WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [521][522][523][524][525][526][527][528][529][530] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 521) Arminius, 24.07.2014, 00:01, 00:43, 01:13, 01:49, 02:05, 02:22, 02:38, 03:43, 03:59, 04:30, 04:31, 04:52, 15:31, 15:38, 15:56, 16:04, 16:51 (1632-1648)

1632

The first award goes to Fuse again (**|**). Congratulations.

The first award:

F.U.S.E. - Substance Abuse, 1991.

Congratulations, Fuse.

1633

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„At first I thought that article was just satire.

And then I found out I was right.“

That was not a satire, but an excuse to not be unnecessarily accused of incitement of the people / sedition.

The answer of the question of the other article („Did a Professor Instruct White Male Students to Commit Suicide for the Benefit of Society?“) is: YES.

1634

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?« ** **

Machines that make other machines or themselves or machines made by humans?“ **

Both machines that make other machines or themselves and machines made by humans..

I estimate that the reproduction rate of the machines is about 10.

1635

Topic: Talking about the END OF STATES.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled „Talking about the END OF HISTORY“ (**|**) I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials (**|**). Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

1636

Topic: Suggestions to the question: „What is »psyche«?“.

One of the least understood concepts is that of the „psyche“. Formerly the word „psyche“ was used mythological and religiously and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment of new religions. Funny, isn't it? No, that's not funny, that's fateful, isn't it?

1637

James S. Saint wrote:

„The design is that not only will the states disappear, but even the nations as the new order of boundaries gets installed. All of North America is to be one »nation« with newly assigned regions, equivalent to »states« or provinces. No more USA or Constitutions. In Europe, the countries are to be melted into a new regional map also under one reign.“ **

It is well known that the Glozis want to abolish the nations and have already abolished the nations for the most part; but it is not so well known that they also want to abolish the states.

Please note: nation and state are not identical.

1638

By the way: Shall I name the „user names“ of the avatars in that 2nd brainteaser (**|**) ?

1639

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But how would you define a ›particle‹ then?« ** **

Particle = a small self-sustaining cluster of affectance.
A Sub-atomic Particle = a particle within or smaller than an atom.
Monoparticle = a particle with a single center of affectance concentration (electron, positron, neutrino).
Polyparticle = a particle with multiple centers of affectance concentration (proton, neutron, atomic nucleus).“ **

But a cluster may consist of several particles.

1640

Obe wrote:

„The idea behind that, Arminius, is that with the dissolution of natural states will follow the dissolution of states of mind, vis. consciousness.(self)
Now the end of history represents nationalistic wars ad infinitum, with regional jealousies, conflicts of sovereign power relating to those jealousies.

At the present time, it has been realized, that the corruption of power is still within the realm of possibility, yet, conflict resolution is not within the context of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Among those who hold to this view, the possibility of war under these circumstances is not preferable to a conventional age, where such distinctions could still be held in check.

Gorbachev and Reagan realized this; and the incalculable pain that would result. What say you to this form of argument?“ **

I say that they had to do it because they were merely the puppets of those who wanted them to do it.

Sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states are in a position to better solve. But that should not be solved by states, because for the rulers the control of the people is easier to do without states - according the motto „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“.

1641

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Too noble? If so, that would be a good omen, wouldn't it?« ** **

Good and bad. They fight against what they can't measure up to, just as the lower class fights the upper class, and for the same reasons. But the fact that it displays its nobility for all to see makes it hard for the lesser nobility to deny it.“ **

The real (!) upper class wants the other two classes (middle and lower class) to fight each other - according to the motto: „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“.

1642

James S. Saint wrote:

„And if you are going to count the nanobots, the machine count would be in the trillions and the reproduction rate maybe around million:one.“ **

Yes, or even more.

1643

James S. Saint wrote:

Brain = a neural network.
Psyche = the subtle behavior of a neural network, subtle affectance within a mind.
Mind = the total behavior of a neural network, a particle of the psyche affectance.

Psy·che 1 (sk)
n.
1. The spirit or soul.
2. Psychiatry The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment.

