951) Arminius, 11.11.2016, 16:35 (5708)

Kriswest wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Pain belongs to life, yes, but it is also true that life, especially in the case of human beings, tries to reduce or overcome pain, for example by taking drugs, by inventing, implementing, applying medicine.« ** **

And so no real evolution. The mind may change but, the body is hindered.“ **

By saying that „pain belongs to life“ and „life ... tries to reduce or overcome pain“ I was referring to your statement that „pain is needed for evolution“ (**). I mean: reducing or overcoming pain belongs to life as well as pain itself does. So reducing or overcoming pain belongs to culture as well as to evolution. It is similar to the fact that humans try to reduce and overcome natural environment.

Compare:

Arminius wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»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‹:

 

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.« ** **

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).“ ** **

- New Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
- Self-replicating nanobots.
- Self-replicating nanobots.“ ** **

952) Arminius, 12.11.2016, 01:18 (5709)

Unfortunately, most humans are not interested or/and do not understand the technological development and its consequences. Most humans only begin with a little interest in technical things, if they can use them for themselves.

953) Arminius, 13.11.2016, 01:35 (5710)

@ James S. Saint.

Arminius wrote:

„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«.“ ** **

Arminius 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.« **

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.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»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.« ** **

If you meant that the way that I suspect, you are very right. The focus upon sustaining and/or maintaining rather than upon aggressing, alters perspective and incentive. Although there are a few situations wherein one must aggress in order to merely maintain.

The truth is that people are only inspired to aggress when inspired from others, as often their »friends« as their »enemies«. And that too is a old philosophy concerning how to get Man to make »progress«. There was always a better way. It merely wasn't discovered in time to prevent gross aggression from becoming the normal and expected (aka »wars«).“ **

Exactly.

954) Arminius, 14.11.2016, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:01, 00:33, 00:50, 01:20, 04:21, 16:41, 17:15, 17:33, 19:37, 20:10, 23:57 (5711-5724)

Arminius wrote:

„By the way: One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow »false« or »evil«, so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.“ ** **

Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can „argue“ in this way.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„In an earlier day, the rich lived at the expense of the poor, directly and unequivocally; in a modern economy, unproductive citizens increasingly live at the expense of productive ones—though in an equivocal way, since they are told, and believe, that they are disadvantaged and deserve more still. Today, in fact, a good half of the population of every modern nation is made up of people with little or no income, who are exempt from taxes and live, to a large extent, off the other half of the population, which pays taxes. If such a situation were to be radicalized, it could give rise to massive social conflict. The eminently plausible free-market thesis of exploitation by the unproductive would then have prevailed over the much less promising socialist thesis of the exploitation of labor by capital.“

In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones „argue“ as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but also very rich people.

Copied post in another thread.

5713

The problem is that „being conscious“ is defined differently.

I know, you define „consciousness“ as „remote recognition“.

Man created machines in order to rationalize and did not consider that this could mean being replaced not only economically but also biologically.

The Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism).

A lioness (for example), although not capable of counting, ascertains the absence of one of the cubs.

The founder of the modern mathematical logic (=> logistic, symbolic logic ...) was Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925), the spiritual father of Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) and of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).

Do you (**) really think that there is such a difference between them?

Remember:

Arminius wrote:

„The founder of the modern mathematical logic (=> logistic, symbolic logic ...) was Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925), the spiritual father of Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) and of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).“ ** **

Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege’s „Sinn und Bedeutung“) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.

No. (1.) I would not go so far and speak of a „split“, and (2.) there was not only an English or, as you say, an Anglo empirism but also a German or, as you say, a Continental empirism. The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener Kreis (Viennese Circle) and the founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus (Logical Empirism).

„Total power“ (**)?

Moralität ist Sittlichkeit.
Translation:
Morality is morality.

The translation is difficult, because both „Moralität“ and „Sittlichkeit“ are always translated by „morality“.

„Sittlichkeit“ means both the actions originating from a moral/ethical („sittlich“) „attitude“ („Gesinnung“) and that attitude itself which corresponds to the „law of the customs“ / „moral law“ („Sittengesetz“), the ethical principle / ethical norm / practical principle as a generally valid rule.

Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.

The teem „immediately findable total content“ (**|**) means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.

955) Arminius, 15.11.2016, 05:22, 06:06, 06:31, 07:13, 07:28, 12:53, 13:55, 14:59 (5725-5732)

I did not say „is found“ but „can be found“ or „is immediately findable“, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.

Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.

Arminius wrote:

„

1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the „Es“ (English: „Id“) and „das Unbewußte“ (English: „the unconscious“) psychoanalytically is, that the reason brain is what the „Ich“ (in English: „I“, „ego“„self“) and „das Bewußte“ (English: „the conscious“) psychoanalytically is.“ ** **

The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).

But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.

Copied post in another thread.

One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called „point of view“. This was the exact reason why I opened a thread dealing with a „superconsciousness“ (**|**). Do you remember?

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„JSS,

(Not you Arm, not in the mood for your shenanigans) ....“ **

It seems that you are in the mood for your shenanigans.

