471) Arminius, 28.05.2014, 00:15, 00:50, 01:46, 15:34, 18:27, 18:37, 19:00, 19:11, 20:04, 21:13, 21:45, 21:59, 22:07, 22:34 (1217-1230)

James S. Saint wrote:

„So his »Arrow of Time« is merely an »Error of Mind«.“ **

It's not „his“ arrow of time, because the concept of the arrow of time has been existing since the 1920's.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The idea that all things fall to entropy is an exaggeration and certainly not fundamental to physics or the universe.“ **

Interesting. Would you mind going into details?

„The Never End.

That is how your universe got here and how the other distant universes are forming. And as this universe dissipates from its initial explosion to become extremely thin in mass density, the whole process is already reoccurring elsewhere, fore the attraction effects never really stop - ever. Every new cluster of galaxies forms in its own vast segment of space from its own Big Bang. Infinity is a very, very large place.

It is all an eternal dynamic process that never began and will never end. The larger infinite beginningless and endless universe view is that of clouds forming until rain drops fall upon the surface of an endless ocean that in turn generates more clouds. Each splash is another Big Bang and to us, an entire universe.“ - JSS (probably: James S. Saint).

To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time? Can you imagine that there is a reverse of cause and effect, so that there is at first the effect and at last the cause?

Somewhere in the universe there probably is such a reverse. The arrow of time is what we experience - perhaps wrongly experience -, and the arrow of time as the experienced asymmetric time violates the basic laws of physics. What's wrong?

1.) Our laws of physics,
2.) our experience of the arrow of time,
3.) our laws of mathematics,
4.) our thoughts,
5.) some of them,
6.) all of them
7.) nothing.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades.“ **

The growth rate of the world poulation has been declining since about 1968. **

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.

Compare the examples of the black poulations with the examples of the other populations:

Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their „branches“). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern „crown of creation“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time?« ** **

No.

I would have to think about it more, but I'm pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.

It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;

To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, »2+2« would equal »0« and »2-2« would equal »4«. And that wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that »A = !A«. And by making »A = !A«, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn't running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).

So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.

Thus, no, I don't believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn't logic to begin with). What we experience as the »real laws of physics« is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.

What is being called »The Arrow of Time« (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.

So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different).“ **

Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don't know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is „really“ real or not.

We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („To-be-in-the-World“) as an existential of human beings' „Dasein“, as a human existence in the world. **

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.

And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.“ **

You have absolutely no idea. A greater nonsense I've never read - except the nonsense of Cezarboy.

Go to Africa and you - even you (!) - will experience that the black human beings have about seven times more children than the white human beings.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it.“ **

Yes, it does, James, but instead of „would be“ one should say „is“.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„I've been to Afriabout“ **

You have never been to Afriabout Otherwise you would not write such a nonsense.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor.“ **

Who said that it is relevant that they are blacK?

Stop your black-hearted assumptions!

Your „stories“ are lies, communistic lies.

You don't know the reasons why human beings have children.

You don't know what fertility is; you don't know the reasons for a high fertiltiy; you don't know the difference between birthrates and fertility.

You also don't know what mortality is; you don't know the reasons for a high mortality.

So nobody wonders why you also don't understand the reasons for replacing human beings by machines.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation „IS“ not yet the case.“ **

Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.

Obe wrote:

„People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations.“ **

Yes, Obe, and you don't deny the statistics of fertility and mortality.

And please don't forget: They live according to their tradition; they don't know and don't want (!) the typical white, typical Western reasons: „Individualism“ and so on. So they live and decide to have children because of their tradition, just as they have always done - that's all.

When the Western culture was brought to them they at first partly adopted and partly negatetd it, but then they negated it more and more because they noticed the negative side of Western culture. One of their reasons to change their opinion about the Occident was their growing self-confidence. So they didn't and don't want to change the fertility.

The economical reasons, you mentioned, are not the only reasons. Behaviour doesn't have merely economical reasons. Contrariwise the economical reasons should not be underestimated. Nevertheless: economical reasons are not always the only reasons for having children.

1.) Firstly one has to see it from the layer of the evolution because we human beings are involved in evolution.
2-) Secondly we have to see it from the layer of the history because we human beings have been having history since 6000 years.

So we human beings have a (1) evolutionary and a (2) historical development which means that we e.g. have a (1) oral / verbal and a (2) written / recorded cultural tradition.

Economical and - last but not least - techn(olog)ical reasons are important when it comes to explain why human beings have children, but they are not the only reasons; other important reasons are biological and - of course - cultural ones.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don't know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is ›really‹ real or not.

We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept ›In-der-Welt-Sein‹ (›To-Be-in-the-World‹) as an existential of human beings' ›Dasein‹, as an human existence in the world. (**).« ** **

Sounds like a good reason to get »our thoughts« in order, doesn't it?

If you get the thoughts straight (form a consistent, comprehensive, and relevant ontology), the proposed laws of logic, mathematics, and physics will be the accurate laws of logic, mathematics, and physics, right? But if you merely got the laws of physics right, how would you know if your thoughts are still eschewed? And the thoughts being eschewed leaves you with not even knowing whether the laws were right. You end up searching past what you were looking for.

Heidegger was a serious thinker (despite looking like a demonic psychiatrist). I'll give him that credit along with many of that era, but with a little perspective, you have to realize that they were »breaking ground« and not entirely coherent yet in their thoughts. The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve and is actually a bit irrelevant other than removing potential confusion concerning what is really going on. Once one gets his thoughts straight on what the conscious mind is and fundamentally how it works, it becomes sort of an »Oh okay, no big deal«. The fantasies of days past fade into memories of youthful, misguided musings, (»womanly«).

For example, Einstein described time as »how fast one clock turns relative to another«. That is more or less right but can be a little misleading. Time doesn't really have anything to do with what clocks do or don't do. He could have said that »time is the measure of relative change«. That is a more fundamental and universal truth. But no doubt, the question was relatively new to him and his response was understandable and not really wrong, just not totally precise - yet.

It seems that the world wants to stop all thought at the »enlightenment era« as though all truth to be found was found and is irrefutable, »YOU can't know anything THEY didn't already know!!«. Well sorry, but »Homey don't play that game«. They were in an »Enlighten-ing Era« but never really woke up before wandering off into dreams and fantasies of world conquest and are now dreaming of their glory - "day-dreaming" as the evening fades to night.

