971) Arminius, 01.12.2016, 14:54, 19:17, 23:51, 01:02 (5795-5797)

You (**) are wrong, and that is why you are always using ad hominems or statements that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I have proven my point several times over. Many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point. It does not matter whether they are a minority or a majority. The progress has always been brought by a minority. Therefore I said that majorities always tend to believe in nonsense. And because of that you are insulted? That is ridiculous. But you are always using personal pronouns when attacking persons - so your personal attacks are real insults, real ad hominems.

Again: I have proven my point several times over, and many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

And by the way: The title of this thread is a question: „Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?“ (**|**). How can the question be a wrong statement? The opening post contains a thesis. A thesis can but does not have to be wrong. You did not read the thread. If you had read it, then you would have get the information about what I am criticizing. I am saying that if a theory has merely a tiny error, then it is allowed to say that this theory is falsified (cf. Karl Raimund Popper). If I did not know what „natural selection“ means, then I would not be capable of critizising it in the way I do. But I do exactly know what „natural selection“ means, and I also know that you believe in it as if it were holy.

Also: It is not the selection principle as such that makes the Darwinistic selection principle false. What makes it false is its premise. The premise of the Darwinistic selection principle is that the evolutionary process of all living beings is caused by their environemnt, so that all living beings are forced to adaptation by their environment. The word „all“ is false, as the example of homo sapiens has proven, because homo sapiens is capable of having an own environment (you may call it an „artificial environment“), thus of overcoming the natural environment, and so, consequently, homo sapiens is also capable of selecting. So there is an human selection (you may also call it „political selection“ or „social selection“ or „artificial selection“) as well. Humans are capable of killing almost all living beings. If they die out because of the human selection, then (attention: tautology!) it is caused by the human selection, regardless whether there is also a natural selection or not. So in other words: I am not saying that there is no natural selection. I am saying that there are other selections that contradict the natural selection.

Now you are talking about „»natural selection«, »sexual selection« and »domestic selection« - but not about other kinds of selection. So you are using a rhetorical trick here by leaving out other selections. That is ridiculous too. And the (current) human evolution is just the reason why more and more scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the Darwinistic selection principle must be false. And that is what I am saying here. Since you joined this thread I changed from assuming to claiming, because you belong to those who believe in Darwinism and other isms as dogmatic ideologies, thus secular religions. So I would have to thank you for making me an Anti-Darwinist, if I really wanted to be one.

Marx’ philosophical development went from philosophy to political economy - but not back from political economy to philosophy. His mistake was that he did not go back to philosophy where he began. This mistake left a gap, and it was just this gap that Lenin later used disastrously for his terrorism.

If you (**) do not have anything to contribute to this thread, then look for another thread. You have never given any argument, only ad hominems and denials. What you are doing here is nothing else than trolling and stalking.

@ Others.

Look what he has written here. There is no single argument, no contribution to this thread, only „no“s and ad hominems. He never stays on topic.

972) Arminius, 02.12.2016, 00:31 (5798)

Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with the natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

Here are again some examples of artificial environments:

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.

973) Arminius, 03.12.2016, 13:12 (5799)

And by the way:

When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called „social life“) the alleged „enemies“ capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.

974) Arminius, 04.12.2016, 00:00, 13:55, 14:39, 19:46 (5800-5803)

Quizkid (**).

Or: Quizz Kid:

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Glascock), Quizz Kid, 1976.

No (**). It is just the other way around. I have informed you several times what exactly the „Darwinistic Selection Principle“ is and what it not is. The fact that you still have failed to understand what the difference means indicates that you are just not capable of understanding it. So it would be better for you to look for another thread - as I also said several times to you.

Your false statement does not get more true the more you say it. A false statement is always false - no matter how many times you say it.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And: What you call „the duty to continue“ (**) is nothing else than your duty to threaten me with continuing of trolling and stalking.

Ierrellus wrote:

„You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.“ **

Ierrellus wrote:

„Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.“ **

Your (**) threat that you will continue with stalking has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Again: You have never given any argument, only ad hominems and denials. What you are doing here is nothing else than trolling and stalking.

What you have written here has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. There has never come a single argument from you, never come a contribution to this thread from you, but always come "no"s and ad hominems from you.

You want to forbid other people's opinion, just because they disagree with you. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And: What you call „the duty to continue“ (**) is nothing else than your duty to threaten me with continuing of trolling and stalking.