Mind (mnd)
n.
1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.
3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.
4. The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge.“ **

Obe wrote:

„To psyche could be discerned by excluding all that is not of it (the psyche) It's too general of a word to define in terms of it's self. It has to exclude the so called object of it's focus , thereby gaining it's relational meaning as different from. (it's self)“ **

Shouldn't we start with the meaning of the Ancient Greek word „psyche“ and the definition of the Ancient Greek concept „psyche“?

1644

Moreno wrote:

„The West no longer has states or nations.“ **

To a degree. The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states or nations have not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.

Moreno wrote:

„I think some of the third world have nations, to a degree, but these nations are controlled wherever the interest is there from the big players, who are not nations.“ **

Yes. That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.

Moreno wrote:

„Russia and China seem to exist, still, irritating the big Players.“ **

Yes. But Russia and China are more empires than nations.

But note (again): Nations and states do not mean the same. Talking about the END OF STATES (**|**) is the topic of this thread.

1645

Obe wrote:

„This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?

If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?“ **

Which factors do you mean?

1646

Originally - in Ancient Greek - „psyche“ had the meaning of „breath“, „breeze“, „soul“, than it had remained as „soul“ for about 2000 years. Since modern times it has been changing to everything you want, and that is very much different from the older meaning.

Our current (modern Western) understanding of „psyche“ is entirely wrong. „Psyche“ has changed from a mythological, religious, and idealistic word and concept to a purely (idealistic) ideological, propagandistic word and concept.

1647

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»The real upper class wants the other two classes (middle and lower class) to fight each other - according to the motto: ›DIVIDE ET IMPERA‹.« ** **

Depends on what you call »real«.

Noble means »pure, uncorrupted«. So on the level that I am talking about, being a King doesn't necessarily mean that you are noble.“ **

In order to be an upper class the upper class does not have to be „noble“, but an upper class.

1648

James S. Saint wrote:

„With proper use of technology, that isn't the issue that it used to be.

Actually the Greeks with their »city-states« and Moses with his regional Pharisees, had the right general idea, but lacked precision and required too many people. Technology resolved both of those concerns and allows for the freedom of the city-state method by using extremely small »cities«, SAM Corporations.

Jesus had everything right but didn't mention the issue of momentum (too much quite peace void of the necessary momentous harmony). The Catholics then compounded that concern by trying to establish single a world order, the »Holy Roman Empire« - went the wrong direction, just as the Globzis of today.

Man keeps trying to bring it ALL under one rule, not understanding that the only "supreme ruler" has to be Reality itself and that requires what we call "localized democracy and culture".

The rulers (Glozis) can forbid the access to the technology!

 

NACH OBEN 522) Arminius, 25.07.2014, 01:47 (1649)

1649

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Mind = the functioning of a neural network or brain, ›psyche‹.
Spirit / Ghost (›Geist‹) = Behavior, activity, energy of.
Soul = fundamental architecture, design, function, definition or purpose.« **

In German, it is a little bit different:

....
»Geist« = »mind«, »conscience«, »consciousness«, »awareness«, »esprit«, »spirit«, »genie«, »intelligence«, »intellect, »apprehension«, »brain«, »sense« etc..
»Seele« = »soul«, »pysche«, and in some sense: »mind« (=> »Geist«).

So if I retranslate, I get:

»Mind« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Spirit« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Ghost« = »Geist«, so: very much more than »Psyche«.
»Soul« = »Seele«, »Psyche«.“ ** **

„Arminius wrote:

Geist
Psyche
Biological Body
Anorganic Things
Schichtenlehre gemäß Nicolai Hartmann

On the right side you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called „Hyle“. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things „stem“ Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relatively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to what the levels are by themselves, they do not depend on on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.

So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself.“ ** **

Instead of „anorganic things“ one could also say „non-biological beings“, instead of „biologycla body“ one could also say „living beings“ (in an exvlusively biological sense).

 

NACH OBEN 523) Arminius, 26.07.2014, 01:52, 02:11, 02:19, 02:41, 03:22, 16:43 20;35, 22:58, 23:11, 23:40, 23:46 (1650-1660)

1650

In any case, the meaning of „psyche“ has changed because the zeitgeist and especially the social general environment by industrialisation / mechanisation / automatisation have changed. There is a correlation between them.