Get the thoughts straight (a proper ontology) and everything gets straight (and pretty quickly).

The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve?

If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

There are 4 main reasons:

1.) biological reasons;
2.) cultural reasons;
3.) economical reasons;
4.) techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reasons for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Lev Muishkin wrote:

›As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation 'IS' not yet the case.‹ **

Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.« ** **

Take the trouble to what the links i posted.
If you prefer to stay in ignorance and just respond with your childish prejudices then keep your eyes shut.

Says the one with this avatar or passport foto:

How old are you? 14 years? And without puberty?

You are childish! Very much! You have no idea, especially no idea of fertiliity, of mortality, in short: of demographics - as well as of economics and ecology!

Ah ...! You want this thread to „move“ into the „Rant House“. I see ....

....

You insulted me long time before I did. You do not remember your childish words?

So please stop insulting me!

Economical reasons are not the only reasons for having children. If the currently white population don't know much about that fact, then that is one proof more for their decadence. They always measure anything and everything with money.

Do you really not know anybody who has children because of other reasons than economical ones?

If that is the case, then I ask you: Why do you live? And: For what? For money like (1.) communists and (2.) capitalists?

472) Arminius, 29.05.2014, 00:20, 01:08, 01:19, 02:10, 02:56, 16:35, 17:02, 17:12, 17:30, 18:25, 18:25, 18:54, 22:01, 22:28, 23:52 (1231-1245)

I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems. Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem with his „Existenz(ial)-Ontologie“ („existenc[e]ial ontology“), also called „Fundamentalontologie“ („fundamental ontology“), especially with his concept „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („To-Be-in-the-World“) as an existential of human beings' „Dasein“, as a human existence in the world. (**). I really don't know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably it is not possible to resolve that problem.

Arminus wrote:

„Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their »branches«). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern »crown of creation«.“ ** **

So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt - they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.) techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by machines.

According to Ernst Nolte science is a historical existential. So, if there will be no history, than there will be also no more science, but that does not mean, that there will also be no more wisdom, but that means, that there will be "merely" less wisdom. Less wisdom! Bad times.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?“ **

If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„All examples you used being very probable.“ **

Yes, of course.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It's an inevitability.

However out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.

A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation.“ **

Yes, that is right and what I have been saying for a long time.

I think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.

How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the „truth“?

What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself „really“ exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it „really“ exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?

Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, „Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung“ [„The World as Will and Representation“], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?

Tyler Durden wrote:

„All I know is that whatever happens I look forward to the day when the establishment collapses completely and seeing once kings become the new vagabonds.“ **

If there is anything I enjoy it is seeing the once mighty being brought down low underfoot.

I like watching people from high places fall.

Those who are currently the youngest generation will probably experience it. Maybe it will come about earlier or later, but - with the utmost probability - it will come.

Obe wrote:

„This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminus to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.

One thing though, if mankind can resemble analogous silly derivatives , and if this forum may be supposed to be representative of mankind's overall thinking about the role mechanization will play in the future,(after all this is a philosophy forum), then surely Sal type machines can not be afforded the role of taking over man's job of cognitive assignment, since it will shift immediately into dissonance, disarray, with Sal taking over and making humans into subservient slaves. Sal would think, these silly creatures are delusional in thinking they can run any kind of show here, they are fooling themselves. Therefore, very, very smart machines, should not be designed to trump man, man would surely become another endangered species. End of story. I am staying the course, in the indeterminate, column #3. Thank You.“ **

Thank you very much, Obe, especially for you warning because it is a real warning. It is important because we don't want the quality of the forum to go into self destruct, do we?

Blueshift wrote:

„I certainly hope so. I'd worship a machine that worked on taking out humanity; it'd be more worthy of praise than any God than created life.“ **

Hello, new one!

Please give your answer to the question of the topic of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

(A) YES, (B) NO, (C) ABSTENTION.

I will have to compile the 4th interim or even last (cp. Obe's warning) balance sheet soon.

For comarison:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**).

„The word »consciousness« merely means »with-awareness«. **

Linguistics!

The people with English as their first language would have better done, if they had stayed more with their old language because foreign influences (here: Latin) hinder thinking in the first language.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the ›truth‹?

What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself ›really‹ exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it ›really‹ exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?

Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, ›Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung‹ [›The World as Will and Representation‹], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?« ** **

Well, I'm glad that you explained that, because I would not have guessed that to be a serious »problem« for you.“ **

No, it is not actually a problem for me, because you are right with your guess.

The problem is a philosophical one, but because of that fact we all are involved in that problem, whether we want to or not.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But I would have guessed that you believe in an objective reality; a reality distinct from whatever you might think of it. Is that right?“ **

Yes, that is right, James. At least for the most part. For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. To me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.

„In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.

But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.“ **

This text suggests or advises that an electron has a consciousness or at least an awareness.

The answer?

It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious?“ **

No.

„It ... can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.“ **

But nevertheless: Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: „respond“, „aware“, „distinguish“, „reacts“, „ attempting“, „recognize“, „attempt“, „reaction“ ) which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?

Who has interests in unrests in Ukraine?

This time is not the first time. Remember!

Fixed Cross wrote:

„Here's the video:

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEwCB7bGIw,
Http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xcov ... mbediframe

Here's the page on Humanarchy:

Http://www.humanarchy.net/the-edward-snowden-movie/

This may put the Snowden narrative in a different light.“ **

I hope so. Snowden, the CIA, the NSA, DIA, and all the others knew beforehand that I would write this!

James S. Saint wrote:

„For exactly the same reason citizens should not be allowed to freely use hard drugs (Heroin, Opium, Cocaine,...), governments should not be allowed to use Technology.

And what happens when you try to take a drug away from a drug addict?
- The same thing that happens when you even hint at taking technology (especially surveillance) away from a government.“ **

Yes, and do not forget the economy and the culture. So governments should merely be allowed to administrate - except in areas with less than 1000 inhabitants in which they should be allowed to govern.

473) Arminius, 30.05.2014, 00:15, 01:27, 02:16, 02:49, 16:04, 17:04, 17:33, 17:51, 18:08, 18:15, 19:20, 21:50, 22:06, 23:00, 23:40 (1246-1260)

How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?

