<= [901][902][903][904][905][906][907][908][909][910] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
901) Arminius, 23.07.2016, 01:26, 01:28, 01:30, 01:39, 01:47, 01:59, 17:07, 17:26, 17:40, 20:09 (4868-4877)
Pandora wrote:
It seems that you are talking about a false stereotype. I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.Where are you from, Pandora?Here is a story a friend of mine once told me:It was on a Monday morning. I was in an English town, and I had a hangover, ran to a garden, because I had to barf. Suddenly I heard a voice shouting: »My lawn! Get ou of my garden!«. The owner of the lawn resp. garden was very annoyed and threatened me with his right fist, later with his right forefinger.Like this one:I said to my friend: Do not take him so seriously now. But he answered: I shall not take him seriously, although he was very annoyed and threatening me?. I ressured him and said: Now, I said »now«, do not take him so seriously now.We should not take the Law of Jante as seriously as certain people do. But nevertheless: As a freethinker I am against the Law of Jante. Maybe I underestimate it, because I am not a Protestant, but maybe I do not. Who knows? About 50% of all Christians in Germany are Catholics, and about 50% of all Christians in Germany are Protestants (most of them are Lutherans), and they have no problems with each other. The proportion in the U.S. is almost the same.Currently, we have much more and huger problems than the Law of Jante.Pandora wrote:
That educational case is the only one that fits your story. Again: I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.Pandora wrote:
There are many ways when it comes to control and manipulation. The most evil one is the one that we are currenly experiencing, and by that one I do not mean the Law of Jante.Pandora wrote:
Yes. Of course.Do you know how old, for example, the Chinese society is and, for example, how old the Japanese society is?Pandora wrote:
I know. My answer was a bit rhetorical too, Pandora.Pandora wrote:
Again: Where are you from, Pandora?And what kind of Scandinavian experience do you have?The Law of Jante is based on a novel (En flyktning krysser sitt spor) that was published in 1933, and it is perhaps only a guess that it could have much to do with tradition.Let us have another interpretation of the Law of Jante:The Law of Jante was published in 1933, as I already said, and this was the time of totalitarianism, started 1917 by the Soviet communism and - in reaction to it - 1919 by the Italian fascism (Fasci di combattimento [Squadri]), ended 1945/1990 when the synthesis of both - the globalism as the omnivorous monster - started. The totalitarianists wanted to break with the tradition and to create a new tradition with a new human (this is typical for modern ideologies), either a communistic one or a fascistic one. During the main time of totalitarianism, when the Law of Jante was published, there was totalitarianism everywhere in Europe. So the Law of Jante is perhaps the law of the Scandinavian type of totalitarianism.Note: It is merely one of more possible interpretations.Pandora wrote:
Are you a Christian?
Only Humean wrote:
Yes. Language fits.
Only Humean wrore:
Max Weher's Leistungsethik must be translated by performance ethic or achievement ethic, because he did not mean Arbeitsethik which is correctly translated by work ethic.
Only Humean wrote:
I guess, you know something about the linguistic relativity, Only Humean.
Anomaleigh wrote:
Actually, there are two subitems in that item (the question: Do you want to maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature? [**|**]), and only the second of that two subitems is quite obvious, namely the perpetual balance with nature (**|**). The first subitem (maintain humanity under 500,000,000 [**|**]) is not obvious, because the number 500,000,000 does not necessarily fit the second item (perpetual balance with nature? [**|**]). Who said (you) that only the number 500,000,000 is the proper number for the perpetual balance with nature? It is also possible by a different number.Anomaleigh wrote:
What a kind of comeback do you mean exactly? Do you mean the general comeback of the time before 1750 or before 1600 when the number of the global inhabitants had always been less than 500,000,000?
Most people are always cheated.
There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.Mathematics is a subset of logic.
Should the universe (nature) just appear (**)?
|
4876 |
4877 |
902) Arminius, 28.07.2016, 01:05, 01:09, 01:11, 01:14, 01:21, 01:29, 01:31, 13:22, 13:30, 13:41, 14:27, 14:48, 14:59, 15:05, 15:55, 18:10, 19:01, 22:28, 22:35, 22:43, 23:06 (4878-4898)
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. That's the point.
Hahaha wrote:
Yes, I know. But ...:Laughing Man wrote:
Is he or not - in your opinion?
