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 |
<= [981][982][983][984][985][986][987][988][989][990] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5830 |
5831 |
5832 |
|
5833 |
5834 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»And they will never be so creatively clever as to beat humans at chess either.
James, if you are going to continue to engage with this discussion I do wish you would say something just a little bit interesting. **
5835 |
Arminius wrote
»Thesis:
Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.« ** **
Excellent!
Perfect!
A truth that could not have been better stated. **
5836 |
David Hilbert had already published what you now know as »General Relativity Theory«. And although using Newtonian physics didn't work to accurately predict Mercury's path, Einstein's general relativity field equations didn't work either. By considering Mercury, Einstein corrected his own theory, having to add a metric tensor (a »fudge factor«) in order to get the right result. It became common practice in Science to merely add in an unexplained, phenomenal »universal constant« into a relation in order to rectify equations with observations. To this day, it takes a philosopher, not a scientist, to give any semblance of competent justification for why those constants exist.
Science finds formulas with which to predict (often using inexplicable constants to rectify simpler ideas) and almost always for military purposes. They do not seek comprehension and answer to the deeper question, »Why«. And it is from that lack of understanding that Relativity Theory has been erroneously taught as an ontology rather than merely a useful formulaic perspective.
As an ontology, Relativity is broken. **
Einstein had even two scientifical fathers who were also German: Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) as the precursor of Einstein's relativity theory and David Hilbert (1862-1943) who submitted the theory of the general realativiy five days before Einstein did it. ** **
Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck and the mathematician Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity theorie [GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!] Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert). ** **
5837 |
Can anyone really be truly Subjectivist or Objectivist?
As is everyone not actually a combination of the two? **
|
5838 |
What's this Jokerism you speak of (**)? To be fair my philosophy is merely an elaboration of civilization's unsustainability and absurdism guided by entropy with an understanding of social nihilism thrown into the mix. My philosophy is nothing new of course where I follow in the footsteps of trailblazers like Oswald Spangler (er meint: Spengler; HB) where the only difference is that I speak for the entire world. At any rate there will be no global salvation for technological industrial society without some sort of new radical energy infrastructure in place and so far all ideas for one are theoretical or outright untenable.
Collapse, chaos, and possibly total annihilation is the future. **
5839 |
5840 |
I think both of these things will happen, but both not being absolute.
I'm guessing 40% of the human population will die out due to self caused problems.
Then the rest gets enough free energy going to fuel a revolution of technological solutions. **
|
5841 |
5842 |
Tortis wrote:
»Phyllo wrote:
James (James S. Saint ist gemeint; HB) makes up all sorts of weird etymologies. **
Which is a waste of everybody's time and effort. That's what I'd like to see changed.« **
Right from the beginning of this thread, James posted a lot of interesting things concerning the abilities of machines. If you want evidence for the excellence of his posts, you just have to make an effort and read the thread.
You came in here recently, posted a few things about computer-»art« and since then, you do nothing else than ranting against James. The thread is not about him. It's about the question whether machines will replace all human beings. And it has been highly informative before you turned it into a personcentered battle.You are continuously derailing. That's what I would like to see changed. **
Let's try and keep things related to the subject at hand, please.
On a related, lighthearted note: ** **
5843 |
Children living in poverty is mostly an economic issue and poverty is the very thing in which a variety of domestic issues stem from. **
Life begins in a uterus not in masturbatory ejaculation. **
Life only exists after the seed is planted not before hand. [It's called gestation] **
5844 |
5845 |
5846 |
5847 |
POWER IN ONE IMAGE:
Yahoo Moneys »Daily Ticker is reporting that is has discovered a Reuters investigation that reveals $8.5 trillion thats trillion with a T in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for. **
McCain's $5 Trillion Military Budget: Will It Make America Great Again?
Thursday January 19, 2017. **WORLD DEBT (**).
|
5848 |
I got those descriptions from Wikipedia. Take it up with them to modify it if it upsets you that much.