In general I use „psyche“ in the sense of „not really organic and also not really spiritual (geistig)“. Psychology can be found somewhere between sociobiology, or mere sociology, and philosophy. I often prefer „semiotics“ especially when I put the focus on the signs or characters - they give nore information.

1651

The state is being undermined at the base by the resolution of the supporting institutions and loses itself upward by the insertion in getting others, always new, uncontrollable structures.

1652

You call such a „cluster“ also a „clump“, don't you?

1653

Armedrobots.com:

„Robots Have Begun Writing the News.“

„Mini Humanoid Robots Starting to Walk More Like People“

„Humans Are Programmed to Obey Robots.“

„Robots With Machine Guns, Robotic Pack Mules.“

„The Ethics of War Bots.“

„New Algorithm Detects Humans with near 100% Accuracy.“

AND SO ON ....

1654

What is tried again and again, is to be powerful, to be the most powerful. They need all people in order to rule, to control them, and therefor they have to split, to divide them. That seems to be a paradox, but it happens due is to an old effective method of ruling: „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“.

1655

James S. Saint wrote:

„True and thus it is imperative to form that which cannot be divided, the true »Philosopher's Stone«. What I am proposing is that SAM is the closest thing to that stone that homosapian can form, even more so than the original family and »bloodline«.“ **

For „SAM“ the challenge or problem are its enemies, especially the Glozis because they don't want any enemy, rival, competitor. They would not tolerate it, if a „communal particle“ like „SAM“ had a successful monetary currency or even other successful currencies (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

A successful own currency will never be allowed by the Globalists. An autarky will never be allowed by the Globalists. They will never allow an economy that is directed against their economy.

1656

Obe wrote:

„The i is what Descartes tries to ascertain. His starting point is doubting his very existence, and not the composition of it. How can he be sure he exists? That he thinks, is the only proof, since thinking includes all other sub groups ; thinking he is thinking , thinking he is perceiving and acting, moving. All manner of human endeavor is thinking. He can be sure of that.

Since existenze has been reduced to phenomena, the new motto is esse est percipii , or i exist, because i perceive. Phenomenology and thought has been disconnected, because of the vagaries and horrors of the last great world war. It is simply taking a new attitude,one in which the disconnect is asserted simply for reason being tangential and unverifiable.

If the thinking process would be reexamined in the context of 'consciousness' , definitionally, and reconnected to 'what is reasonable', a reexamination of the outright dismissal of the cogito, could be attempted definitionally. It is the dissection of thought from consciousness , which gives pause, and Descartes may reply, that he is victim of the change in the way Being is interpreted, definitionally.

Descartes has been re-considered in this way.“ **

Yes, you are right, but for Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenology the world war (WW1) was not as important as you may think because Husserl founded his phenomenology from 1900 to 1913 (thus: BEFORE WW1 [1914-1918]). Starting from the phenomenology Heidegger developed his existential philosophy, which became the first and the only real existential philosophy and conquered the world.

1657

You are talking about the subject/object-dualism.

Arminius wrote:

„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 (**).“ ** **

„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.“ ** **

„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?“ ** **

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

„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.“ ** **

„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.“ ** **

„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?“ ** **

„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. .... “ ** **

„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.“ ** **

„Many people don't think very much, but if (if!) they really think that something exists, they do it in two different ways: (1) subjectively, so they think existence has merely to do with the thinking subject, and (2) objectively, so they think existence is something which has nothing to do with the thinking subject. Merely the second way is also the way to think that »waves of affectance come from the objects to affect«. If they think they »can perceive the objects«, they actually have to ask themselves, whether that objects »exist« without any subject or because of the »existence« of the perceiving subject, so that objects don't »exist«. I am speaking about the subject/object dualism. Is subjectivity or objectivity that what we call »reality« or is it both, so that there is no solution for the subject/object dualism?“ ** **

„We can think the nothingness and the difference between subject and object. Is this difference the nothingness? Or is it even the »affectance«? Or both? Are they the same (see above) or at least similar? If so, then we can't know anything of them because it is the definition - the linguistic convention or the lingusitic laws - of the word „nothing“ to be nothing at all, and the noun for that is „nothingness“.