Copied part of a post in another thread.
What is Frau Killary hiding?
When it comes to human culture, then the we is before the I.Copied part of a post in another thread.
What I meant is that in an early human group an I could not behave individually in a modern sense, thus like a modern I, because every I had to be like the we , every son had to be like his father and former ancestors, every daughter had to be like her mother and former ancestors. If someone tried to not follow this main rule of that early human culture, then this one would be killed. Someone who broke this rule was punished to death. There was no way out of the group.
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Copied part of a post in another thread.Copied post in another thread.
Do you know, for example, the rules of modern gangs? What do this modern gangs do when it comes to breaking their rules (this rules are like laws for them)? They punish their members to death, if they trie to break their rules. So they are referring to one of the first human rules. Why are they doing that? They are doing that, because they do not want any member of the gang to leave the gang. They are going back to early times of the humans. Development is more cyclical or spiral than just linear (progressive).
Hillary-ous (**). Yes.
Not much?
There are no real liberals and no real conservatives - there are only liars.
Thanks (**).
Yes. Of course.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Or this one (posted by Only Humean [**]):
Is your motive for killing flys and mosquitos a morally good or a morally bad (evil) one? |
903) Arminius, 02.08.2016, 01:31, 01:34, 01:37, 01:40, 02:04, 02:16, 02:26, 02:34, 02:44, 03:07, 14:00, 16:52, 17:10, 17:20, 17:48, 22:25, 23:30, 23:50 (4899-4916)
One Liner wrote:
Oh, there is stiil a cultural we for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our we has been becoming weak.
You may call it regression, but what I mean is more the cyclic or spiral aspect of any development, thus also any cultural development (evolution, history). So any development means much of analogical repetition, retry, iterance. So this behavior is not pathological but normal in the sense of the respective cultural development. If there had been modern gangs during the 18th century in the Occidental culture, then their members would have been punished to death before joining, so they would have had no chance at all. But the same thing at the same place but at a different time (for example the current time or the time of the late antique Imperium Romanum) is possible. Societies must be decadent enough to have such modern gangs. this modern gangs or other examples show very clearly that the development is backward (regressive), although it is forward (progressive).Okay, some people may say that decadent cultures (humans) are just pathogical cultures (humans), but that it is not true, because they are just old. Being old is (still!) not pathological.
Please do not forget: Not merely desperation and nightmare are associated with the senselessness of life - but also sensemaking celebration of life, lust for life, life in the here and now because of consciousness in the here and now, ... and so on.Probably it is just the negative meaning of life that shows (and hopefully convinces) us that we should prefer the positive meaning of life. So, for example, the more you are reminded of your death, the more you are also reminded of your life in the sense of a positive meaning.I think that this is also the true meaning of Martin Heidegger's Sein zum Tode (being to death), because he did not mean that it is positive to die, but he meant that philosophy and science of the 19th century had objectivated the deaths of the others - but not of the self, the I. Heidegger's theory of death stopped the theoretical cynisms of the 19th century (for example: the concept of revolution, the imagination of evolution, the concept of selection, of the struggle for life, of the surviving of the fittest, the idea of progress, ... and so on ), because: what they made thinkable was the death of the others - thus: not of the self, the I -, and hereby they caused suppression and forgottenness of one's own death. The theories of the 19th century were a gift for the war industry, because the soldiers should not be reminded of their own death. The military is the biggest guarantor when it comes to suppression and forgottenness of one's own death. And during the the First World War - thus: in the early 20th century, when those theories of the 19th century were still intact - each soldier thought that merely others but not he himself had to die. (This is also the meaning of Heidegger's Man: the Man prevents the courage to the fear of the death - the Man means the normal inauthenticity, that each one is the others and no one is him-/herself.)Do you know what I mean?
Nonsense. ^^^^You are not capable of understanding the simpliest sentences.
Example: Achilleus - Zenon's fallacy.The error is the confusion and permutation of (a) the thought of the succession of time with (b) the thought of the succession of space. One could also say: It is a misjudgement of the fact that the merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length says nothing aginst its real finiteness.
Copied post in another thread.
Sometimes, and sometimes it is just the other way around.
Not all soldiers are stupid, because there are many averagely intelligent and some very intelligent soldiers too.