EDIT:
1) »Positivism« has nothing to do with being »positive« it has to do with being positive that only real things are real. Hence its humanistic qualities. You can think very negative (like cynicism) and still be a postivist. **
2) You are right, since there are secular religions, such as (ironically enough), the Religion of Humanity. However, in the case of my quiz's nature - this definition still holds true.
3) Why don't you take the quiz and give us your results instead of complaining about it? **
5849 |
Amorphos wrote:
»Your ideal laws?
Ill start
1. Anyone who says it means so much, it doesnt. Or going forwards youre not progressives youre conservatives going backwards, so stop stealing our shit. I propose long prisons sentences for all involved, ideally on mars or something.« **But seriously folks, if you could add one single law what would it be?
Not an addition ... yet ... perhaps a necessary reminder ... the unwritten law that has survived the ages ... »The Golden Rule« **
5850 |
»No relative degree of burden or blessing should be placed upon any individual that isn't also placed upon his government.«
»No reach of authority should ever exceed its reach of awareness.«
(Aka: »Do unto others ...«) **
My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender. **
Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language. **
5851 |
Arminius wrote:
»Venture wrote:
My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender.« **To 1.) The realization could be too difficult in the case of a huge number of certain people.
To 2.) How many and, if at least 3, which languages did you fluently speak before you were 21 years old?
To 3.) Only if it is in fact a fair deal. ** **1 is the most difficult out of the 3 proposed, almost an impossible ideal. I am not yet 21 and I speak English and French (cannot read French easily, still a beginner). I am in the process of learning Latin, Greek, German, and Mandarin. I can make a change to law 2, being that 1 of the 3 should be a dead language
Amorphos wrote:
»Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language.« **
That assertion implies a minimum of 2 languages. Add Latin or Ancient Greek as a third and now Arminius and yourself can sleep at night knowing I compensated. **
5852 |
5853 |
I compensated by requiring one ancient language and one should be English, or whatever the normative international language is of the time. The third law requires the public distribution of COCP and condoms/contraceptive barrier devices for STI protection (the first promotes menstrual health, the latter prevents STIs and pregnancy). The first and third ideal law mainly concern the general health of the female population and the advancement of family life. Most countries in desperate situations are absent of these notions. I am 18. **
5854 |
One does not have to believe any thing scientists say for two reasons. Firstly belief is an article of faith and has zero place in science.
Secondly all scientific experiments can be replicated or explained. So it is not necessary to have to just accept the word of scientists.Regarding faster than light travel : objects of mass cannot travel faster than light because time would stop and start going backwards. Which would
violate the law of cause and effect so it is not physically possible. For even photons cannot travel faster than light and they do not experience time. **
5855 |
Using a new theory producing method, dubbed RM, and a new ontology, Affectance Ontology, I hypothesize that if the inner surface of the double-slit screen was altered to a specific surface shape, particles would no longer create a significant interference pattern, but waves still would. Since a photon seems as a particlized wave, I suspect that photons would show little difference from their typical interference pattern, as their inherent wave properties would still have predominate effect. But if they also stopped showing the interference pattern, it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles. **
5856 |
5857 |
|
5858 |
5859 |
Arminius wrote:
»Abortion is a criminal offence.« ** **
Neglect and mental/physical abuse are criminal offences too which would place 1/3 of parents in jail/prison if the police did a child welfare sweep worldwide. **
Reasons which were cited for an abortion:
»A baby would change my life« 76%
»I can't afford a baby right now« 68%
»I don't want to be a single mother« 51%
»I'm not ready for such a responsibility« 31%
»I don't want other people to know of my pregnancy« 31%
»I don't feel mature enough for a child« 30%
»The fetus has a health problem« 7%
»I was a rape-victim« 1%
(Source: Family Planning Perspectives, 1988)Killing for reasons of convenience?
How about teaching responsibility instead of promoting abortion?
And note that the number of child abuses did not decrease since the legalization of abortion.Since the Supreme Court of Judicature legalized abortion in the USA in 1973, each year around 1.5 Million babies were aborted, that makes until now 64,5 Million killed children.
