1081) Alf, 21.10.2017, 01:41, 18:58; Arminius, 21.10.2017, 19:44, 20:12, 22:32, 23:40 (6580-6585)

Not to forget this one:

- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Roeder, Flür), Autobahn, 1974.

Alf wrote:

„Show me that „God is a contradiction“ (one of your false premises).
Show me that a „contradiction is impossible“ (one of your false premises).
Show me that „absolute perfection is an impossibility“ (one of your false premises).
Show me that „God is an impossibility“ (one of your false conclusions).“ ** **

Dan~ wrote:

„I want to spend my inheritance, when i get it, in the far future, upon a bunch of small interconnected houses.
I will find and invite people to live there. It will be on dad's farm land, so no rent issues.
We will have gardens and self-supplied organic foods.

The religion of Canada is freedom of choice.
So I must accept that first.
Next, I try to share my beliefs if it can help someone out.“ **

„Dad and Andrew don't like my idea at all.
They are ok with andrew spending his spare money on beer and weed.
Buying a new car or stuffing animals you've shot.
But when it comes to a commune, giving things to others,
that is some kind of a crime.

These humans are foolish and I won't let that stop my plans.
It's only a matter of time until I set something up.“ **

You are pretty much an idealist, whereas your Dad and your brother Andrew are pretty much realists (respectively: materialists, at least your Dad, or hedonists, at least your brother) and therefore do not like your idea.

Is this very first analysis true?

Those who want the seperation of Catalonia from Spain want to weaken Spain and to let come a conflict or even a war (civil war). History repeats somehow.

Also, this current case of Catalonia reminds me of the case of Ukraine.

Neither the Ukrainians and Russians nor the Catalans and the other Spanirads are those who want this conflicts and wars. They actually have no say. But others, who have the say, have interests in those conflicts and wars.

Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like „pi“ or „root two“. They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word „spiritual“ may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»

- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Europa endlos, 1977.

« ** **

I guess, you know this one too:

- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Trans Europa Expreß, 1977.

Don’t you?“ ** **

„Not to forget this one:

- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Roeder, Flür), Autobahn, 1974.

“ ** **

Or this one:

- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Das Modell, 1978.

I know all of them. But the music of the band Kraftwerk is not my most favorite one. My most favorite one is this:

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana, 1937. **

1082) Arminius, 22.10.2017, 01:01, 01:10, 02:55; Alf, 22.10.2017, 14:56, 15:24, 20:13, 20:59, 21:50, 22:24; Arminius, 22.10.2017, 22:38; Alf, 22.10.2017, 23:14 (6586-6596)

Or is it (**) called a „Sleudian frip“?

One of the comments:

„Not surprising, this is exactly the mentality of the American government.“ **

Pilgrim Tom, can you read Chinese by the way?

Alf wrote:

„Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.“ ** **

If there will be no sudden incident that will change this trend, then the machines will replace humans.

Arminius wrote:

„My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.“ ** **

So in this case, we can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm (=>3) will help us somehow.

Neitzche?

Do you mean Freidrisch Neitzche or Friedrich Nietzsche?

And what do you mean by „disprove“ here?

Shall we disprove his existence or what?

I don’t know any Neitzche.

He (**) did not misunderstand you (**).

And your pseudo-difference between „absolute perfection“ and „relative perfection“ is nonsense, because „absolute perfection“ is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so „relative perfection“ makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.

You (**) are wrong.

You don’t even know the simplest basics.

1) „Perfection“ means 100%, mathematically said. „Absolute“ means 100%, mathematically said.

2) „Impossibility“ has nothing to do with likelihood. It's like Jams S. Saint already said:

„And »impossible« doesn’t mean »unlikely« (to real people anyway). Impossible means that it is 100% certain that it does not exist at all.“ **

6592

Frank Zappa said:

„Don't expect friends, don't expect fun, don't expect a good life, don't expect anything; and if you get something, it's a bonus.“ **

Stupidest, yes (**), but also most narcissistic, most solipsistic, most nihilistic.

According to the narcissistic and homosexual VO „god“, a stone is a cow, a planet a bacterium, ... and an insult a part of his meal for his narcissism ..., and all this just because this solipsistic nihilist has said so.

So to him, equality means and has the same function as everything else: supporting and mirroring his maniac delusion that he is in agreement with himself.

Vanity Occultism. „I am God, and the Reality is My Mirror“!
__________________________________________________

Yes (**), at the „liberal“ and „egalitarian“ ILP.

Look, this is the only thing you can do: Personal attacks, ad homs, but no single argument.