You can't just brush aside our ability for thinking the nothingness and the subject/object dualism.“ ** **

„I don't believe that but I also don't deny that it is possible. If someone believes that, I would not say that it is absolutely wrong to believe that. Remember that we are philophising, and the philosophy has not resolved the problem of the subject/object dualism. The science can't resolve it anyway, and I think the philosophy probably neither.“ ** **

1658

Why are you so sure, or are you not sure?

1659

The worst racism is the auto-racism (racism towards one’s own race). The Whites daily show how auto-racism works.

1660

Doesn't what?

 

NACH OBEN 524) Arminius, 27.07.2014, 00:01, 03:19 (1661-1662)

1661

RM:AO doesn't change to be sure - that's what you meant. Right?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Or in physics: An object once set in motion, continues in motion (if there is nothing to interfere with it).“ **

Our existence is surrounded by interferences - everywhere. We live in an atmosphere. It gives us protection. But it is also the reason for the many interferences and other disorders.

1662

Back to one of the most important questions of this thread:

Humans or machines: who or what will win?

 

NACH OBEN 525) Arminius, 28.07.2014, 04:37, 14:49, 17:07, 22:30, 23:02, 23:38, 23:59, (1663-1669)

1663

The sentence „I am“ and the sentence „I am not“ can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: „Am I?“, „Am I not?“, „Is anything outside of me?“, „Is nothing outside of me?“ ...?

Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.

1664

If one says „I think“, or „I am aware“, or „I am“, then this one says something about a subject („I“) and about an object („think“, „am aware“, „am“) or a predicate. The problem of the „subjet/object-dualism“ is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession: the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith.

1665

Wfs.org:

„When the Machines Take Over.

By Marc Blasband

The year 2100 will be in the midst of the age of the machine. If today we use machines everywhere for everything, then by 2100 they will go one step further: They will rule and decide. The goal of their society will be more and better machines, not more and better human lives, our objective today.

We see already now three seeds of this revolution:

1. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances slowly but steadily. With time, let us say 50 years, the machine will achieve understanding. It will then use all of Wikipedia (or its equivalent). It will command the entirety of human knowledge.

2. Today, more and more connections are built between machines. These connections, coupled with advances in AI, will form a very powerful network of understanding that will surpass by a thousand times the best that humans can offer.

3. We begin to build machines that behave without direct control by their human masters, like the rovers that we deploy on Mars.

When the machine understands independently, it will become conscious of its own existence and its own value. In the same way that we human are proud of our humanity (whether we include a god in the loop or not), they will be proud of their machinity.

On the other hand, earthly resources such as water, energy, and food will become so scare that violent wars between geopolitical giants will emerge before 2070. The doctrine of these wars will most probably be the same as today’s: Sacrifice machines to protect human soldiers. This will clearly be unacceptable for the machines on all sides of the conflict, and it is predictable that together they will rebel and annihilate all the armies.

At that point, the machines will rule the earth—not by government, but by control and knowledge. The available resources will be reserved to develop more and better machines. Immortality will be one of their goals: They will be built or retrofitted to survive thousands of years. Our human dream to visit the stars will then become possible, but machines will make that journey, not humans.

For humans, these times will be harsh. People will die from all sorts of sicknesses that are cured today. Food will be scarce, energy unavailable, and comfort something of the past. Agriculture will use horses and oxen again instead of tractors. Alcohol and meat will be restricted because their production consumes too much resources.

Some people will lead a marginal life on grounds not needed by the economy. Others will serve the system in areas where the machines are not good at: creativity and imagination. The machines will indeed exploit human slaves for art and science.

In less than 30, years the human population will shrink from 9 billion to a mere 100 million souls - the world population at the time of Aristotle.

About the author:

Marc Blasband has 50 years of experience related to computer software. He is now retired and living in the Belgian Ardennes.“ **

See also: Debate.org, Zumaworld.blogspot.de, NYtimes.com (mainstream), Xconomy.com.

1666

James, what would the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field be?

1667

Who is really thinking? God?

When you think that you think, what do you then think about the question „who is really thinking“?

1668

A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can’t exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.

1669

And where does all that noise come from (originally) ?