Ierrellus wrote:

„You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.“ **

Ierrellus wrote:

„Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.“ **

The Darwinistic selection principle is false (**|**), at least in many cases and especially in the case of the human beings. That knowledge leads us to at least two conclusions concerning the human origin:

1) Do humans stem from apes?
2) If humans stem from apes, then why do humans become more and more maladjusted resp. more and more (but of course never 100%) independent of natural environment?

- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .
- ** ** .

I mean: Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.

975) Arminius, 10.12.2016, 00:10, 00:11, 00:12, 00:13, 00:14, 00:18, 00:20, 21:45, 21:48, 23:04, 23:40 (5804-5814)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.

„MEPHISTOPHELES :  Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :  Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
....
WAGNER :  So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :  Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? es war kein Scherz // Komm, drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
....
WAGNER (betrübt) :  Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und 122.
Translation:
„MEPHISTOPHELES :  What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :  A man is being made.
....
WAGNER :  So man with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin in the future.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :  Well, Daddy! how’s things? it was no joke // Come, press close to my heart tenderly.
....
WAGNER (saddened) :  In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.

Copied post in another thread.

Only Humean wrote:

„An interesting development in the field of translation: **

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.“ **

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a „giant leap“?

There have always been some Christians living like primitive Christians.

Pandora wrote:

„Why is everyone concerned about giving sexual and religious minorities when both Europe and US are experiencing an increase of aging population? Why not give older people equal rights by eliminating discrimination in employment and media representation? Old people have years of experience and expertise in the workplace and life, in general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?“ **

The younger group (born after the 1960s) wants to become more wealthy by getting money and other things from the older group (so-called „baby-boomers“ - born before the 1970s). The reason for that is the greed! Greed is supported by greedy politicians and greedy lobbyists, if they benefit from it, and they do, because the younger group elects those politicians and lobbyists who promise them everything by benefitting from them and the promised „everything“. By this „Robin-Hood-politics“, the younger group, their „Robin-Hood“-lobbyists and their „Robin-Hood“-politicians benefit, because the older group is averagely wealthier than the younger group.

Copied post in another thread.

Incorrect wrote:

„Pandora wrtote:

»In general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?« **

They dont want to give away their money.“ **

Like I said: It is the greed.

They should „give away their money“? Why?

Greed is the answer.

Kriswest wrote:

„Early 1960's and married to an early 1950's man. We and most of our friends just want basic comfort not wealth. Power and wealth leads to betrayal and pain. I work for a family that takes care of those that are helpful, above and beyond law. They started off dirt poor.“ **

To want basic comfort and not wealth, as you said, is the normal way of most bourgeois or middle-class people. That is absoluetely okay - in my opinion. Globalism economically means the synthesis of capitalism and communism, and no one knows which one of the both is more considered in globalism. Is it capitalism, or is it communism, or is it exactly a „50%/50%-thing“? - Howsoever. The formerly creeping expropriation of the Western bourgeois or middle-class people has been accelerating its speed more and more.

Eight questions:

As almost all other questions, those eight questions mostly - and not accidentally - lead to „politically »correct«“ answers:

I mean:

Is really nobody tired of political correctness?
Is really nobody wondering why only white countries have to become „multicultural“?
Has really nobody figured out that diversity only means „less white people“?
Is really nobody sick of being blamed for all the world’s problems?
Is really nobody tired of being told that he is „racist“ for celebrating his heritage?
Is really nobody disgusted by the garbage on televison?
Does really nobody see no future for himself or his family?
Is really nobody questioning when immigration will stop?

976) Arminius, 14.12.2016, 02:47, 03:01, 03:08, 03:20, 03:22, 18:18 (5815-5820)

Kriswest wrote:

„One thing that would keep homes, put your home in the name of a young heir. Legally own no property. But many egos can't handle that so they lose all and their kids lose any inheritance so that hurts that generation.“ **

I can agree with that, but it is not the respective younger group alone, it is the whole greed system that benefits from an alleged(ly) „social injustice“ by expropriating those who are allegedly „responsible“ for that „problem“. The fact is almost always that this allegedly „responsible“ people (here in this example: the older people in the West) are victims of this greed system. The example of the older people in the West shows this clearly. They are or will soon be retired, thus get money and services for not working, not being needed anymore. The greed system is an expropriation system; so it must and does always find a group for expropriation. Regardless which kind of group it is: the greed system is merely interested in expropriation and the legalization of expropriation, thus in getting rich and powerful by lies and deception (Lug und Trug).