We all know what „100%“ means. We don't need your stupid personal attacks in order to understand what „100%“ means".

And by the way: James S. Saint and others have already said what logic means. But you are merely asking:

„What exactly is logic?“ **

Will you ever grasp what logic is?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Your (**) arguments have nothing to do with this thread.“ **

His arguments have nothing to do with this thread.

It seems that he has inferiority complexes. Therefore he has to insult. No one of his posts lacks insults.

If Prismatic and other atheists want to say: „God does not exist“, why do they not do that instead of playing their stupid kind of language game?

That’s a rhetorical question (**|**), isn't it? I guess that you know why they don't do it.

They confuse many things with their wishful thinking and ideological beliefs. So, why should they not generally confuse objectivity, logic, God with subjectivity, wishful thinking, ideological beliefs?

1083) Arminius, 23.10.2017, 02:11, 03:25, 19:31, 22:42, 23:57 (6597-6001)

Life could be so easy. But the greed destroys everything. If animals were smarter and capable of speaking, they would certainly say: „Humans are beings of greed“.

Yes, it is (**).

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Life could be so easy. But the greed destroys everything. If animals were smarter and capable of speaking, they would certainly say: »Humans are beings of greed«.“ ** **

Arminius ... certainly few people would disagree.

Let's use your comment as a 'baseline' for further thought. A real world example ... so many people attribute the meteoric rise of China to Deng Xiaoping ... him being the person who opened the doors to China after these doors had been virtually closed to the outside world for almost 500 years.

Deng Xiaoping's strategy hinged on two axioms:

1) Cross the river by feeling the stones(with your feet) Find a stone ... step on it ... when convinced it's safe have your other foot find the next stone ... and in this way cross the river. ergo ... exercise cautious adventurism.

2) A little greed is OK ... ergo ... opening the door to greed only a crack will serve our purpose at the moment and we can easily close it again at the appropriate time.

His strategy seems to have worked ... and China has recently reached the stage where they want to close the door to greed again. ergo ... the highly publicized anti corruption campaign. The jury is still out on whether they will be successful or not.

For me, this real world example says the following:

1) Greed in certain circumstances has merit.“ **

Yes, indeed. I totally agree. I would not use the word „greed“ then. But you are right.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„ 2) Greed does not die a natural death ... greed must be killed ... an enormous and perhaps impossible task.

Let's change the scope of the example to the world ... the human race. Pervasive greed throughout human history brought us to where we are today ... not all bad. Has the time for greed to die come? I think so. Will greed die a natural death ... simply from old age? :-) Not likely.

What can/should we do?“ **

That is the question.

When I was talking about „greed“, I did not value that (I am very much an objectivist), but meant it as a fact. And it is just this fact why there is this „enormous and perhaps impossible task“ that you mentioned obove.

Thanks (**).

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mags J. wrote:

›That is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.‹ **

Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?« ** **

Less brawny/rugged, as your gentle demeanor (based on your literary offerings here) belies that.“ **

Is that true?

1084) Arminius, 24.10.2017, 01:34, 01:47; Alf, 24.10.2017, 04:34; Arminius, 24.10.2017, 15:20, 18:18, 18:45 (6602-6607)

We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say „I am an objectivist“, I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means ).

Copied post in another thread.

Although I’m an academic, I like gardening very much.

It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for „subjectivity“ and „objectivity“. The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Being the subjectivist you can always agree to disagree and being evasive is a virtue among the effeminate. So that’s why most people will choose the “It’s all cool, man, it’s all just an opinion, man.” option.
But, there comes a point where the masses become irritated with all the most extreme looney cases among them who demand equal air time or even more air time with their subjective opinions and that’s when they cry for more objectivism. Objectivism for them means that an authority figure(s) sets boundaries for right opinions.

Johann Wolfgang von Gothe wrote in The Experiment as Mediator of Object and Subject:

»Those human beings undertake a much more difficult task whose desire for knowledge kindles a striving to observe the things of nature in and of themselves and in their relations to one another. We no longer have the standard that helped us when we looked at things in relation to ourselves. We lack the measure of pleasure and displeasure, attraction and repulsion, use and harm. We must renounce these and as quasi-divine beings seek and examine what is and not what pleases. True botanists should not be touched by the beauty or the utility of a plant. They should investigate the plant’s formation and its relation to the remaining plant kingdom. Just as the sun coaxes forth and shines on all plants, botanists should consider all plants with an even and quiet gaze and take the measure for knowledge—the data that form the basis for judgment—not out of themselves but out of the circle of what they observe.

