01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [961][962][963][964][965][966][967][968][969][970] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5770 |
What is the Hegelian dialectic again: problem, reaction, solution ..., create the problem, wait for the reaction, then present the solution already concocted? Yeah, Hegel was right. Another one that just helped the world go from bad to worse. **
5771 |
What we must do ........
The word 'must' is a giveaway. It revives the Kantian controversy whereby hundreds of years of controversy should be revisited, so that history can teach us.
The hardware will overcome the software in any case, and if we do not learn from history, all the software will merely melt away. **
For instance, what is good in a run away post apolaptic world, where technology's remains will be either tun amok artificially implanted beings, replicating and adapting humanity, enslaving them in a post Bachause nightmare?
Science would not be thought anymore, because humanity may be crossbreed with animals , reminiscent of the film »Dr. Moreau«, minus the happy Hollywood ending.
Scientists would also be incorporated into a world of mechanical intelligence, where they are no longer needed.
So a return, an Eternal return of diminishing functions of harmonic elements, based on sound rather then sight be incorporated in a new mass re evaluation of an alternate universe from the earliest get go, with the wrongly abandoned premises.
If, the programmers do this now, and not wait until they are made dispensable, then there is a chance the sheeple will follow the new line.
Other than that option, the future is bleak, and the run away brace new world will turn chicken. **
5772 |
|
5773 |
5774 |
|
5775 |
5776 |
5777 |
|
5778 |
Everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws. **
|
5779 |
Exactly, Arminius. The old Hermetic descriptions knew of no difference, they did not consider modern science. It is only modern science makes the break, as if that break had some function in the sense of differentiation. The a-priori integration of thousands of years, condensed to differential non functionally supposed conditionals, make no sense, oddly surprising to the Oxford group.
It really should have come as no surprise to them, that this break was the result of trying to find certainty, where only degrees sufficient to accommodate that end or function is required.
James (James S. Saint) has agreed with this in a previous forum, where critics objected, because of the perception that no accurately conceivable function could ever approach the absolute. But in future tech, it is only conjecture, but a credible one, where such ultra specification may become necessary.
If it could be allowed that such ends, may at one point define the earliest archaic means, then, and even then could an analogy be made between a Deity and a machine. However, even in the event that such a state is reached, it could be argued, that that as preempted by the argument for such a comparison between man and the machine.
That is no problem, for the anthropomorphic origin of God has been a source of discussion from the enlightenment on. **
5780 |
|
5781 |
5782 |
|
5783 |
|
5784 |
No, they aren't compatible, but they are useful to each other.
Feminists use Islam as an »object« or »tool« to criticize Western culture/history/civilization. In short, for the feminists, anything or anyone is better than the white, heterosexual male. **
|
5785 |
5786 |
5787 |
5788 |
5789 |
Arminius wrote:
»Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.« ** **
Yes that is interesting. I had never thought of math as a »spiritual« thing, but technically it is. **
The word »spirit« has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a »science«. Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work.
**
Of course if logic doesn't work, neither does math ... nor science. But they skipped over that issue. **
5790 |
All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
Mathematics is a subset of logic.
** **
|
5791 |
Arminius wrote:
»Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.« ** **
Merriam-Webster, definition of spiritual:
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>.
2.a of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>.
3. concerned with religious values.
4. related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>.
5.a of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic.So, how is your own understanding of mathematics as a »spiritual science« either relevant or not relevant to the definitions above. **
And, while I suspect this is futile, how would you relate this exact science to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. That which preoccupies me here.
Of what practical use can we make of this science?
Or is this just me hijacking another thread? **
The word »spirit« has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a »science«. Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work.
**
5792 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science spiritual science (following the German Geisteswissenschaft - Geist means ghost, spirit -, although Geisteswissenschaft is often translated by humanities, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a subset of the set logic.« ** **
I can only presume that this is not addressed to me.
As it in no way addresses the points that I raised with you.
Or so it seems to me. **
5793 |
To answer Arm. (Arminius?), in a sexual encounter or potential sexual encounter young females will play dumb due to antiquated stereotypes. How many guys will be turned on by a chick that is more intelligent?? We all know this as older adults. The young do not see this. **
Unfortunately, intelligence has decreased and the whole education system with all its schools, high schools, colleges, universities has become a corruption system (like all other institutional systems). ** **
5794 |
==>
|