Stop derailing this thread, Maniacal (**). Personal attacks are not needed here. And if you really want to be in the mood for your own shenanigans, then do it in another thread - not in my thread.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„Being told that you are wrong is an attack, are you a democrat? I have been speaking to the content ....“ **

Are you a monarch?

I am not wrong, and I did not say that you attacked me by using the word „wrong“ or something like that (concerning the attack: see below). You have not been speaking to the context. Did you read the last posts before you posted? Obviously not. Did you read the opening post? Obviously not.

It is obvious what it means when somebody posts „something“ like this:

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„JSS,

(Not you Arm, not in the mood for your shenanigans) ....“ **

Shall we all always name all those who are not meant? Like this:

A wrote:

„@B (not C ...).“

If it is not meant in a rhetorical way, then in a stupid way or in both ways.

I do not want to discuss this further. So please try to communicate civilly, as Only Humean often says, and by referring to the topic, or look for another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called ›point of view‹.« ** **

Then that leads back to the question, »Who/what is doing the finding?«“ **

Yes. And do you know for certain who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»This was the exact reason why I opened a thread dealing with a ›superconsciousness‹. Do you remember?« ** **

Within which I could never figure out if you meant »super« as in greater or »super« as in beyond.“ **

It was meant in both senses, but more in the sense of „beyond“ than in the sense of „greater“. „Beyond“ is the more proper word in that case, because I was talking about the superconsciousness more metphysically than physically. So I admit that it was meant in a pretty much speculative way. My intention was to get some knowledge about it via a speculative thesis.

And if you want to rhetorically use these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.

(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.)

956) Arminius, 16.11.2016, 07:59, 08:09, 22:00, 22:02, 23:22, 23:36, 23:59 (5733-5739)

Good question. I would say: The levels partly overlap. Parts of them can migrate due to the fact that parts of the brain are just neurologically connected with each other.

I have already given my definition.

Arminius wrote:

„Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.“ ** **

If the superconsciousness overlapped the whole consciousness, then it would also overlap the neurological connections.

Yes.

The eastern border of the western culture:

Hahaha wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»The white male has three targets on his back - racist, sexist, homophobic.  « **

White males are what Jews were to National Socialist Germany towards the current Marxists in power all over the globe.

When you look at the declining birthrates of Europeans everywhere one could say that is genocidal. I'm still waiting for a European holocaust of the future where 'white' people are targeted violently on a grand collective scale.

›We need to round up all the 'evil' white people....‹“ **

These days, you should not be white, not be male, not be heterosexual, not be Christian - and all those who are still white, male, heterosexual Christians should never be fathers, thus never have children.

These days, you should not be male, not be Christian, not be white, not be heterosexual - and all those who are still male, Christian, white, heterosexual should never be fathers, thus never have children.

957) Arminius, 17.11.2016, 17:50 (5740)

Are the democrats left out in the rain?

If so, then they could learn something from the Pope.

958) Arminius, 18.11.2016, 01:22, 02:15, 03:00, 03:11, 09:35, 09:59 (5741-5746)

Words like „life“ and „birth“ should not be used for the Sun.

The phase of the „white dwarf“ will be followed by the phase of the „black dwarf“ (is not considered in the picture).

Do you (**) believe what Stephen Hawking says?

The statement that „we have only a very short time for leaving this planet“ is similar to the statement that „we need more money for the urgent research“ (or at least to make this subject relevant).

3 billion years are a very long time, thus almost irrelevant to human beings with a lifespan of about 80 years. 10 thousand years are not a very a long time, but also almost irrelevant to most human beings.

But okay, here are some objects that could become relevamt:

1) Jupiter's moon Europa ....

2) Saturn's moon Titan ....

Both moons are relatively (compared with the planet Earth) small for the current 7.4 billion human beings ....

But 1% of the current 7.4 billion human beings could comfortably live on Europa or on Titan.

- Equals (Gordon, D., Gordon, L., Grant, Hall, Lloyd), Let’s Go to the Moon, 1970.

Mags J. wrote:

„There is more than just Eastern and Western thought.“ **

Yes, of course, and there is also more than human thought, because some other living beings have thoughts too, although only some thoughts. But all those other thoughts are not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the Occidental philosophy and the Oriental philosophy. So it is about two huge thinking systems that are probably the most dualistic ones too. There are no other thinking systems that are as huge as these two, provided that all regional or national thinking systems of both the Occident and the Orient can really be integrated in their respective superordinated thinking system.

Mags J. wrote:

„Our origin is still unknown it seems, but Mars is still a possibility ....“ **

That is very unlikely.

If they had come from Mars or from another extraterrestrial place, they would have had a high technology, thus, with a high probability: they would have left a mark.

Or do you believe in the ancient astronauts hypotheses of Erich von Däniken?