People are in their lives much more often subjective than objective with their assessment of something and why wouldn’t they. It’s their life which depends on evaluating something in accordance with their needs.
Objectivity helps with this decision making, it provides a more accurate evaluation of reality in particular longterm consequences but ultimately the decision is always based on what is good for us as a subject, or what we deem to be good.

So what is a subjectivist and an objectivist?
Does the subjectivist denounce the validity of trying to be objective in an assessment of reality?
Does the objectivist not ultimately consider his subjective preferences and needs when making decisions? Are they universal?“ **

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying „I am an objectivist“ is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never besure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, „being an objectivist“ is more like „becoming an objectivist“. It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.

Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).

The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.

It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists.

1085) Arminius, 25.10.2017, 19:16, 23:59 (6608-6609)

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions.« ** **

Do you mean to not exclusively consider his subjective preferences when making his decisions or do you mean to not consider his subjective preferences?“ **

Idealistically said, an objectivist excludes all kinds of subjectivity. That is difficult to do. So: Realistically said, an objectivist tries to exclude all kinds of subjectivity. An objectivist is comparable to a monk. Monks were the first scientists. Excluding all kinds of subjectivity is a huge task.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Because objective inquiry is always detached from making decisions. It’s about understanding the phenomenon at hand.
A judgement is always subjective but of course it’s not necessarily based on only very narrow-minded considerations.“ **

A judgement can but does not have to be based on subjectivity alone; mostly it is based on both subjectivity and objectivity and sometimes even on objectivity alone. In the vast majority of cases, when it is based on both, the question whether it is more based on subjectivity than on objectivity or vice versa depends on the kind and the form of the respective culture.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„For some Europeans there exists a desire to be objective in their judgement of others or in other words a sense of fairness, of truthfulness which must be fulfilled.“ **

They are likely confusing objectivity with fairness and also with truthfulness. All three are not the same. But to someone who is decadent, nihilistic, the meanings of objectivity, fairness and truthfulness are very close or even identical. These decadents are, philosophically said, influenced more by ethics (high degree of subjectivity, low degree of objectivity) than by logic (high degree of objectivity, low degree of subjectivity). They are no objectivists. Objectivists are more like monks who live for only one goal: excluding subjectivity by doing exercices.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„This sense can be misdirected and exploited by hypocritical cheats and liars.“ **

Yes, and this happens currently more than ever before.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„When you judge something then you do this in relation to an ideal, like a notion of good and bad in a specific context.
So when you say that a judgement itself can be objective then I presume that you see some ideals or an ideal to be independent from a thinking subject, to be “out there” as a guiding principle.

Or are you thinking in terms of laws of nature and deriving ideals ... for people, to be ultimately based on them?“ **

Yes, knowing that the validity of these „laws of nature“ can more or less only be temporary. The more exercises, ecperiences, experiments, observations, objectivity are done, the closer comes the goal (aim).

It takes time ....

It needs calm ....

1086) Arminius, 26.10.2017, 01:00 (6610)

- Susumu Yokota, Acid Mt. Fuji, 1994.

1087) Alf, 27.10.2017, 01:13; Arminius, 27.10.2017, 03:04, 21:26 (6611-6613)

Mags J. wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.« ** **

They do (tend to eradicate all other competitors)? Has something happened that I don't know about?“ **

Yes, because I said: „they will tend ....“!

Mags J. wrote:

„Some bot vs. human war?“ **

Humans and machines are in state of competition, and many of the humans help the machines to win this competition in a similar way as the white humans help all other humans to eliminate the white humans, although or because the white humans have brought the progress to all humans, thus also to the non-white humans. And now white humans as the inventors of machines are not needed anymore, since other humans and even machines can already invent machines.

This situation seems to be paradoxical. There is the same seeming paradox between two groups of humans too: Those who give benefit and help and those who get this benefit and help. The disappearance of those who give benefit and help is affirmed by those who get this benefit and help from the former. So, this is in spite of the fact that the latter are benefitting and getting help from the former. This seeming paradox can be solved, since those who give benefit and help are too expensive and not needed any longer, and those who get benefit and help are still cheaper and still needed (this will likely change in the future too). There is a similar seeming paradox between machines and certain (and later likely all) humans.

So, not only can and do e.g. feminists and islamists or e.g. white white-haters and non-white white-haters have the same enemy, this can and do e.g. intelligent machines and stupid people too. They all have only one enemy: the white men.