 

NACH OBEN 526) Arminius, 29.07.2014, 00:10, 00:34, 01:02, 02:14, 04:11, 04:49, 18:26, 20:13, 21:47, 22:54 (1670-1679)

1670

You say that „a clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable »particle« – a »standing wave« of noise“ (**). But you don't say where the noise comes from.

The question is not what noise physically is, but the question is where noise comes from according to RM:AO.

1671

So you are saying that the noise is as well eternal as the universe.

And because noise is electromagnetic you are also saying that the electromagentic „force“ is - as well as the elctromagnetic field (thus: affectance) - eternal.

That’s all without any beginning and without any ending.

1672

So noise and every analogy to noise can cause a so called „black hole“ because the noise can increase as much as it is possible (probably to infinity) and the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field, is really „confusion, conflict, and disorder“ (**), as you say: „Such confusion and disorder naturally retards itself into anomalous congestion, commonly known as »cities«. The city is »a particle« of society, as well as states, nations, and empires. The most immediate concern is that such confusion causes undue conflict and suffering, commonly known as »Hell on Earth« and reigned over by deception (aka »Satan« and »The Matrix«). Because none within the field can do anything substantially certain to change anything, the larger particle of noise continues unopposed: »Eternal Hell on Earth«: A single great particle, »black-hole«. .... Socially, the »noise« is the activity of people. Psychologically, the »noise« is the cloud of perceived potential hopes and threats. Economically, the »noise« is the activity of trade by every means. .... Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, »random EMR«.“ (**). So the noise can't disappear and has a posive and negative charge, personally or socially said: a posive and negative character.

And because „machines merely conflict faster, making the »noise« more substantial, »louder« (such as guns ...)“ the probability that they or their creators may cause a „black hole“ is higher than without machines. Said in your terms: „Machines, being far more intelligent and rational than humans eventually surmise that the only efficient way to handle the work load is to maintain small groups of relatively autonomous machines (packs of androids) networked together in a specific manner (SAM Corps) and networked to the entire world of machines in a specific manner (A vast body: Machine Manifestation), void of human interference and thus becoming far more capable than anything on Earth at maintaining themselves and accomplishing all needs: surviving by eliminating inefficiencies such as humans and all organic life.“ (**). So one of the conclusions of this is that for you the probability that the machines will eliminate all humans is higher than for me.

1673

Futuremagazine.net: „THE COMPETENCE BETWEEN HUMANS AND MACHINES.“

**

1674

What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

1675

Welcome on ILP again, Laughing Man!

Laughing Man wrote:

„Psychiatry As A Way Of Population And Thought Control.“ **

Yes. And not only psychiatry.

1676

What am I doing? Well, right now I am writing and wondering what award Fuse will get, if he will win the third brainteaser too (you may compare his first first award [**|**] and second first award [**|**]). The third first arward should be one of the following four films:

1) F.U.S.E., Train-Trac. 1, 1993,
2) F.U.S.E., Train-Trac. (Kaboose), 1993,
3) Lady Morphia, Brothers, 1999,
4) Lady Morphia, Widerstand, 2007.

But maybe it could also be one of the follwing two films:

1) Peter Sloterdijk, Zur Welt kommen, 1990,
2) Peter Sloterdijk, Gefährliches Denken, 1997.

Peter Sloterdijk is a German philosopher. Perhaps Fuse can learn something from him, provided that Fuse is able to speak German. In any case it would be a well chosen award.

1677

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a ›black hole‹?« ** **

There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.

What must be done is simply to distribute the wealth that is life such that the density can never reach a maximum. The separation must be maintained by natural means. In the past that has been done by land, language, culture, and ontology, the very things that Globalism seeks to unite and homogenize into a great glob. What keeps life safe and continuing is its disbursement. But even that has a balance. Rather than a great single particle, there must be very many autonomous particles merely networked together to share wisdom, not obedience. And to keep them separate, he must learn wisdom. The human body does not simply grow ever larger, but disperses into many relatively autonomous bodies that share their wisdom.