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„To: Arminius. From: Santa:

An cuckoo clock representing each time zone internationally.

A High-Tech Autoclave Germfree Mobile Laboratory with scientific support staff.“ **

Thank you.

Hahaha wrote:

„Maniacal Mongoose ....

 “ **

And for the other ear - from Santa:

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Erik wrote:

»Thank you for passing along the gifts, Mongoose.

Here is my present to Mr. Claus:

« **

Kind of thick don't ya think? Why couldn't they have gotten a skinny model?“ **

She already belongs to my scientific support staff.

So now „they“ can get a skinny model.

If I may answer ...:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Everything that isn't living is dying.“ **

It is not dying, it is DEAD.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Daniel McKay wrote:

»I don't know. Depends what we mean by living.« **

If we can't settle on what being alive means, we can't settle on whether being alive is relevant to morality.“ **

Exactly. And the definitional problems are not the terms „living (being)“ and „being alive“ but the terms „moral“ and „morality“, at least the latter terms much more than the former terms.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Daniel McKay wrote:

»What exactly do you mean by ›morality‹? What I mean is ›the way in which persons ought to be or act where ought is understood in a universal, categorical way‹.« **

Defining morality as »how one ought to behave« is tautological. The term »ought to« conveys no more meaning than »moral« and both presume a standard. My question to you is whether you believe that;

A) There is an objective moral standard,
B) Moral standards are rationally founded,
C) Moral standards are aberrantly emergent,
D) Moral standards are passed down from »above«.

I support the notion that morality is rationally founded and that foundation can be discovered via the definition of »being alive«, thus morality is actually objective but not necessarily anything like what morality has always been taught to be. Perhaps the highest moral code allows or disallows different things than normally expected.

One thing that I can tell for certain is that without clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms, nothing can be resolved in discussion (e.g. »rational«, »moral«, »living«, »ought« ...).“ **

And that is one of the real differences between human beings and all other living beings: language (meant as human language - of course). Humans can discuss, criticize, argue, comment, define, ... talk, ..., thus communicate by using the most complex language of all times.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Daniel McKay wrote:

»What do you mean humans ›barely‹ fit into the category of moral agents? Are you suggesting that we have only just made it over the moral bar? It is certainly possible that we are the only animal to do this, though I suspect that some of the great apes may require more investigation before we can rule them out as at least persons in the same way that a child is a person.« **

My understanding of the highest moral code reveals that homosapian cannot actually maintain it, although he senses something close to it. This trait appears to be a function of the limit of homosapian intelligence. By »barely fitting into the category [of being a moral agent]«, I am referring to the apparent fact that homosapian has a very difficult time comprehending true morality (and in fact, has never shown a precisely accurate understanding of it).“ **

Agreed, although I have to mention that the fact that homosapian has never really acted according to the respective moral system is a bigger issue than the fact that homosapian „has never shown a precisely accurate understanding of it“. Both are not the same. You can show that you never really act according to a morality but nonetheless have a „precisely accurate understanding of it“.

Almost all human beings know that it is not good to kill; almost all human beings know that it is not good to steal; we all know that it is not good to lie; almost all human beings know that it is not good to cheat; almost all human beings know that it is not good to ...; ... and so on; ... - but almost all human beings know too that many human beings act as if they did not know it.

But what, if the fact that this major practical problem is caused by the minor theoretical problem? Then it would be a more theoretical than practical problem. But I am not sure whether this is the case or not.

What do you think? Is it more a practical than a theoretical or more a theoretical than a practical problem?

Hahaha wrote:

„Physical power is the only real kind of genuine power. Social or psychological power can't exist on its own like physical power can without some kind of manipulative deception propping itself up. Social or psychological powers to me are lesser forms of power overall.“ **

Yes. Instead of „lesser forms of power“ one could also use the wording „hierarchically more determined by those that are less determined“, or the wording „carried or borne by more strata or levels“.