Life means forming spheres, doesn't it?
Philosophically important questions are - for example - questions that deal with something like the birth process:- How does man in the world come to his world?
|
4909 |
Our »we« is just as strong as it has always been (if not stronger) but we just do not value it as much. **
4910 |
4911 |
4912 |
4913 |
When two people have resolved a debate to the point of disagreeing upon a particular thought or principle, what is left to do but to attempt to teach of the correctness of one's stand?
Math is not some mystical field independent of logical and rational thought. Math is in fact a product of logical thought concerning quantities.
But of course, as history strongly reveals, Man often preaches with grand certainty against logical thought, only to later fall. The issue of infinities and infinitesimals seems to stretch Man's mind to a dubious limit whereat he chooses passion for preference over restraint to rationality.
Note that the title and OP ask if the concept is »Really« true. The question isn't about what is currently most popular to believe or what the contemporary experts teach. And to discover what is really true despite what authorities are preaching requires logic. Unfortunately even on a philosophy forum, logic is seldom the guiding light. **
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
4914 |
4915 |
4916 |
904) Arminius, 04.08.2016, 01:03, 01:06, 01:09, 01:11, 01:33, 01:50, 12:26, 12:44, 12:50, 12:56, 12:58, 13:05, 13:13, 13:19, 13:48, 14:12, 14:40, 14:41, 16:00, 16:51, 17:09, 17:36, 18:09, 22:20, 22:51, 23:10, 23:27, 23:37, 23:43, 23:51 (4917-4946)
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes.We have to distinguish between (1.) the realm(s) of ratiocination / logic / mathematics and (2.) the realm(s) of physics / chemnistry / biology. So if one logical / mathematical task does not only contain a mathematical subtask but also a physical subtask (like the Achilleus task does), then we have to consider that two subtasks.
One Liner wrote:
That is not true.The words rational and rationalization have the same root. What you are saying is that, for example, all enlightenment is deceptive. And that is - of course - not true.Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example, are deceptive.
One Liner wrote:
So you do not kill insects?Do you live according Ecamndus rule?Ecmandu wrote:
One Liner wrote:
Uh-huh. .... Although .... I am not profoundly convinced that your one liner is absolutely right here. How do we expect them to behave?
When physicians use mathematics so willingly, then it is because mathematics is at a higher level than physics.Merely the realm of ratiocination/logic is at a higher level than the realm of mathematics:Or just follow the grey arrow In the follwing chart:One can also say that mathematics is a subset of the set logic:
James S. Saint wrote:
That's the point.And in terms of the mathematical realm and the physical realm:Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:
There are a lot of wes in your one liner, One Liner.The Occidental culture is an I -culture, thus it is very much more individualistic than all other cultures. So in the Occidental culture the I is more considered than in all other cultures. But this does not mean that the Occidental culture does not comsider the we- it merely means that it considers the I much more than all other cultures do. And this is especially due to the reformation (protestantism) as Ierrellus and I have pointed out:Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Copied post in another thread.
One Liner wrote:
You really do not know what enlightenment means?
One Liner wrote:
And there could be good reasons (for example healthy reasons) too to rationalize your motive(s).
One Liner wrote:
Okay.
One Liner wrote:
Oh, sorry. Shall I delete that quote?
One Liner wrote:
Again: That is not true.If you have good reasons (for example healthy reasons) to rationalize your motive(s) foir killing insects, for example ( by the way: it was your example) , then this rationalization is not deceptive.
One Liner wrote:
Thanks.
Health is always a good reason. It is good resp. okay and especially healthy to be self-preservative. No living being is capable of living without self-preservation. Life is self-preservation.So I ask you: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings (for example: insects)?
One Liner wrote:
Thats right. And if you asked that insect and were capable of understanding its answer, then you would soon know that the insect would make the same statement as I do.
Claiming to be the one who has reduced unemployment is almost always a lie.
There is an increasing number of lost jobs.
|
4935 |
Don't bother Arminius as nobody listens to reason anymore if it is not apart of the corporate controlled script. **
4936 |
In the Bush administration the unemployment ratio was a lot higher than the official government released number just as it is right now under Obama. The United States economy really is in a death spiral and nothing you quote from HuffingtonPost or Bloomberg is going to change that.