„The general claim of Däniken over several published books, starting with Chariots of the Gods? in 1968, is that extraterrestrials or »ancient astronauts« visited Earth and influenced early human culture. Däniken writes about his belief that structures such as the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Moai of Easter Island and artifacts from that period represent higher technological knowledge than is presumed to have existed at the times they were manufactured. He also describes ancient artwork throughout the world as containing depictions of astronauts, air and space vehicles, extraterrestrials, and complex technology. Däniken explains the origins of religions as reactions to contact with an alien race, and offers interpretations of sections of the Old Testament of the Bible (See also Ark of the Covenant and The Spaceships of Ezekiel).“ **

959) Arminius, 19.11.2016, 01:02, 01:12, 09:25, 09:33, 09:54, 09:59, 15:05, 15:07, 15:09, 15:13, 15:16, 15:19, 15:36, 15:48 (5747-5760)

Maybe or maybe not.

But: What is your point?

Why would they never oppose?

If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a Jew-who-officially-hates-Jews, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, ... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.

The method is very easy: You jump with your „thesis“ (e.g.: „X is evil“) into your „synthesis“ (e.g.: „if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good“) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the „antithesis“ (e.g.: „X is good“) and telling the lie that „the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role“.

The question is also, whether such oppsoitions (although we would habve to discuss whether they are real oppsotions or not) occured intentionally or not.

Yes (**), and many historical examples have impressively shown this.

It is not possible to get rid of Hegel. Take, for example, his dialectic. The dialectic process is not unreal and not merely logical (theoretical) but also ontological (factual).

For comparison (only): ** ** and ** **.

A decentralization is alraedy a synthesis between centralization (thesis) and anticentralizaition (antitheisis). Take a political example: The current Germany has a decentralized structure, whereas the current France has a centralized structure. Both have one national capital, which means centralization, and smaller capitals of Bundesländer or Départements, which means decentralization. The difference is that the power is more decentralized in Germany and more centralized in France. But no one of the both is anticentralized (thus: antithetical to centralization).

We do not know very much about the consciousness. But this does not mean that we should not talk about it. We know that many things do not belong to the consciousness and that the consciousness or something like it must exist.

Copied post.

The group „X“ depends always on its „therapist“ or „teacher“ or „reeducator“. It has no chance to become a good one, if its „therapist“ or „teacher“ or „reeducator“ does not want that, because it can always be interpreted as being „evil“.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

You (**) are obsessed.

If I really had disliked the result, then I would not have made the poll. I have expected that result, because I know that most ILP members (including you, of course) believe in nonsense. I do not care much whether I belong to a minority or to a majority.

Your false gods and their religions are dead.

By the way:

Stephen Hawking says humanity will likely be wiped out in a thousand years if it doesn't colonize the stars. ** **

Copied post in another thread.

960) Arminius, 20.11.2016, 12:38, 12:40, 12:48, 13:04, 13:27, 13:42, 14:12, 14:43, 15:15 (5761-5769)

Venture wrote:

„I think there a few things to discuss before we get into intentionality. Western philosophy has a lot more (instrumental breakthroughs in science, political progression, reasoned arguments) to show for itself ....“ **

Yes, by far.

Venture wrote:

„It has always been very difficult for me to see Eastern philosophies separate from religious dogmatism. Most Western philosophies .... present themselves as historically isolated attempts at extensively responding to and reasoning new philosophies.“ **

Yes, that is right.

Venture wrote:

„Maybe it is only a matter of individual vs. holistic philosophy and psychology, but even then, I prefer the former.“ **

Faustian, dynamic/energetic, more individual and analytic in a more scientific sense on the Western side, whereas more metaphysical in a more religious and moral way on the Eastern side, although we have to consider that the Eastern philosophy, if there is such, has at least five several cultural backgrounds: Sumerian, Egyptian, Arabian in the Near East, Indian and Chinese in the Far East.

Jerkey wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It is not possible to get rid of Hegel. Take, for example, his dialectic. The dialectic process is not unreal and not merely logical (theoretical) but also ontological (factual).« ** **

I agree. Hegel was a channel through which the structural basis of the content of thought manifested. You can't get rid of something basically and imminently is the basis through which it arose in the first place.“ **

Yes.

A computer-generated image representing space debris as seen from high Earth orbit (HEO). The two main debris fields are the ring of objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and the cloud of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO):

What are your „sources“ (**) then?

„Do“? Do you (**) mean what they are built for? Or what?

From Earth?

Jerkey wrote:

„The church was right in suppressing science, after all.“ **

You mean the leaders of the church until a certain time, namely until the time when the secular leaders had finally won their fight against the church. But think of other institutions of the church, especially the monasteries. The Occidental monasteries of the Early Middle Ages can be interpreted as the first universities (the real universities appeared later).

Celyne Kayser wrote:

„I recommend Richard Duncan, UK prominent transhumanist and speaking of the transhumanist agenda that regards us as cattle, at the bases conference, and warning us that only 10-15% of population will be welcome in the club. Agenda 21 is here ....“

I would say: „1% of the population will be welcome“. **

(By Richard Duncan do you mean the author of the Olduvai theory?)

We have the „hardware“ of the cavemen and the „software“ of the transhumans.

So what shall we do?

==>