The trend is the „Brazilization of the World“, and the machines contribute much!

And when the „Brazilization of the World“ will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).

Guess what the goal is.

And the machines contribute much.

Maia wrote:

„As a Pagan I find the following campaign quite interesting, though I don't necessarily agree with every single point. The basic proposal is that the state should be run by an order of priestesses. There's a democratic element too, but subject to veto by the priestesses, and a form of conscription for everyone under 25.

Http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/ “ **

A serious question: Is that really pagan or just femninistic, thus: politically correct?

Maia wrote:

„In Hindu and Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation is a curse, dooming us to play out endless lives of misery, subject to the law of karma.

Pagans see reincarnation in a very different light. The earth is our paradise, to make of what we will. Coming back again and again, sharing our lives with our loved ones each time round, in different relationships, is a great joy.

That's the view among many Pagans, anyway. Others have different views.“ **

Make what we will?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as »consciousness«.

Consciousness = Remote Recognition.“ **

Linguistically said: You use the distinction between the words „awareness“ and „consciousness“ in order to get a physical awareness and a cognitive awareness, thus consciousness. You use the linguistical distinction between the words „awareness“ and „consciousness“ because there is a distinction between living beings and lifeless things too. And your result is: animate and inanimate objects behave likewise.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: ›respond‹, ›aware‹, ›distinguish‹, ›reacts‹, › attempting‹, ›recognize‹, ›attempt‹, ›reaction‹) which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?« ** **

Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for »life«). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn't as well as what is live and what isn't.“ **

And what is life, exactly?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a »map of relevant existence for the entity« with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define »True« as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.

The conscious creature's mind functions entirely via his ontological map.

This is a diagram that I hadn't posted because it isn't really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;

The left image is an ontological "truth" for literally any and everything we call a »body«. The outside circle, »Entropic Ambience« is referring to the objective world »out there«, outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the »Entropic Shell«) that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.

The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the »good and bad« or the »positive and negative«. It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and »Us from Them«. It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.

But that is merely »a body«.

The diagram to the right is »a body with a mind«. A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as »memory«.

What all of this has to do with Objective vs. Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what »subjective« actually means. The concept of »subjective« is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. »Subjective« is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a »reference frame«: »With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad«. Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.

When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, »Is this image that I am seeing true?« Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn't actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about »Truth«.

How do you know when an ontology is True?
1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology?
2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail?
3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?
And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those »Three Angels of Truth«.

Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as »The Truth«. In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don't make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.

Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn't even understand how they could have ever been confused.

So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).

The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for;
1) Inconsistencies
2) Lack of details
3) Irrelevance

And that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media).“ **

Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

Dan wrote:

„I think Christianity is probably a lot less burtal than ancient Greek religion for example. Not all ancient religions were nice. Some of it was worse.“ **

Yes, of course, and therefore my questions (for example here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here), but they dare not to answer. Are they cowards? If yes, then they are no heathens, right?

In polytheism the gods are not perfect because they have to be like humans, and humans are not perfect. In polytheism the gods have just the purpose to be the projection surface of the humans, and therefor they must be imperfect.

It is a kind of arrogance or even megalomania to say that merely the non-monotheistic religions are heathen religions. Nonetheless: Heathen religions can also be arrogant or megalomaniac and say that all non-heathen religions are inferior.

B.t.w.: Monotheism should be called henotheism because the other God is known and thereby accepted by each of the „monotheisms“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.« ** **

?? What do you mean by »"the overcome« of it??? Individually, or throughout society?“ **

One or the human beings should solve the subject/object dualism, but one or they probably can not. One or they would have been able to overcome the subject/object dualism, if one or they had solved it before. That problem is not merely a philosophical one, but before it can be overcome in „social“ or other ways it has to be solved in a philosophical way. Who of the philosophers is able to solve the subject/object dualism?

Here is the one, and there are the others, the world.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with. The past 10,000 years would have been extremely different. Technology would probably have been developed by someone like the ancient Sumerians.“ **

Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.« ** **

What in my post did you disagree with or not understand?“ **

You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don't know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„What's progress?“ **

This beautiful question reminds me of this question:

Tyler Durden wrote:

„To answer this question of what progressivism is one must first define what progress is.“ **

And here comes my answer:

Arminus wrote:

„»Progress« is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is »progressivism«.“ ** **

1254

Obe wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?

Examples	Finland	Germany	USA	Brazil		WORLD
Richest 20% *	about 35%	about 40%	about 47%	about 65%		about 85%
Rest (80%)	about 65%	about 60%	about 53%	about 35%		about 15%

The trend is the „Brazilization of the World“, and the machines contribute much!

And when the „Brazilization of the World“ will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).

Guess what the goal is.

And the machines contribute much.« ** **

A plus for the »a« column, of yesses.“ **

Yes - unfortunately or fortunately.

Obe wrote:

„According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years.“ **

Every country? Every?

James S. Saint wrote:

„40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones.“ **

Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.

Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution of the subject/object problem because we human beings merely decide and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.

Please don't forget: We - the human beings - decide or say that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: „Yes, but ...“, and with their „but“ they actually say „No(, but ...)“ because they would rather believe in religious things, especially the so called „atheists“.

So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.

But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How can we really know that a subject „is“ and that a object „is“ without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?

Your question whether I believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect can be a rhetorical question because you are referring to your theory, but nonethelesse: generally I believe that I „am“ or the world „is“ or both: I „am“ and the world „is“. What really „is“ is basically undecidable - scientifically and probably also philosophically. Like I said:

Arminus wrote:

„For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.“ ** **

1258

It is possible that particles do not exist and that they are merely in the perception or cognition of the so called „human beings“.

According to the current mathematicians it is possible that the time run forward and backward, according to the current mainstream physicists it is not possible, but perhaps the current mainstream physicists are wrong because the universe is huge.

If we think and talk about the universe and the time we should keep in mind what that actually means, shouldn't we?

I said it can be, not it must be a rhetorical question. And b.t.w.: I have nothing against your theory.

Everything we „know“ is actually just a naming of things, that is what I say too. But we are talking about the problem of the subject/object dualism or dichotomy, and we know not very much about the solution of that problem, but we name it. I am not saying that we „can't even name it“. We should name it, we have to name it - that is what I am saying. If we say „what is, is undecidable“, we do not say „what is, is not nameable“. That's not the same.