According to Nicolai Hartmann there are four main strata or levels of being or reality:

This four levels of reality are characterized by the fact that the respective higher (and lighter) levels are carried or borne by the respective lower (and heavier) levels and „free“ towards the respective lower (and heavier) levels - insofar as their „freedom“ is not restricted by the fact that they are carreid or borne -, especially because they show new properties or characteristics against the respective lower levels.

The (1) first, lowest, haeviest one is the inorganic level; the (2) second, second-lowest (and third highest), second-haeviest (and third-lightest) one is the organic level; the (3) third, third-lowest (and second-highest), third-heaviest (and second-lightest) one is the level of „Seelisches“, which means properties or characteristics of soul, psyche, emotion; the (4) fourth, highest, lightest one is the level of „Geistiges“, which means properties or characteristics of spirit, thinking, intellectuality, imagery.

So, for example, the inorganic level (1) is carried or borne by no other level, whereas the level of „Geistiges“ (1) is carried or borne by all other levels.

Inorganic beings (1) do not need an organic body (2), do not need „Seelisches“ (3), do not need „Geistiges“ (4), whereas even the highest spirit of all times (4) needs „Seelisches“ (3), needs an organic body (2), needs inorganic beings (1).

The fourth level is not capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is carried or borne by them. The third level is not capable of existing without the second and the first level, because it is carried or borne by them. The second level is not capable of existing without the first level, because it is carried or borne by it. Only the first level is capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is not carried or borne by them. The first level is unfree because of its type of determination: causality. The second level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the frist level. The third level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the second and the first level. The fourth level is relatively free in the sense that it is most categorially free (but not 100% free), which means categorially free towards the three other levels.

100%-freedom is not possible: the fact that the lower and heavier levels carry the higher and lighter levels means that the higher and lighter levels depend on the lower and heavier levels, although the higher and lighter levels are relatively free towards the lower and heavier levels; and the lowest and heaviest level (1) is not free because of its type of determination: causality. Note: „relatively free“ means here „categorially free“; each level has its own categories.

Hartmann postulated four laws that apply to the levels of reality:

- The law of recurrence: Lower categories recur in the higher levels as a subaspect of higher categories, but never vice versa.
- The law of modification: The categorial elements modify in their recurrence in the higher levels (they are shaped by the characteristics of the higher levels).
- The law of the novum: The higher category is composed of a diversity of lower elements, but it is a specific novum that is not included in the lower levels.
- The law of distance between levels: Since the different levels do not develop continuously but in leaps, they can be clearly distinguished.

The first and the second level are spatial, the third and the fourth level are not spatial.

The first level (which is pretty similar to what you called „physical power“) is in fact the most powerful one, has in fact the strongest power in the sense that the other three levels are carried or borne by the first level and that the categories of the first level recur in the higher levels (and never vice versa) as a subaspect of higher categories.

An example:

You hit a man and this hit causes something physically (=> (1) matter, causality). Maybe you hit that man bcause he has threatened you; so you just want to save your own life (=> (2) life, urge). Maybe you groundlessly hate that man and therefore you hit him (=> (3) Seele, motif). Maybe your hate is not reasonless, and you hit that man because of a reason (=> (4) Geist, reason).

LEVEL **	CATEGORY **	TYPE OF DETERMINATION **
(4)	Geist	Reason
(3)	Seele	Motif
(2)	Life	Urge
(1)	Matter	Causality

If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental one-sidedness.
- The materialism tries to derive organic (2), emotional (3) and spiritual (4) phenomena from physical processes (1) and overlooks the more complicated structures at the respective higher level.
- Alike the biologism tries to found emotional (3) and spiritual (4) phenomena on the life (2) principles and overlooks the laws of the novelty and the freedom.
- The vitalism tries an explanation of life (2) with the principle of the finality, although this is a category of the Geistiges (4).
- In the idealism occurs an explanation of the world ((1) and (2)) in the principle of the subject, although the subject is to be assigned to the level of the Geistiges (4).

Nicolai Hartmann:

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

›An interesting development in the field of translation: **

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.‹ **

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a „giant leap“?« ** **

Not really, I think it clarifies that symbolic »thinking« (quotes due to vaguely-defined words) can be an emergent property from algorithmic programming. I don't think there's likely to be a big leap, though, so much as small steps that make it harder to agree on what machine intelligence entails and where we draw legal and moral lines.“ **

I agree. But do you think that the capabilities of machines are overestimated at the present time?

