Reserve Bank does not represent the interests of your nation.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

It's a cool idea. Now go play with your new lego set mommy bought you.“ **

No. Not mommy but either daddy (if before 1970) or the taxpayers (if since 1970).

Note: Since about 1970 there have been existing almost no children of the middle-class anymore but almost exclusively children of the under-class which are financially supported by the taxpyers, thus the middle-class.

Yes, the will is not free but relatively free.

Topic: Is the law of energy of conservation 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?

You (**) used a sterotype in your reply to Helper's last post, then I used a stereotype in my reply to your reply to Helper's last post.

I never said that „money“ was „a gene“.

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.“ **

Exactly.

It is based on information.

There are many different information memories (storages), two of them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes (short-term and long-term) -, all others are cultural (artificial) like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries, pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer, robots, androids.

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. Of course. And he himself is the super racist. He „argues“ like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did who fanatically dictated: If there are persons who are more intelligent than others, then this persons do not have a right to exist, thus must be murdered.

In order to prevent misuses of a phenomenon you have to know what it is and to explain, to illuminate, to clarify it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. Absolutely. His egalitarianism is so insane, so that I would not be surprised if he demanded that „all living beings must be equal“ and „those who do not agree“ with that insane statement „must be murdered“.

Maybe it is because he is not taught but „teached“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. Absolutely. ....

Only Humean wrote:

„I'm confused.“ **

Oh, I'm sorry.

Only Humean wrote:

„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?“ **

I mean the latter, although maybe there is one of you too who likes trolls in general (), but that is not what I am talking about. I just think that some (thus: not all) of the posters influence some (thus: not all) of the moderators / administrators a bit, not always but sometimes, and that we have to separate „classical“ trolls from trolls who are not or at least not at once recognised as trolls by other posters and moderators / administrators. I mean: How do some (thus: not all) certain posters try to appeal to other posters here on ILP? By philosophising? No, but certain posters and moderators / administrators think that it is philosophising. By trolling? Yes, but not always in the „classical“ way, because trolling on the internet has developed since the beginning of the internet.

Would you deny that there are influences between posters and moderators / administrators?  -  I don't think so.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Man you've got it backward.“ **

No.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„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.

Did I say anything much different? The left wing populists say that the right wing wants the Wall Street to do what the Wall Stret wants, so it is right that it is said so, but the truth is that th left wing does the same, so that one can also say: the left wing is the right wing too (there is no real difference - except the rhetoric). Who of the cowards would ever publicly admit being a rightist? No one. Here on ILP you have the same result. Look here.

Even on ILP, no one wants to publicly be a „rightist“.

The current fashion is still being a leftist, and in modern times the fashion dictates the moral. So „being a rightist“ means currently „being evil“. But what does that mean if a leftist is also a rightist and no one wants to publicly admit being a rightist (just because the fashion forbids it).

You may elect as much as you want, you will never get a true left or a true right politics, becaue both are currently the same when it comes to the real politics, since the global rulers who blackmail the politicians do the real politics.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„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.“ **

That is what the „leftists“ are telling you rhetorically - over and over again.

What they do is very much different from that.

Okay, there is a little difference between the US-American „left“/„right“-thing and the European one, but this is at last negligible. It’s only words.

For a further respond I would like you to post in another thread (you may quote my post there) in order to not derail this thread. Okay?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course, and they are meant as two different questions too (therefore the line: „ --------- “).

James S. Saint wrote:

„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?“ **

The first one of course. The first one is the title of this thread. So it is also the most relevat question of this thread.

The second one is merely relevant when it comes to bring both questions together, for example when we are referring to results of some thermodynamic experiments that can be (but should be?) and are used as premises for the laws of thermodynamics, thus also for the law of conservation of energy.

Yes, of course. And they have already invented many other words for it.

890) Arminius, 09.06.2016, 01:02, 01:02, 01:14, 01:25, 01:35, 02:25, 13:41, 16:30, 16:58, 17:47, 18:26, 19:44, 19:56, 20:23, 21:04, 21:31, 21:32, 21:47, 23:20, 23:22, 23:41, 23:43 (4709-4730)

The second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, should also be considered.

So do you think that the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is true or false?

If you consider this, especially the tendency of each organism (living being) and each super-organism to avoid the loss of competences, then many current problems, also and especially the feminism or the plunder and destruction of our planet, can be understood and explained in an easier way.

It is a systemic evolution theory or philosophy.

The society as I understand it is not dead. Maybe it is dying but not already dead. If it was dead, then there would be no Tragedy of the Commons anymore. But there is a Tragedy of the Commons - the biggest ever.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The entire purpose of money is not to create a strong, healthy economy, but a powerful, wealthy monarchy.“ **

Yes, or a monopoly, namely the monopoly of one of the super-organisms (super-organisations / super-corporations).

Maybe.

The statement „all people are equal“ is a juridical statement and means „all people are or should be equal before the law“, „people have or should have the same rights“. People are not really equal.

We alraedy had this subject in my „Universe and Time“ thread:

Arminius wrote:

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=oaiuZev4RWE

Do you agree with him?» ** **

More: ** ** ** ** ** **

Let's take this statement:

„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.“

And maybe we can take this (**) in order to answer the question what entropy is.

Here is the exact example:

Turd Ferguson is the exact troll example I mentioned. He has not a tiny clue of history, of philosophy, of science, and he does not know much about his first language - but he is the first one when it comes to use lies, fakes, and ad hominems. Every now and then he uses lying „headlines“ (as if he were the „popular press“) in order to hide his stupidity and his trolling and pubescent behavior. Most of the time he is trolling, lying, and faking like a pubescent child. So why is he not banned? Obviously he has been trolling since 2011 when he joined ILP. Why is he implicitly protected by the moderation or, especially, the administration? Is he Carleas' little brother?

Did you notice that my quote was a „Wiki“ quote?

Thus „Wiki“ wrote:

„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.“ **

in German it is not called „Gesetz“ („law“) but merely „Hauptsatz“ („main clause“ => „main theorem“).

Philosophy is dead?

No. Philosophy is possibly dying but not dead. And the next one is science. Science has been becoming more and more religious. Maybe both will be dead in the near future. But is that what you would like to appreciate?

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

- Markets are never really „free“.
- Globalism means that the global banks / corporations (super-organisms) dominate and blackmail the states (nations).
- Unregulated competition leads to the plunder of all resources, especially of all human resources.
- This leads to the situation that all acquirable resources of this planet are owned by very few persons or super-organisms.

Most philosophers are dead.

In order to be a philosopher you should be almost dead.

I guess you (**) mean a subjective experience and understanding of a certain situation that is considered as being the said sense. Is that right?

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Banks and corporations are super-organisms. Since the occidental - thus industrial - modernity these super-organisms have been becoming the dominating super-organisms, and since at least the beginning of the globalism they have been dominating the older super-organisms like the churches or the states. This implies that since then the newer super-organisms have been blackmailing the older super-organisms more and more. One of the symptoms that have been increasing since then is the female part of the human resources as a commons (compare: the tragedy of the commons).

Copied post in another thread.

==>