Your question: Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect? I have answered that question with the following words:

Arminus wrote:

„Arminus wrote:

»For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists hae always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.« (**|**) ** **

And I have never said that we can not name anything. Never. I love linguistics very much, so I would never say that we can or should not name anything.

I am arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty, and because of the subject/object dualism as a problem which probably can not be solved, we can even not know with absolute certainty whether the subject(s) and object(s) exist or not and what they mean. But if we do not name them, we have no chance to come closer to any solution of all scientifical and philosophical problems.

And b.t.w.: If we do not name them, we would be no human beings anymore.

474) Arminius, 31.05.2014, 00:05, 00:18, 01:33, 01:51, 14:58, 15:14, 15:20, 15:48, 17:29, 22:49, 23:57, 23:58 (1261-1272)

James S. Saint:

„Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think »box«, do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept.

And also, can you know with certainty that »A is A«?“ **

Can you?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones.‹ **

Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.« ** **

Yep. or maybe 99%, why not?

Unless people become even cheaper to throw into dangerous situations. Why risk wasting a good drone when you have people to use instead?“ **

If there is less risk, then there is also less risk for wars, so that the number of wars rises. And you know: the victims of wars are human beings - as always.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Diethert wrote:

»What are your thoughts on local communities?

YES!!.. and very small; 100 or less people in each (for a precise reason).

Diethert wrote:

»Are they too deal in theory?

It would require a very specific governing type, a mix of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism - »Anentropic Molecularisation«.

James, I recommended you to open a thread: „AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY“. ** **
Now I recommend you to open a thread: „ANENTROPIC MOLECULARISATION“.

But please first „Affectance Ontology“, then „Anentropic Molecularisation“.

IN US (the new USSR) and EU (EUSSR) „communism“ and „socialism“ are already installed:

You „merely“ have to add „capitalism“. And that will never happen in US (the new USSR) and EU (EUSSR).

So local communities/economies could perhaps be a solution. But the rulers forbid them. So what will happen in the next decades?

You do not need my answer, James, because you probably know the answer, whether one can know with certainty what one thinks, what it is one is thinking about, and that „A is A“. Right?

Obe wrote:

„Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life.“ **

Therefore, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know.“ **

Your guess is wrong.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Those who don't find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up. Some people just don't care enough to find out. No one is more blind that he who wills to not see.“ **

That is right.

Do you know whether there is symmetry of time in our universe or not?

Have you ever observed time symmetry, Phyllo?

And have you ever been to other places outside of the planet Earth, Phyllo and the other members of this forum?

Technology or technique by itself is a temporary „progress“ because in the very long run it is also something that comes and goes. Look at the evolution: some animals have developed a primitive technology or technique, but the question whether it is a „progress“ for them or not can be answered after their extinction. And for threatened species there is no „progress“ anyway, even then, if they have developed a very great technology or technique.

Sooner or later the human beings will also die out. And the probability is not low that it will happen because of their technology or technique. (Cp. my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? [**|**])

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Tyler Durden wrote:

›What's progress?‹ **

This beautiful question reminds me of this question:

Tyler Durden wrote:

›To answer this question of what progressivism is one must first define what progress is.‹ **

And here comes my answer:

»Arminus wrote:

›'Progress' is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is 'progressivism'.‹ (**|**) ** **

With that post we are in firm agreement.“ **

Yes, that's okay, Tyler.

1270

I know your theory quite well, but not in any detail. So please explain for all members of this forum what your picture illustrates, what „photon path“ exactly means, what „affectance gradient“ exactly means, what „infinite mass“ exactly means, and what „light fall“ exactkly means.

B.t.w.: For physicists, the time asymmetry is in the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, thus: in the entropy. **

***

James S. Saint wrote:

„And just as entropy is not universal in that it can be and often is defeated (by every subatomic particle), the Second »Law« of Thermodynamics isn't a universal »Law«, merely a tendency and most common occurrence.

Photon = an amount of radiant electromagnetic radiation.
Photon Path = the sequence of spatial locations through time of a photon.
Affectance Gradient = a variation in affectance field density, »a gravity field«.
Infinite Mass = maximum density of changing affects, maximum affectance density (although never actually infinite).
Light Fall = the path of a photon as affected by an affectance gradient, gravity.

The anime is an emulation of a photon's reaction to a gravity field immediately surrounding it associated with an immensely strong concentration of »mass« (location of high affectance density). Note that the light, the photon, does not maintain a straight path (as noted in astrophysics, »the lensing effect«). Note that the speed of the light is also affected such as to come to nearly a complete stop (would be a complete stop if the mass were truly infinite).

The direction and speed of light is not constant in a gravity field. And then because a gravity gradient cannot be reversed, the path traveled cannot be reversed.“ **

1271

Why can a gravity gradient not be reversed? And why can a path not be reversed?

Like I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones. ** **

475) Arminius, 01.06.2014, 01:33, 01:52, 02:28, 03:14, 03:41, 16:28 (1273-1278)

So, should we „close“ this thread? I mean: what you said in your last post is not new - I know -, but this thread should enable something like a discussion, but if the question, whether there is an asymetric time, allows only one answer, then we can „close“ this thread, can't we?

This is a philosophy forum, and philosophy - as well as mathematics - has no limits of thought, no thinking borders .... Probably I am as well a rational human being as you are, but I am not generally against the so called „irrationality“ because irrationality has often been changed into rationality since the beginning of thinking. Is the proposition that asymetric time is possible really absolutely irrational?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yet you keep expressing a »maybe«.“ **

Yes, James ..., but ... why not?

I think a thread with the topic „Universe and Time“ requires straightforwardly a „maybe“ when it caomes to talk about the possibility of time symmetry or the negation of the time arrow and so on.

Do you not think so?

A scientist can never say: „I have finished my work“. A „scientist“ who says that is no scientist.

This thread has many scientific dues, but also many philosophical dues. Therefore a „maybe“ is not generally wrong or false, besides: the probability indicates this too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Like I said:

More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.« (**|**) ** **

Yes, ... until there are no more humans to kill.