Like I said: The greed system works creepingly, but it is nevertheless obvious how it works. The situation in the US is perhaps not like the situation in Europe, but demographical aspects have always played an important role in economy and politics, and the greed system strikes its terror into people's hearts in the USA too, probably even more than in Europe.

977) Arminius, 21.12.2016, 01:28, 01:37, 01:44, 02:02 (5821-5824)

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I agree. But do you think that the capabilities of machines are overestimated at the present time?« ** **

By whom? I'm sure many capabilities are underestimated by many, and many overestimated too. What's the most important group to consider - the common understanding, the understanding of policymakers, that of technicians, that of the shadowy cabal running the world?“ **

The film industry? Is it „the most important group to consider“? - Maybe, maybe not. At least it is interested in the capabilities of machines.

Technicians must be more optimistic than pessimistic, which means that they could be in danger of overestimating the capabilities of machines.

Policymakers have to talk more optimistically than pessimistically, which means that, if they are politically interested in the capabilities of machines and talk about them publicly, they are in danger of over- and/or underestimating them.

The common understanding is a matter of a majority, and majorities do what they ought to do, which means these days: they are politically correct (so cf. policymakers).

If the shadowy cabal is interested in the capabilities of machines, then it could also be in danger of over- and/or underestimating them.

The answer to your question depends on the interest in the capabilities of machines in combination with the everlasting interest in the option of not wanting any majority to know what really happens. If the shadow cabal and the policymakers are interested in the capabilities of machines, then the majority with its common understanding is also interested in it. The shadow cabal and the policymakers are always interested in in the option of not wanting any majority to know what really happens, so that the majority with its common understanding does not know what really happens. I think that the political interest in the capabilities of machines is high, but it is not politically correct to talk as much about that theme as the common understanding becomes capable of estimating the capabilities of machines in the right way. There is always an interest in the option of not wanting any majority to know what really happens. This may lead to the following answer: currently, the capabilities of machines are over- and underestimated, namely overestimated by some and underestimated by many people.
________________

Maybe this thread (**|**) can show that said answer too (provided that ILP represents the world []): This thread has now 115050 views and 1975 replies, so it seems to be an important thread. But if I look at the number of those who posted in this thread and the number of those who did not post in this thread, then I have to say that the number of those ILP members who are really interested in the topic of this thread is a relatively small number. The majority is not interested in it. This majority is probably in danger of over- and/or underestimating the capabilities of machines.

Yes (**), but it is not that alone, and it is not the cause but the effect. The economical basis of all that are economical interests. Whites are rich.

The biological basis of all economical interests are urges; and the physical basis of all biological urges is causality. ** **

So the finality is that the super-rich rulers of the upperclass and the poor people of the underclass benefit from the rich people of the middleclass. „Whites are rich“ means that they are the „much predominantly worldwide middleclass“. So all what the super-rich rulers, their politicians, their journalists, „their“ poor people of the worldwide underclass have to do is to find „arguments“ in order to benefit from the middle-rich people of the much predominantly worldwide middleclass. The goal is: to have a 1% mega-super-rich upperclass (perhaps a new species []) and a 99% mega-super-poor underclass. The middleclass of this globe shall vanish for ever.

In other words: The more real communism was not the „communism“ of the past, is not the „communism“ of the present, but will be the communism of the future.

Hey (**) !

Thank you very much.

Nicolai Hartmann is worth reading - in any case -, yes (**).

978) Arminius, 24.12.2016, 14:48, 15:13, (5825-5826)

Real history makers are seldom a kind of party, and the one who sides unilaterally, is seldom a real maker or driver / leader of the history. Real world drivers / leaders are true masters of dialectic processes, in particular they know how to push these processes and how to drive them to a desired and advance-calculated synthesis.

Merry Christmas to Christian humans and Christian machines!

979) Arminius, 27.12.2016, 02:04, 02:29, (5827-5828)

And at last a thing or many things, an individual or many individuals as a species are repaired (A), or replaced (B), or rotted (C), or, if time is considered too, repaired and then replaced (A and B), or repaired and then rotted (A and C), or replaced and then rotted (B and C), or repaired, replaced, rotted (A, B, C).

Yes (**), and those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.

980) Arminius, 30.12.2016, 19:55 (5829)

China has by far not as much fat people as the US.

Are you ready for the US-China-War?

==>