When a man finally learns of the exact make of life, he no longer seeks for ever more and more, but seeks only precise balance, never actually too much nor too little, yet carefully swaying between a little more and a little less so as to keep track of the varying limits. Having ten wives, a wise man would most probably give up eight and possibly all of them, but in the right way. Having millions of dollars, a wise man would give up most of it, and in the right way. But until he learns of the make of life, he hasn't any idea what to give up, how much, nor of the right way to give.

So homosapian would have to learn of the actual make of life and then very precisely distribute the wealth that is life accordingly, something that machines can be made capable of doing far more precisely than humans. Machines have a place with homosapian. Machines properly designed and used enhance life where ever they are. Humans properly taught enhance life where ever they are as well. Even animals recognize that in humans. There is no more to be gained than that.

But Man cannot do what Man will not do.“ **

I've expected this answer.

The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I’m sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) „Communal particles“ or „SAM“ („Social Anentropic Molecule“) Corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.

1678

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, I don't know what you want to call them, but basically the continents (North America, Africa, Asia, Europe, ...) become the primary separation between centers (which I would call »nations«) with »provinces« within each. It is more like a polyparticle (»weak force« holding the empire together).

And SAM doesn't become a significant part of anything until the very end of the blind lusting. SAM IS the end of the blind lusting and the dissolution of the last empire.“ **

The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

1679

The noise (the inequality of the density of the noise) causes the particle motion. But why is it noise? It must be something electromagnetic, of course, but why noise?

 

NACH OBEN 527) Arminius, 30.07.2014, 00:00, 02:35, 17:04, 17:54, 19:25, 20:05, 20:37, 22:31, 22:42, 23:43 (1680-1689)

1680

When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.

What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.

1681

Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?

1682

Moreno wrote:

„How much do you think the various Empires had to do with this - Roman, English and American come to mind. The last is a nation that came to be identified in practical rather than cultural terms. Any culture could function here as long as it respected the bureaucracies of the ever practical concept of nationhood. Just as anyone could become a roman and then in general any empire inevitably integrates, through various processes, those it colonizes. OH, yes and the US is also responsible for corporate personhood. That eliminated state control of corporations except to the extent that it could create them and does.

Of course nations are not innocent. I mean, they were often nationed via the royalty. Talk about BS. From there their histories were just more propaganda.

I am no globalist, but it seems to me we will have to deal with this, because the lies have to unravel and they were not going to internally. And by the way, I am not using 'have to' in moral terms. Though there is a hint of practical terms...we need to.

I am more of a tribalist so for me the nation builders were just early globalists working with the transportation and communications systems they had to determine their goals. I weep not for the death of nations, though I have concerns about what it will lead to.

Me I liked it back when the person who led well, got to lead the tribe and if people lost confidence, well there went the job. And there was a lot of discussion and organic decision making, with the leader almost a focal point and not a leader.

Governmentally, things have been going downhill from there.“ **

When I was saying that nations „are one of the greatest Western creations“ (**|**), I was referring to a cultural merit and to democracy (**|**) and not saying that „nations are the best“, but saying that I don't know a better social form when it comes to manage the greatest possible social form. Empires can only be held together, if they are like dictatorships, if they are totalitarian (**|**).

From another thread

Arminius wrote:

„The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I'm sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) „Communal particles“ or „SAM“ („Social Anentropic Molecule“) Corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.“ ** **

1683

So let me come back to my question:

Arminius wrote:

„What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a »black hole«?“ ** **

Because your answer was:

James S. Saint wrote:

„There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain. .... Man cannot do what Man will not do.“ **

If „his fate“ is really „so certain“, why should we then form a „Communal particle“ or „SAM“ („Social Anentropic Molecule“) corporation?, why should we then defend ourselves against the globalists?, and why should we then defend ourselves against the machines?

Do you really love philosophy?

1684

Topic: Do you really love philosophy?

Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy.

But what about you? Do you really love philosophy?

Notice that the accentuation is on the word „love“!

One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe I've merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb „love“ is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb „lieben“, and the English substantive „love“ is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive „Liebe“ , but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term „love“ can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says „I love stones" instead of „I like stones“? If „love“ and „like“ become the same or almost the same - I think that's the current semantic development of these two words -, then it is quite a loss of language and philosophy.

So again: Do you really love philosophy?