The »last man standing« is an android.“ **

Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The scientist who refuses certainty of what he has done (properly) can never understand the complexities of reality. Understanding is built up from one certainty to another to another. The questions should always be at the top of a mountain of certainties, else the top of the uncertainties will be nothing but so uncertain as to be not worthy of building upon. Clouds just produce more clouds, not mountains. But a scientist is not a philosopher, merely a technician.

If you have a confidence level of 80% for each of 20 dependent issues, what is your confidence of the conclusion concerning the issue?

0.80^20 = 0.011529% probability of being right.

If one is not willing to find certainty and build upon it, one never finds confidence nor courage.
And if one builds upon mere probability of being right, one will be very probably wrong before long.
Slaves are made out of the doubtful.“ **

So you are saying that scientists are slaves. Okay, maybe (ah: „maybe“ again) you are right.

But scientists want to find certainty - as well as capitalists want a monopoly -, but they can't find certainty because they are scientists, and only few of them find certainty, but when they have found it they are no longer scientists, but bought slaves. For comparision: only few capitalists catch a monopoly, but when they have caught it they are no longer capitalists, but communists, socialists, globalists - because they have no competition, rivalry anymore.

Hello, Bob.

The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! Relating to what you said about „the 1960’s in Germany“: We are of the opinion that also in the 1960's there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.

When did you come to Germany, Bob?

476) Arminius, 02.06.2014, 01:29, 02:59, 04:06, 04:15, 13:20, 13:59, 15:12, 21:16, 21:24, 22:02 (1279-1288)

I was born in the 1950’s in a 99%-Catholic village, I went to school in the 1960’s, when one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - in addition to three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany - his family was the only Lutheran family in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.

And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.

Moreno wrote:

„Secularization of Society.“ **

Maybe, Moreno, but I don't know certainly. „Secularization of Society“, as you said, has many problems too, and I often think: more problems than societies without securalisation. Secularised societies put their huge problems in other societies, so secularised societies do not have to manage problems inside themselves and unlearn / forget to manage problems inside themselves because it is easier to source problems out. The religion of secularised societies is almost exclusively money, consuming, running in debts, and other decadent doings.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?« ** **

Nope. Not me ..., just a high probability.“ **

80% - that is what I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) - and say.

„Cheap quips about black people“? (**). There is no cheap quip about black people in this thread. Stop insulting me!

O_H!

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself.

Back to the thread:

The topic of this thread is a QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). A QUESTION! A question doesn't have to be justified by a logical implication. I did it anyway because I wanted to give an example for one of the possibilities to answer that question. If one wants to disprove my this answer, then this one can not disprove the question. A question is just a question. If one wants to givae an example for another possibility to answer that question, then this one has to give evidence as well as I have to.

My given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn't satisfiy the logical implication truth table. It doesn't matter, whether a logical implication is simple or not, elsewise all ancient philosophers, especially the excellent logician Aristoteles, could not be designated as philosophers. A counter argument to my argument has to be provided, for example this one: „cheaper will not replace all else“.

The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940's they had the population of „x“ and in the 1990's they had the population „10X“ - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920's Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more! That are no quips, but facts.

When machines replace human beings there are three steps of human behaviour:

1.) they behave as usual (according to their tradition), althuogh machines make already life more pleasant,
2.) they behave both as usual and according to the machines,
3.) they behave according to the the machines.

Between machines and economical welfare is always a close context, but the cultural elements are also important.

Arminius wrote:

„If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

There are 4 main reasons:

1.) biological reasons;
2.) cultural reasons;
3.) economical reasons;
4.) techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reasons for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.“ ** **

Even an autoracist (the one who hates the own race) can not change this facts because all human beings behave in that way, at least similarly. That behaviour is a developmental (according to both evolution and history) fact.

The German word „Mörder“ means „murderer“, the Germnan word „Selbstmörder“ means „self-murderer“, thus „suicidal person“. If you kill yourself, then you murder yourself and probably make some of your family members and / or friends very unhappy, so that they perhaps also kill themselves, thus murder themselves.

Simplicistic logic has directly nothing to do with QUESTIONS, in my case: with the question in the TITLE OF MY THREAD (**|**) and the TITLE OF MY OP (**|**). One can answer the question and argue. There is no problem at all.

You have no counter argument at all, for example this one: „cheaper will not replace all else“.

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself. You are saying that „the thread is nothing more than hot air“ (**), so why you are posting in this thread? Please search for another thread!

Currently this thread has 7300 views and 648 replies. A great thraed, so it's no problem, if you search for another thread. Good bye!

Phyllo wrote:

„What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is: We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. **

No. What I am proposing is not contrary to one of the principles of physics. And I do not occupy a privileged position in the universe rather the contrary because I am proposing a part of the universe to be - perhaps (!) - in a privileged position far away from the planet Earth. That is a Gedankenexperiment (thougt experiment).

What do you think about the theorem: „The photon is a everlasting phenomenon“?

Sometime between 10^18 and 10^27 years, the galaxies will have lost about 99 percent of their mass and therefore effectively be dissolved. The respective residual will then be collapsed into a single super-massive black hole. If the theories of the elementary particle physicists are right, then the matter will dissolve altogether. After about 10^32 yeras even the protons, the basic building blocks of matter, will disintegrate in positrons and photons. Will the positrons meet an electron, the particles annihilate each other, and there remain only photons.

Then there will be only gigantic black holes, „swimming“ in a sea of photons and neutrinos all-encompassing. Sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years, there will be nothing left except neutrinos and photons in the form of extremely long wavelength electromagnetic radiation in an extremely cold, empty universe.

Merely the energy is forever, everlasting, eternal.

477) Arminius, 03.06.2014, 00:51, 02:11, 03:21, 03:56, 04:27 (1289-1293)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, a photon isn't an object, but rather an amount. Normal photons get produced by a specific means (electron orbital decay) that always yields specific amounts. But in the case of extreme disintegration, you could not expect all photons to be of such quantum amounts.

And what that theory seems to be missing is the concept of „dark matter/energy“. High concentrations of affectance (EMR, including photons of every size) aggregate into dense clouds. If the cloud becomes dense enough, it forms a new black hole. Between all of the black holes, the affectance field keeps gravity functioning such as to draw the black holes together. As they collide, they stand a chance of reproducing our more commonly observed »universe« of stars and planets. Because the universe is actually infinite, there can never be a time when a black hole isn't headed toward another. Once two extremely large black-holes collide, a new "local universe" is born.