Failure to adapt? With technological automation replacing all segments of societies where there is no margin of biological adaptation that is just a bullshit cop out by technocrats.
The influx of global immigration is a mechanism of driving down wages of native or indigenous workers keeping them stagnant which is why corporations everywhere have adopted the neo-liberal and multicultural political script. It's good for their financial bottom line. Of course they won't admit that it's all about greed or profit where rather conveniently they hide behind social justice, multiculturalism, and historical revisionism in masquerade. **
There needs to be a serious public discussion or discourse on how global immigration is a financial tool or policy by corporations to depreciate domestic wages of nations. Americans are sick of it and Europeans don't want any of it.
In the future historians will note that the decline and death of union jobs or occupations with some level of security for its workers died with the advent of enacted global immigration policies. **
4937 |
In the world political deception is becoming the norm suffocating, silencing,and choking everybody. We're just supposed to get used to it, right? **
4938 |
4939 |
4940 |
4941 |
4942 |
4943 |
4944 |
I found myself asking the question, »can temperature exist in a singularity?«. **
4945 |
4946 |
905) Arminius, 06.08.2016, 01:27, 01:31, 01:33, 01:35, 01:59, 02:16, 02:36, 03:25, 03:49, 03:57, 04:28, 17:00, 17:06, 17:16, 17:49, 18:12, 18:36, 18:15, 18:54, 18:59 (4947-4966)
I know much about the biography and the works of the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and that he and, for example, Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg were members of the Uranprojekt (Uran Project) before and during the Second World War.
To the subject Big Bang:Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
If I had to choose only one attribute to describe the Occidental culture, then I would always choose faustic (just like Spengler did with reference to Goethes Faust).
Sorry, English is not my fisrt language. I meant physicist - of course. It is the second time already that I confused the word physicist with the word physician.
More like a physiotherapist?
Socratus wrote:
Really?Ah, by the way: My name is Arminius. You forgot the i.
Socratus wrote:
The mainstream physicists (not physicians) and probably also the most mainstream biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.
One Liner wrote:
Are you referring to this post?
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
After a recession there is always a positive trend. Duh. In other advanced nations the nadir of the said recession occurred later than in the US, just because of the fact that the cause of that recession came from the US. There is time between the cause and its effect.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
No. Here is no duh possible. It does not automatically mean that jobs will be lost when jobs are added. Who told you such a nonsense?Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is only rhetoric. You are completely off the subject. We are not talking about tecnology but about pure economy here. And it is an economical fact that machines replace the jobs of humans (in the long run perhaps humans at all [**|**]).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is no argument.We already talked about this in other threads. You are not willing to talk about facts.An example: In the 1950s and largely also in the 1960s there was full employment in Europe as well as in the US and in Canada. Then many errors occurred, for example: (1.) the exponentially increasing debts; (2.) the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 (which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy); (3.) the increasing number of unemployed native men, especially the first unemployment of young men (the first youth unemployment started) because of the increasing number of immigrants and female wageworkers. I am not judging here, I am only talking about facts. And if it is right what politicians always and mantra-like claim, namely that full employment, thus the prevention of unemployment, is the main goal, then these said decisions and actions (see: 1., 2., 3.) are very extreme errors.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
On one condition: We are talking in my first language, thus not always only in your first language (as I have to do here since I joined ILP). This would be - finally - fair. Do you know what fairness means?Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
What you are saying here is no argument, but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Again: What you are saying here is no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about injustice or justice, because we are talking about economical facts.This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is (again and again) no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is (over and over again) no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about the current dictatorship of political correctness and its misandrous sexism, because we are talking about economical facts.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is (over and over again) no argument.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
See above. Forget your cheap phrase (rhetoric).Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
The overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration. You have no single argument. And very often, you are completely off the subject.A philosophy forum does or should not need rhetoric or dictatoship of political correctness.Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is not true. And you should know that it is not true (see here, here, here, and below).John Williams wrote;
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
That is (over and over again) no argument.You are not right, because you are left.Life is not limbo, life is not hovering, life is, at least sometimes, a burden that one has to bear. And if there are people that are not capable of bearing it, then they must be belped, for example by good politicians. Our liberal and social politicians are not good, because they are leftists. They are just saying: life is hovering, and if it is not, then we give you money and, yes, more money - not mentioning that this all means: DEBTS!Debts over and over again - that is the real meaning of Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism, of inflationism. It is not possible to solve all problems by creating money out of the blue, because it is not possible to create something out of nothing. Von nichts kommt nichts is a German saying. You can't make something out of nothing. Thus: You can't make money out of nothing. And if you try it, you will only get DEBTS.Basta! Full stop! Enough! End of the story.