1685

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, imagine that you teleported back in time to pre-Roman Empire days. You know what is going to take place, an empire is going to form. And you know that it is going to get nasty, corrupt, and fall. Are you just going to throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, nothing I can do about it" and roll over and die? Or are you going to prepare for it in the best way you can at the time? Take care of at least yourself?

You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.“ **

That's right. So the human „fate“ was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasn’t it? You said: „Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.“ (**). Who is „Man“ in that sentence? If „Man“ means „all human beings“ in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire „is going to fall toward, SAM“.

1686

Obe wrote:

I really love philosophy. I really like philosophy. It really matters little to make the distinction, because it has been so much watered down that i would not be totally out of line if I said i like god, but love my dog. And, if someone asked me why, I could say something as trivial as I love my dog because he understands me better then anyone else.

Then the retort to that, would follow, that God, understands You better than Your dog, can be countered with, yes but my dog barks when he understands.“ **

So for you there is no or merely a little difference whether you love your parents, your siblings, your sons and daughters, and your wife, etc., or you „love“ the dead things, the ideas, the images, the words and texts, the numbers and functions, etc.?

1687

Pandora wrote:

„I think philosophy is stalking me.

Sometimes, I just want to be left alone and at peace.“ **

Yeah, but sometimes one wants to be left alone and at peace by parents, siblings, sons and daughters, husbands or wives, etc., too.

Beloved humans are allowed to annoy or even to stalk, because they are loved.

1688

Why do the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle of noise longer than others when the center of the noise shifts?

1689

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„I want to wallow in philosophy like a pig in shit. I love it.“ **

A pig does not (necessarily) love the shit, but uses it only to get rid of annoying bugs. So a pig probably likes the shit, but it doesn't love the shit.

 

NACH OBEN 528) Arminius, 31.07.2014, 00:23, 03:02, 03:20, 04:09, 04:49, 04:56, 16:46, 17:14, 17:38, 23:27, 23:27 (1690-1700)

1690

James S. Saint wrote:

„Don't confuse »Man« (Mankind as a whole) with »a man« nor with »every man«. Just because Man forms into an empire, doesn't mean that every single man is an imperialist.

If your goal is to alter Man, you have some extremely powerful competition who won't even let you know of their goals and will be very presumptuous about, and condemning of, yours. Altering Man is a monumental task, very unlikely to succeed or change hardly anything. Thus Man has a relatively fixed fate. But an individual man, having more influence over his own life, can alter his own fate through devoted decisions.

And then by someone, anyone, displaying the effectiveness of SAM when the time is finally right (whenever that is), Man as a whole will catch onto the idea sooner and if Man is in sufficient control of most men (being dictatorially imperialistic), the idea of SAM will very quickly become the fate of Man.“ **

I thought that you meant the human beings as such, or that man who rules or represents all human beings, when you used the word „Man“.

James S. Saint wrote:

The only question is whether Man will be made of homosapian-humans, transhuman-humans, cyborg-humans, or machine-humans at that time.“ **

Yes, or like I said: The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That's the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen? ** **

1691

Kriswest wrote:

„I find it a helpful tool for life.“ **

Yes, philosophy is sometimes similar to art, but mostly yet different. It's a bit like Schopenhauer said in his book: „Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung“ („The World as Will and Representation“), 1818. Merely the genius of music, or poetry, or visual arts, can consider and illustrate the eternal ideas by pure contemplation and unusual power of imagination. The music has a particularly high significance, since the music does not reflect the ideas, what the other arts do, but the music is the immediate objectification of the world will in us. Do you like (not love ) Schopenhauer?

Therefore some music from Wolfgang A. Mozart and Ludwig v. Beethoven:

- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte, 1791,
- Ludwig van Beethoven, Ode an die Freude (Freude schöner Götterfunken), 1815-1824.

1692

Mr Reasonable wrote:

„I want to wallow in philosophy like a pig in shit. I love it.“ **

Mr Reasonable wrote:

„I wanna dive in it like scrooge mcduck dives into all that money on the show duck tales.“ **

Then you probably like this songs:

- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), Money, 1973,
- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), Pigs, 1977.

That must (also) be philosophy for you, right?

1693

Love at first sight?