So there cannot really be any time when there are no photons and even the loss of matter is only temporary.“ **

James, you should send on or add „to you“ or „for you“, because the current „mainstream“ physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, a exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon „isn't an object, but rather an amount“.

Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear „sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years“ (**) ?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James, you should send on or add „to you“ or „for you“, because the current „mainstream“ physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, a exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon ›isn't an object, but rather an amount‹.« ** **

Well, it isn't an issue of »theory« but of ontology. Some people might refer to other people as »objects« (the materialist's perspective). Others would claim that they are not objects, but rather living beings. The language and associated concepts are the only difference.“ **

You mean photons as living beings?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Current religious physics requires that »particles« be involved in all exchanges of anything (monetizing or quantizing all exchanges). So no matter what is really happening, seemingly out of a fear of »infinity«, they refer to all exchanges of gravity, momentum, energy, or whatever as being »carried by particles«, as though there were discreet objects involved, which is actually silly. But that is their ontology and easy to prove it to be untrue unless you just define a »particle« as »any small amount«.“ **

It is true that the modern, especially the current physicists are religious or ideological, that they are „crazy“ about particles, especially exchange particles because they are „materialists“. I would prefer if they were more „crazy“ about energy.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I am not afraid of infinity, so I have no problem with accepting that exchanges occur in indiscreet amounts that I refer to as "afflates" (Affectance Oblates). And with that ontology, I can explain everything they explain as well as things they cannot explain.“ **

Arminius wrote:

»Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear „sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years«?“ ** **

No.

It would be extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to cause a black hole to dissipate into space before anything else re-fed it or it ran into another black hole.“ **

You know that I mean „dissapear for ever“, do you?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And even if a black hole actually did manage to totally disintegrate down to a single particle, nearly impossible to get rid of, at that same moment, other black holes would be forming.“ **

According to your theory.

James S. Saint wrote:

But for a black hole to actually dissipate would require an unimaginable amount of space void of anything else whatsoever. Each glaxay has its own black hole (so they say). There is a HUGE amount of space between those galaxies, yet the stars and planets are all falling INTO the black holes, not radiating out into the extreme open space. If you were to disintegrate ALL of the stars and planets in a galaxy, an extreme "dark matter" cloud would be the result. And as they already have decided, such »dark energy/matter« acts as gravity, thus drawing and holding energy in, resisting the open expanse.“ **

„Dark energy“ doesn't act as gravity, but as its contrary.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If the open expanse around a black hole was extreme enough that the black hole began dissipating (probably requiring the entirety of the known universe for each black hole), as it lost mass, it would accelerate even faster toward another black hole far away. And the closer it got to another black hole, the slower it could dissipate.

The universe just can't get rid of the buggers.“ **

It seems so.

Excerpt from THE DENVER POST, 21st of May 2010:

„Toy robot detours traffic near Coors Field.

	Is this the first sign of the end of the world?
	„Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.“

On Wednesday afternoon, an innocent citizen was walking along a foot bridge, near Coors Field in Denver, when he spotted an innocent looking toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor X. Being a concerned and caring citizen who has watched enough Sci-fi films and terrorist news reports, he immediately considered the possibility that is was either; a bomb cleverly disguised as a toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor, or part of an evil robot plot to take over the world disguised as an innocent toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor. He immediately called the police to report it. This resulted in a stand-off between police and the toy robot as rush-hour traffic piled up around the area. After hours of the robot refusing to make a move, stand down or surrender, the bomb squad was moved in to assess the situation. Unable to safely determine the threat level posed by the toy robot, the experts decided to remotely detonate it. Examining the pieces of the robot afterwards, they determined it was not in any way a terrorist threat. They, however, still have no idea who put the robot there and why it was mysteriously cemented to the floor.

Stuff-about.com’s Institute of Far Out Practical Jokes and Robotic World Domination has been working feverishly around the clock to find an answer to this mystery. They have concluded there is only one possible explanation. The innocent looking toy robot was sent by not so innocent looking robots as the first step in a world domination plan. They are either really angry that their toy was so heartlessly destroyed, and will be detonating a small city as pay back, or do not care, in which case they may be more dangerous than we thought. Alternatively they may have expected the robot to be blown up and taken into custody. In this case it is most likely programmed to reassemble itself once it has successfully infiltrated the Denver police headquarters.

From this point, it will be easy for the robots to gain control and begin taking over the world.

Stuff-about.com is of the opinion that it would be a huge mistake to dismiss this as a rather clever and highly successful practical joke.

See original story here.“ **

No panic, that Isn't the first sign of the end of the world, is it?

No, „they“ are very beloved. You will soon be fond of „them“.

Hear „them“ say (again and again):

„Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.“

Tyler Durden wrote:

„I blame Hitler's dietician.

All that vegetarian shit probably pushed him over the edge.

Stalin became the way he was because he was never accepted into church choir with his beautiful Russian singing voice.“ **

Indeed ..., one msitakke only: Stalin was a Georgian. Anyway: he made his career in Russia / Soviet Union, although he had failed in the male choir.

So, yes, we should blame Stalin's male choir officer as well as Hitler's art teacher and dietician.

B.t.w.: In his youth Mussolini wanted to become a girl, but his mother did not allow him to be a girl.

So we should blame Mussolini's mother as well as Stalins's male choir officer and Hitler's art teacher and dietician.

Some words to the picture and the adaptation of humans and machines:

The similarity between humans and machines is not random. Look at the picture (again):

„Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.“

478) Arminius, 04.06.2014, 21:10, 23:18 (1294-1295)

Human beings build machines, machines produce things and other machines. The machines do that for human beings and instead of human beings and other living beings (for example: horses, oxen etc.). Those human beings who did the same before the machines began to do it did not want to be replaced as workers / wage earners, but as consumers they wanted to be replaced. And what happened? Replacement! The currently workers / wage earners do not want to be replaced, but as consumers they want to be replaced. And what happens? Replacement! This will not change until the completely replacement of human workers / wage earners by machines. So the probability is very high that all human beings will be completely replaced by machines. I have been estimating that that probability is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Machines can do human works very much better, they are cheaper, they can be better controlled as human beings (this doesn't mean that machines can be forever totally controlled). Again: The probability is about 80% that machines will completely replace all human beings.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Tyler Durden wrote:

»Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.« **

Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus.“ **

No. End of history does absolutely not mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also not mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.