Mags J. wrote:

„Has this tendency been proven in the field, as it were? Or is this just simply a bold claim you have decided to make?“ **

Why should machines not do what living beings do? Machines are products of humans. Being like purely rational humans, machines are more rational and thus more efficient than humans. Humans are not purely rational, but only relatively rational, since they are emotional too. So, the sentence „humans invented machines“ can be interpreted as „humans invented purely rational humans who lack a biological system“. This „purely rational humans who lack a biological system“ are the machines. If they get a biological system, then they are „merely“ androids, not humans. And if humans become more like machines, they are „merely“ cyborgs, not machines. Maybe humans and machines will become similar to each other in the future, but they will never become the same. As Arminius has already explained, the only chance for the humans’ survival in the future will be to get more and more similar to the machines, because otherwise humans will likely disappear.

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Machines need resources like any other product otherwise they will become obsolete. That does not necessarily mean elimination of competitors although that is an option.“ **

Not necessarily. That’s right. I was speaking about a tendency.

„Alf wrote:

»Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.« ** **

Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.

Machines as the product of humans tend to do the same. The difference is that machines are capable of doing this much more effectively than humans. If they will do it, is a different issue. What I have said is that there is this tendency to eradicate all competitors.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in The Experiment as Mediator of Object and Subject (original: Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt - 1792 **):

»Those human beings undertake a much more difficult task whose desire for knowledge kindles a striving to observe the things of nature in and of themselves and in their relations to one another. We no longer have the standard that helped us when we looked at things in relation to ourselves. We lack the measure of pleasure and displeasure, attraction and repulsion, use and harm. We must renounce these and as quasi-divine beings seek and examine what is and not what pleases. True botanists should not be touched by the beauty or the utility of a plant. They should investigate the plant’s formation and its relation to the remaining plant kingdom. Just as the sun coaxes forth and shines on all plants, botanists should consider all plants with an even and quiet gaze and take the measure for knowledge — the data that form the basis for judgment — not out of themselves but out of the circle of what they observe.«

“ **

Agreed. Goethe was right.

1088) Arminius, 28.10.2017, 02:15, 02:48, 20:31, 21:49 (6614-6617)

Does a thought not always be a conscious one (according to you)?

Arminius wrote:

„The soul is similar to Kant’s »Ding an sich« (»thing at itself« / »thing as such«), Schopenhauer’s »Wille« (»will«).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: „As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables“. And they are not only epistemologically important.

The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains »most things away« (**)? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like »pi« or »root two«. They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word »spiritual« may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....“ ** **

Brando wrote:

„Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.“ **

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:

„This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?“ **

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Alf wrote:

„And where is Otto West (seriously)?“ ** **

There are some hints in his thread „Leaving Society, Dropping Out, And The Proverbial Rat Race“ (**).

1089) Alf, 29.10.2017, 20:55, 21:18; Arminius, 29.10.2017, 23:04, 23:18 (6618-6621)

The question reamains: Why followed this permaban?

The more global control, the more „Liberias“.

And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million „Liberias“?

I thought that the question was, why there was that warning at all.

1090) Alf, 30.10.2017, 17:44, 18:33, 18:56, 19:43, 22:31, 22:42; Arminius, 30.10.2017, 23:23, 23:48, 23:58, 23:59 (6622-6631)

Only Humean wrote:

„As I understand it from her user notes, it was for http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2683698 and (predominantly) the subsequent postings.“ **

If it had been for that posting and (predominantly) the subsequent postings, then the two who posted in that thread before Ultimate Philosophy 1001 would have been permabanned for a very, very long time.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»The more global control, the more ›Liberias‹.« ** **

And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million »Liberias«?“ ** **

Unless the globalists will be stopped.

Arminius wrote:

„Brando wrote:

»Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.« **

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:

»This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?« **

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.“ ** **

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?

Ur-thoughts are conscious too. All thoughts are conscious. Even if they are in contact with instincts: Thoughts are always conscious.

So you (**) are also saying that the issue is handled in a very unfair/unjust way.

Arminius wrote:

„Only Humean wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.‹ ** **

Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.« **

One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.

Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).

Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.

In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the „evolution“ of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called „progress“ and the so called „revolutions“) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).“ ** **

And when will the third phase end?

Maybe you want to read the following threads: ** (**), ** .

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

›Arminius wrote:

'Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.' ** **

Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.‹ **

One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.

Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).

Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.

In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the „evolution“ of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called „progress“ and the so called „revolutions“) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).« ** **

And when will the third phase end?“ ** **

One could think: 2070. Right?  –  What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.

Alf wrote:

„Ur-thoughts are conscious too. All thoughts are conscious. Even if they are in contact with instincts: Thoughts are always conscious.“ ** **

Yes.

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›The more global control, the more 'Liberias'.‹ ** **

And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million ›Liberias‹?« ** **

Unless the globalists will be stopped..“ ** **

When?

==>