Socratus wrote:
That is a good metaphor - especially for me, beacuse I like philosophical issues dealing with prenatal and perinatal metaphors. Humans have to come into the world somehow, even if their real birth is past.Socratus wrote:
Yes. One can say so.Socratus wrote:
I gues you mean: Why can't the »great amount of information« explain the » small information«?Because the great amount of information is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the small Information. The small Information is possibly too small (simple) for explaining it. The example homo sapiens makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?
Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.
The humans brains are made for surviving.
Tab wrote:
Your re-introducing is not really necessary:
Thanks.
One Liner wrote:
Will the we?
|
4965 |
Love is the means. **
4966 |
Do you know your own self-interest? **
906) Arminius, 08.08.2016, 20:49, 20:59, 21:12, 21:48, 21:58, 22:21 (4967-4972)
Socratus wrote:
Assumed that there is macrophysics, mesophysics, and microphysics, I would say that we can know much about mesophysics, which is - by the way - the main part of physics, but not much about macro- and microphysics, namely something about the beginning and ending of the universe or of the so calledquantum world. I guess that micro- and macrophysics are more like metaphysics than physics, because almost everything they deal with is - more or less - theoretical, mathematical, logical, just metaphysical, thus philosophical.
One Liner wrote:
No. If we really were, then we would already know everything.
James S. Saint wrote:
The theory of the Big Bang is a relatively ridiculous theory, isn't it?
You mean the trial and error system, don't you?
This one?
And a flat universe would not really be infinite. |
907) Arminius, 10.08.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:05, 01:07, 01:09, 01:14, 01:21, 01:43, 02:30, 15:12, 16:06, 16:25, 16:29, 17:00, 17:12, 17:21, 17:32, 18:03, 18:14, 23:58 (4973-4994)
Leyla wrote:
Are you sure?
One Liner wrote:
It depends on. In our culture the I is more inportant than in others buit is nevertheless embedded in the we (that has become weaker and weaker).
One Liner wrote:
Common opinions or the inauthentic I of everybody of the we.
One Liner wrote:
Yes.
Mags J. wrote
How quick is your sinking?
Mags J. wrote:
Yes.
There should be a third option, namely the option BOTH (nature and nurture) too. It is both, and it is more nature than nurture.
Hegels dialectic is a method of knowledge, a process, a self-motion of thinking and reality, the tread of the spirit (Geist) to its self-knowledge.
Are you referring to my post?
Synthezise what? Believe in what? Make what believable?
Flatness means at least a spatial imit. A spatial limit is probably connected with a temporal limit. A temporal limit is not infinite.
Do you mean our galaxy, Socratus?I know that the mainstream physicists say our universe would be flat, very flat. But it is probably not flat. Are the mainstream physicists flat?
|
4986 |
4987 |
Is there such a thing as an authentic »I«? **
4988 |
I think our culture perceives »I« as more important than others but that perception isn't necessarily an accurate representation of how the »I« is actually positioned in our culture. **
4989 |
4990 |
4991 |
4992 |
4993 |
Divine Realm --> Principles.
Mortal Realm --> Physical Universe. **
4994 |
So you are telling me that self preservation is meaningful and evolution is meaningful and life is meaningful and you are also telling me that this is not rationalizing as it is a fact that this meaningfulness is impregnated in this meaningful universe. **
908) Arminius, 13.08.2016, 02:10, 02:13, 02:16, 02:19, 02:21, 02:23, 02:58, 03:07, 04:11, 04:32, 04:47, 04:52, 05:05, 15:54, 16:04, 19:51, 19:58, 20:18, 20:41, 21:04, 21:38, 21:49, 22:05, 22:15, 22:29, 22:38, 22:44, 22:49, 22:57, 23:50 (4995-5024)
One Liner wrote:
No, One Liner. You are always putting words into my mouth I never said.I did NOT say that self-preservation preserved meaningless things. I merely said that self-preservation was meaningful. And I meant that it was meaningful for for each living being, because otherwise each living being would not defend the own life ... and so on. This does NOT automatically mean that life is meaningful, that evolution is meaningful, that there is meaningfulness, that the universe is meaningful. It means that self-preservation is meaningful.