Arminius wrote:

„If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.“ ** **

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials.

Arminius wrote:

„According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder ›Existenzialien‹ - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige ›Zwischenspiel‹ der ›eigentlichen Geschichte‹ bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines ›Schemas der historischen Existenz‹ ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or ›existentials‹ - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting ›interlude‹ of the ›actual history‹ and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a ›scheme of historical existence‹is the main goal of this book.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der ›Nachgeschichte‹, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the ›post-history‹ as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der ›große Krieg‹, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the ›Great War‹, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«).“ ** **

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history (not human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.

479) Arminius, 05.06.2014, 00:01, 00:30, 01:58, 02:34, 04:08, 14:46, 14:55, 16:32, 16:55, 17:07, 17:40, 19:04, 22:10, 22:51, 23:48 (1296-1310)

James S. Saint wrote:

„But all photons can never disappear.“ **

James, I did not say that photons will disappear, but that black holes will disappear:

Arminius wrote:

„Sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years, there will be nothing left except neutrinos and photons in the form of extremely long wavelength electromagnetic radiation in an extremely cold, empty universe.“ « ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear »sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years«?“ ** **

1297

Is it acceptable if we say that polytheism is part of paganism? If so - and I say: yes, polytheism is part of paganism -, then we can also say that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism. Thereby the probability for the following declaration rises: yes, the heathendom will bring freedom back to us (**|**). But this heathendom would have to be very powerful, because the montheistic religions do not want the heathendom to be powerful.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Economic localism or regionalism is certainly a better alternative to globalism.“ **

A lot more decentralized also.

That local or regional systems have to have their own financial system too, else the globalism exists furthermore. Only saying „ecomomic“ is not enough, one has to say „economic including the financial system“, else the globalists say „yes“ and save their financial system. That local or regional systems must have their own currency. So this currency must be absolutely isolated from other currencies. Politicians must be descended from the same local or regional society as the other members of that local or regional society, and politicians must be aged 50 to under 70 years. The local or regional society must have less than 10000 inhabitants. The rate of population growth must be always between –0.1 and +0.1. Ist that what you would like?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube“ **

This film does not refer to the end of history.

Cassie wrote:

„Freud built his conclusion that religion is a neurosis.“ **

Ideology is a modern religion and more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion. In parts Freud's „Psychoanalyse“ is an ideology, a modern religion, and thus more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion.

Non-modern religious behaviour can be compared with some aspects of a child behaviour. Modern religion behaviour can be compared with some aspects of an adult behaviour. It is not possible to eliminate religion because either it resists all attacks as a non-modern religion or it becomes a modern religion, an ideology. By hiding behind an ideology, it is easier for the modern religion to enforce its nihilism. Modern religions - ideologies - are always nihilistic.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, I agree that the end of history doesn't necessitate the end of Man, but I don't see how the end of Man couldn't also mean the end of history.“ **

The end of development at all includes necessarily both the end of evolution and the end of history; the end of evolution includes necessarily the end of history; but the end of history does not include the end of development or the end of evolution.

So your „end of man“ includes the end of history, because the end of man means the end of the human evolution (which includes - of course - the end of history). History, as far as we know, is merely a human history or just a history of those humans who make and/or are involved in human history.

Examples of historical existentials again:

** **

Monad wrote:

„I haven't read Herr Nolte's book but from what I've gleaned from the included quotes, haven't these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term „End of History“ somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.

Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best!“ **

Yes, the source is always the best.

In my OP (**|**) is said that Hegel was the first with the idea of the end of history:

Arminus wrote:

„The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the »Enlightenment« (»Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).“

My questions:

1.)	Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.)	Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
	2.1)	Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“  („Aufklärung“) ended?
	2.2)	Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
	2.3)	Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think? ** **

1304

Moreno wrote:

„As a heathen, I think it would be odd for me to tell heathens how they should live, which a statement of how a heathen should live is a basic form of. Apart from the category issue - »as a non-dualist here's how people who are non-dualists should live« (or pick some other category beginning with non- and encompassing many different types of groups - it's more of an Abrahamic way of thinking, at least from this heathen's perspective. There are some heathen, clearly, who think they know how everyone should live.“ **

„Abrahamic way of thinking“? Abrahamic is monotheistic, not heanthenish!

And „»as a non-dualist ...«“? What do you mean?

I did not say that photons will disappear. I think the photons will not disappear. Contrariwise: Photons are an everlasting phenomenon.

Monad wrote:

„As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter ....“ **

May ..., yes, but currently it is quite the contrary: the average IQ of the world population is sinking, declining.

Monad wrote:

„As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human ....“ **

Maybe ..., yes, but it depends on what „human“ really means, what „human“ really is, what a „human being“ really is. „Human“ is a ambiguous word, as you probably know.

Monad wrote:

„As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human, perhaps less machine like ....“ **

Perhaps ..., yes, but it depends on what „machine“ and especially „machine like“ in connection with „human being“ really mean. Is a human being who is less machine like really better than a human being who is more machine like? Or is quite the contrary right?

Tyler Durden wrote:

„I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.

Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there.“ **

Oh, thank you very much, Tyler. I have read all his books.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Superb writer.“

Yes, that's right. Superb writer, superb thinker, a man of the facts who wrote down the historical facts in his books. Influenced by Heraklit, by Goethe, and by Nietzsche, he was a life philosopher, precisely a culture philosopher.

In his main work he said that he owed almost everything Goethe and Nietzsche:

„Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche. Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen, und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ - Oswald A. G. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. IX.
My translation:
„In conclusion, it urges me to once again give the names, which I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made of his moment an overview. But Goethe in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, had been a disciple of Leibniz.“ - Oswald A. G. Spengler, The Declinig of the West, 1917, p. IX.

Have you read all his books too, Tyler?

Monad wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

1.)	Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.)	Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
	2.1)	Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“  („Aufklärung“) ended?
	2.2)	Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
	2.3)	Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think? ** **

Let's get practical. Regardless of all the brilliant intellectuals declaiming on the matter, there is no "end of history" if we have to keep on asking the question. The words "End of History" is fallacious if it only sums up the end of an epoch. It's like saying at the end of Götterdämmerung no one is left alive when it's only the Gods who have left the scene whilst humans are forced to continue. The way EOH is here applied amounts to nothing more than a paragraph within history as a whole.“ **

So your answer is not an answer to the questions 1.), 2.), 2.1), 2.2), 2.3), but to the question: What do you think?