Sounds like a modern Holocaust. **
Of course the whole subject is ambivalent. I'm not for »banning« abortion completely, but I'm against promoting it as the first and most reasonable option. Instead of teaching people how to solve problems and giving them psychological and/or financial support, they are told to »cut off« their problems, and it's sold to us as the »freedom of choice«. But it all fits into the same system, for a reason: When you are currently discontended with your husband, divorce him. When a baby doesn't fit into your current plans, abort it. When life doesn't turn out as you would currently like it, kill yourself. Don't change your life, just take a pill.
Destroy the family and annihilate yourself, so »we« don't have to do it. And there are enough stupid people in the world who believe it. **
5860 |
I see that abuse and neglect are tied very closely to the abortion subject. **
What is worse a broken child that spends years in family hell or the quick death of a fetus that has no memories, no knowledge, nothing. Banning abortion will bring millions into a system not designed to cope. **
5861 |
Arminius wrote:
»That is derailing - like: Theft is a criminal offence too. Again: Abortion is a criminal offence, a criminal act, regardless whether there are orther criminal offences, criminal acts, too.« ** **
No, theft doesn't have to do with parenting practices. **
5862 |
Did you even read the OP? **
Are you pro birth, pro life, or both Arminius? **
Contraceptives have to be used and used properly without fail. Men do not like to wear condoms. Women do not take their pills as prescribed. If tubes are tied in both males and females at a young age, problem solved. **
5863 |
Did you even read the OP? **
|
5864 |
Mithus wrote:
»Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might regard as »whorish«. If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a must for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So my perception of something bad changes to a perception of something good (or from negative to positive). I've learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?« **
Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of which is the philosophical issue of Theseus Ship - at what point of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?
To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate it .. not currently possible. But even with that technology provided, an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more simply just moved into the former electrons position. Then you could say that you "converted" the electron to a positron. But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is Theseus' Ship.
But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds of things we have been discussing.
When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a »subatomic particle«. The word »particle« merely refers to anything very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a »subatomic particle« is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly, the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.
The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4 meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about 10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn't end there. An electron is roughly 1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.
That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size. And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible, »particles« of PHT.
A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.
The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the »subconscious« and even »unconscious« mind and are usually referred to a »an intuitive sense«. So whether the »subatomic« form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things can become alluring attractive things ... or vsvrsa. It is all a matter of proper programming.
Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers are pumped away. Such is referred to as a »catharsis«, flooding the mind with a particular »charge«. **
5865 |
5866 |
5867 |
The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge that, when very stable, can be thought of as a »particle that is charged«, like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles. **
Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology. The word »particle« in quantum physics is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number - purely imaginary.
A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void of charge. But an »anti-neutrino« is not an actual particle at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of »anti-neutrino« refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything except as a »particle«, a quanta (in their mathematics).
A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron »decays« into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated into the universe from the change, an »electron«. And to call out the amount of missing mass, a »negative-mass« particle, an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred to as »particles« so as to account for the amount of missing charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure that in all things, there is a zero-sum.
It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise), especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity. **
5868 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true Unified Field Theory, UFT, and Grand Unified Theory, GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics ....« **
Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology. In your ontology you wrote that »there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - Inertia.«I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, »the mass particle of the spirit«. What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all. **
5869 |
5870 |
|
5871 |
5872 |
5873 |
5874 |
5875 |
5876 |
5877 |
Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called »an order of existence«. Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the »divine«, »sacred things«, »faith«, a »supernatural being or supernatural beings« or »some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life«. **
5878 |
5879 |
|
5880 |
5881 |
Suicide should be available to everyone. **
|
5882 |
Alf wrote:
»Hi.
Communism isn't dead.« ** **
Hi, too! I would say it is, except maybe in the so called »Hermit Kingdom«, everywhelse where there still is an aftertaste for it, it presents a hybrid quality. **
==>
|