One Liner wrote:
It matters much more in our culture than it matters in all other cultures of the whole history.
One Liner wrote:
Just read the corresponding posts again and look at the following chart.Other middle or large collective forms are - for example - gangs, churches, states, cooperations/companies (super-organisms / organisation-systems).
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
? ... ....
Socratus wrote:
I know. But what do you think about the following?
According to pantheism God is in everything resp. everything is in God, because God is nature resp. nature is God, or there is no God but only nature and humans just call nature God resp. there is no nature but only God (the existence of the world is repealed - so to say).
Yes (**). It is aesthetically beautiful, ethically good, logically true.
By logical thought(s), yes (**).
It is certainly no coincidence that two similar beliefs occured and became dogmas at the same time: (1) the belief that the big bank can create the money out of nothing; (2) the bielef that the big bang can create the universe out of nothing.
James S. Saint wrote:
According to those who beleive in that: ... yes.
Maybe an eternal re-occurrence of something from nothing, but always created by the respective bb.
James S. Saint wrote:
So they have to die in the mortal realm, thus as thoughts in the brain?
Jerkey wrote:
You are a subjectivist, I know.
One Liner wrote:
No. Your thinking is wrong. Sorry.What you think is that everything is equal. You are an egalitarianist who has forgotten that egalitarianism is also a phenomenon that is based on individualism, thus on Occidental developments like the Lutheran reformation (protestantism) as a revolution of the I. There has always been more I in the culture of the Occident than in all other cultures. Even the current human rights are based on this typical Occidental issue, and note: I am not judging here - I am talking about facts.
One Liner wrote:
No, One Liner, you are wrong again.If somebody (a strong I for example) threatens you with a gun, what are you going to do then? Wait. Let me guess: You are going to do nothing.
Self-preservation occurs with the first living being.
The Lutheran reformation was a revolution of both (1) about the I itself and (2) how we think about the I.
Yes (**), to repeated bangs and to the belief in them (compare: bang, bank, ... bust ... => new bang, new bank, ... new bust ... and so on).
One Liner wrote:
That does not contradict the self-preservation. On the contrary: It emphasizes it.
One Liner wrote:
Again: You are putting words into my mouth I never
said.
|
5015 |
5016 |
5017 |
5018 |
So you are inferring that the words used in this context (»emphasising« and »meaningful«) are not deceptive rationalizations. **
5019 |
Arminus, I stuck to the OP and didn't change the OP .... **
The OP continues to be the current topic of discusion. **
5020 |
5021 |
5022 |
5023 |
I think your reactions have provided at least some evidence that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive. **
5024 |
I have Arminius and I don't dispute that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive and, in this way, I don't feel or think that I am superior to you. **
909) Arminius, 16.08.2016, 01:09, 01:13, 01:16, 01:27, 01:31, 01:59, 18:42, 19:05, 20:04, 22:03, 22:06, 22:10, 22:25, 22:33, 22:48, 23:30, 23:33, 23:55 (5025-5042)
TO ALL.What do you think about the following?
Copied part of a post in another thread
Johann Sebastian Bach or Ludwig v. Beethoven. (I am not absoluetly sure which of the two I should prefer.)
One Liner wrote:
Be honest. You are not capable of spelling. Or is spelling also a negative rationalization for you? And - by the way - you used more than a one liner, One Liner, although you used one sentence (although one faked sentence - but do not worry, because you are not the super-faker in this forum).One Liner wrote:
That is nonsense.You are the one who is frustrated - namely almost always, because rationalization is always negative to you. Always being frustrated is a very bad and very sad situation, One Liner. I am very sorry for you.Unfortunately, you are just not capable of rationalizing in a positive way. I often said to you that you should try to understand that rationalizing is not always negative, because it is often positive. But you did not want to learn. That is sad too. So again: I am very sorry for you.You are what is called a nihilist. I know that it is difficult today to not be a nihilist, but that does not automatically mean that nihilists are right. What makes this even more difficult for you is the fact that you are a pessimist in addition, thus a pessimistic nihilist. Not all nihilists are pessimists, but you are a pessimistic nihilist.As I said: Copied post.