But your answer that there will be no end of history, but merely an end of an epoch can also be interpreted as a mostly „YES“ to the question 1.), else as an answer to the question: What do you think?

I would like to get a more precise answer to one of the questions 1.), 2.), 2.1), 2.2), 2.3). Is that possible, Monad?

Obe wrote:

„I have read Spengler, yes. The issue here is the end of Western history and civilization ....“ **

Yes, but to say it very precisely: in Spengler’s theory as well as in the German language there is a difference between „Kultur“ („culture“ [„civiliation“]) and „Zivilisation“ („civilisation“) - b.t.w.: this difference has more or less disappeared in the English language. Unfortunately the German „Kultur“ is often translated with both „culture“ and „civilisation“, and merely „Zivilisation“ is always „civilisation“. What you call „civilisation“ is not always „Zivilisation“ in German, but often „Kultur“ and merely sometimes also „Zivilisation“. That is very important when it comes to understand a „Kulturphilosophie“ („culture philosophy“ / „civilisation philosophy“).

According to Spengler the „Zivilisation“ is a late part of the „Kultur“, and in the West this part began in the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century (b.t.w.: this is also the time when, according to Hegel, the history perhaps ended - but that is not important for the understanding of Spengler's theory), and leads into a more and more non-historical time, a cultural / civilisational „winter“, a kind of senility. The West („Abendland“ = „Eveningland“) will reach this time of cultural / civilisational „winter“ in the 21st, or the 22nd, or the 23rd century, approximately in the year 2200. When this time will be reached it will be possible that the end of history will also be reached because there will probably be no new „Kultur“ anymore.

480) Arminius, 06.06.2014, 01:00, 02:42, 03:41, 04:16, 04:18, 15:02, 15:18, 15:52, 20:05 (1311-1319)

Monad wrote:

„Anyways this argument »the average IQ of the world population is sinking« is completely misleading.“ **

No! And you can not give evidence. Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact. This fact can be proved, although merely by statistics, yes, but that doesn't matter because the statistics are an indicator, and an indicator is adequate enough for such trends. You need intelligence, if you want to resist against such a dictatorship we are talking about. Becoming smarter is not enough.

Monad wrote:

„This incessant question as to what Human really is or means puts philosophy itself on the IQ casuality list.“ **

Just the reverse is right. „Human“ is a word, so that we can research it linguistically and then philosopjically. Philosophers who do not use language are the losers.

Monad wrote:

„That's the nature of intelligence which is always half blind walking into the future. How can it be otherwise?“ **

The „nature of intelligence“ (you have said that!), okay, then we can accept the IQ statistics as well.

Phyllo wrote:

„Do you have any evidence to support that statement?“ **

Yes, I have. But do you accept statistics and experiences as evidence?

The Flynn effect has been falsified: too much statistcs.

Moreno wrote:

„To ask how a heathen should live seems to have the kind of universal, rigid morality I associate more with Abrahamic religions.“ **

So you unite heathendom with montheism without any problem? What you are then? A heathenish Monotheist or a monotheistic heathen?

Monad wrote:

„Obe wrote:

»So i gather, Monad is in the ›indeterminate column‹?, as well?« **

What does »indeterminate« mean?“ **

In that text it is because of my question in the title of my thread (**|**) and the title of my OP (**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings? Obe asks whether you belong to those who answer that question neither with „Yes“ nor with „No“; so he asks whether your name is or should be in the „Abstention“ column of my 3rd interim balance sheet (**|**).

Monad wrote:

„I think you meant to say »Without statistics no one can say...«.“ **

No.

Monad wrote:

„How long does it take to research »Human« linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, »What is the meaning of life?« The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human?“ **

You do not have an alternative. You disagree partly, but you have no argument, not to mention an evidence. Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions? It doesn't very much matter how long it takes because it takes no longer than the alternatives, if there really is any.

Obe, should I write the next interim balance sheet soon?

Monad wrote:

„You who have read so many books ....“ **

Who said that?

Monad wrote:

„I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument...the perennial response to any opposing view. As for »evidence« if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn't YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution?“ **

Do any of your disagreements „lead you to believe that there can be such a solution“?

And b.t.w.: Which „guide books“ do you mean? The books I mentioned - indirectly - in this thread do not have to be my „guide books“ just because you want them to be my „guide books“.

Monad wrote:

„As to »Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?« is an absolutely ludicrous question!“ **

Because you have a „better“ one: Disagreement! How absolutely ludicrous!

Monad wrote:

„I for one, don't find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again.“ **

I don't think that linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions are the only possibilities.

But your regurgitated disagreements are not useful at all.

Why don't you offer at least a few suggestions. Nothing - except disagreements. Okay, disagree how much you can - I don't care -, but your
disagreements are no solutions.

Monad wrote:

„It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans.“ **

Which „books“ do you mean?

Monad wrote:

„I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be.“ **

Then please say what „the mystery“ is for you and how you can get a solution.

Disagreement without any argumentation and evidence is the typical behaviour of internet users. And it's „cool“ too. It does never bring on a conversation, not to mention a solution of a problem. Bummer! That's too bad.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Human« literally means »the hue of, or most basic element of Man«.

So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people.“ **

And whom do you mean with „they“?

Here comes the 4th interim balance sheet:

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**).

Note:
Yes (by trend) means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
No (by trend) means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

Monad wrote:

„Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them.“ **

„Them“? What or whom do you mean with the word „them“ in that sentence?

Does anybody of the members of this forum know which „arguments“ and „reasons“ Monad means?

Monad wrote:

„That's the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight.“ **

„That's the best ....“ What's the best, Monad?

Monad wrote:

„Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.“ **

That's honest, Monad. But I don't think that your last sentence is absolutely right, and because of the fact that it is probably relatively right we should use the rest of possibilities and try to constitute solutions or proofs.

I mean: You are also writing in this forum, so you confirm my statement that your sentence - „opinions ... do not constitute solutions or proof“ - is merely relatively right.

Regards.

==>