Ad Cinnatum.Tuam malam fortunam doleo.Nonne meministi?Velim scribas!Quid facis?Scio, hic locus est ubi trolli imperat.
And think of helices too.
But what I meant was more like this: Do you believe in the inorganic perception as a perception of God?
The Sun (Solar System) is orbiting the center of the galaxy. It is said that it takes the Sun about 250 million years and that it touches the electromagnetic field of the galaxy four times during this 250 million years.
So you do not mean inorganic perception in the sense of a man-made (anthropogenic) perception of machines?
I know that we already had this discussion in another thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?
I know that we already had this discussion in this thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?
Rotating and orbiting do not mean the same.
And think of helices, for example.
What do you mean by »geocentricity« in this case of a galaxy?
Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description, because if you know that there are thoughts or knowledge, then you also know that there is a consciousness.
Our galaxy does not rotate to the same degree in any part of it, and it is oddly that its edges rotates slower than other parts. Therefore the mainstream physicists invented the dark energy.
James S. Saint wrote:
|
5042 |
As I said, it very gradually changes. The outer regions orbit a little slower because it is traveling in a field of affectance that is swirling around and inward toward the black hole center (or possibly spiraling gradually outward from center). **
The »dark energy« is the affectance throughout, and no doubt, more dense toward the center of the galaxy.
The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide. **
910) Arminius, 19.08.2016, 01:05, 01:07, 01:09, 01:48, 02:34, 02:50, 03:07, 03:59, 15:21, 15:49, 16:19, 17:10, 17:21, 17:41, 19:38, 19:45, 23:28, 23:47 (5043-5060)
James S. Saint wrote:
You mean, they have - precisely said - two parallel directions.
The shape of movement could be a spiral.
Onyl Humean wrote:
Only Humean wrote:
A televison is not conscious, a radio-controlled car is not conscious, a heat-seeking missile is not conscious; but what about certain machines with an artificial intelligence?
First of all there has to be the question: Is there an infinite void - the vaccuum (**)?
I also guess that it is spiraling inward, contracting into the speculated black-hole center. But what if our galaxy itself is also spiraling and finally contracting into the speculated black hole center of another galaxy (the Andromeda galaxy for example)?
If I may answer (**):Hearing a voice is already a remote recognition because of the relatively remote distance between the perceiving one and the perceived one. If that distance is relatively near(by / close), then it is not a remote recognition. The question is just what relatively means in this case.
All living beings take and give (and it is mostly because of the fact that they have to take in order to give), but there is one living being called the human being that does not only take in order to give but also - and especially (!) - take in order to take more and more and give less and less.
Yes (**), a spiraling nebula, because Andromeda is not big enough to be the center of that large a nebula. Maybe the whole Local Group (thus: including Milky Way and Andromeda) is contracting into (the speculated black hole center of) the Virgo Supercluster.
I guess that the Virgo Supercluster is supposed to be spinning. The Virgo Cluster is supposed to be the central cluster of the Virgo Supercluster, and according to that the black hole as the center of the Virgo Cluster would be the center of the Virgo Supercluster too. Nevertheless, there is a lot of speculation about it.
What do you (**) think about that limits? Where (in which realm) can they be found?
Harbal wrote:
I am very sorry to get to know about your situation. It is a typical modern Occidental situation, a situation that is based on decadence, on the practice of nihilistic ideolgies, jurisdiction, pollitics, ... and so on.I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way.Now you can kill me, gentleman.
Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.
And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?
It (**) is about music, precisely said: about mucic history (**). Right?
Jerkey wrote:
Kill you?Jerkey wrote:
Are you sure?Jerkey wrote:
|
5058 |
Arminius wrote:
»A situation that is based on decadence ....« ** **
I can assure you I'm not feeling decadent at the moment. **
Now you can kill me, gentleman. **
5059 |
Arminius wrote:
»Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.« ** **
Correct.
Arminius wrote:
»And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?« ** **
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but how a conscious being responds is a different issue than whether it is conscious of what to respond to. If the being responds in the exact same manner, one wouldn't be able to tell from the outside whether the being was conscious or not. It would not be displaying any consciousness that it might have. **
5060 |
I for one cannot wait for an inferior machine to replace me! **
==>
|