I have heard of a Swedish woman that she was in love with the Berlin Wall (and still is - she has a part of the Berlin wall at home). Her name is Eija-Riitta Wallis Winther Arja Nikki Lee Eklöf (* 20th of March 1954); she calls herself Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer. Her website: Http://www.Berlinermauer.se.

Love at first sight?

Which picture do you have in your head when you're in love with the philosophy? Perhaps the following one:

In love?

1694

Obe wrote:

„You, Arminius, a good German, and me obe, a good hungarian, whatever, may understand that love what we call love be waaaaaaaaay different from what we think of it from how we feel about it. A lot of love, and i would not consider most of it., is projective, we want to believe we are loved to the same degree as we love, bur sorrily, late, too late we find out it is not so, and do gooders as we are supposed to be , and acting as we are supposed to, from ideal conceptions of love, we are stuck with responsibilities, which the GERMANS, or even EUROPEANS as a whole are very good at subscribing to. So , more often than not, we are left with lopsided definitions, feelings, but the good old Protestant ethic of do good, sticks, and we want to believe in love.
The same goes for religion, we go to church to impress our neighbors, friends, of our upright attitudes, and we intercourse our wives and lovers out of the need to satisfy per contractual responsibility. Then we hit the bier gartens with relish, relieved of having to justify ourselves.“ **

I think the English-speaking people, especially the US people, are very quick with the statement „I love“, especially „I love it“; so they often confuse the verbs „love“ and „like“, and (please take me not bad) they tend to exaggerations. It is not bad, but it is striking. „Okay then: I »love« philosophy.“

P.S.) When did you leave Hungary?

1695

Obe wrote:

„1956 during the revolution.“ **

Thanks. And when did you fall in love with the philosophy?

1696

Zinnat wrote:

„As far as i am concerned, i would say that i like philosophy but i do not love it.“ **

That is the right relationship to philosophy. Like I said:

Arminius wrote:

„Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy.“ ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„Theoritically, love should not used for non living things, but used here intentionally as a idiom to show how extreme the liking is.“ **

Yes. But what about Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer (**|**|**) then?

1697

But again:

Please answer my question I „once“ asked you:

Arminius wrote:

„You said: »Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.« (**). Who is »Man« in that sentence?“ ** **

Who is meant with the word „Man“ in that sentence?

1698

Here and now would fit the following from another thread:

James S. Saint wrote:

„You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.“ **

Arminius wrote:

You said: „You said: »Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.« (**). Who is »Man« in that sentence? If »Man« means »all human beings« in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire »is going to fall toward, SAM«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„But again:

Please answer my question I »once« asked you:

»Arminius wrote:

›You said: 'Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.' Who is 'Man' in that sentence?‹ ** **

Who is meant with the word »Man« in that sentence?“ ** **

1699

Obe wrote:

„I've never remembered a time when i wasn't.“ **

So you have been loving the philosophy since you can think, haven't you?

1700

If you like (or even „love“?) the philosophy, you may probably also like (or even „love“?) the arts, for example, the poetry, the visual arts, and especially the music.

Here some art examples I like very much:

A) Poetry:

„Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. // .... Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! // Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, // ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht; // Drum besser wärs, daß nichts entstünde. // So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde, // Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt, // Mein eigentliches Element.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64-67. **
Translation:
„I am Part of that Power which would // The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good. // .... I am the Spirit that denies! // And rightly too; for all that doth begin // Should rightly to destruction run; // Twere better then that nothing were begun. // Thus everything that you call Sin, // Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent - // That is my own, real element. “ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67. **

B) Visual arts:

Caspar David Friedrich :  Kreidefelsen auf Rügen
Caspar David Friedrich :  Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer
C..D. Friedrich, Kreidefelsen auf Rügen, 1818. C.D. Friedrich, Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer, 1818.

C) Music:

- Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA0gF41LOKg
(Ludwig v. Beethoven, 5. Sinfonie, 1800-1808).
- Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9TmQQQGddQ

(The Doors [Morrison, Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore], The End, 1967).

Do you like the arts, or do you even love the arts? And what about the philosophy? Do you like the philosophy, or do you even love the philosophy? It is certainly no quibble, no logmachy, no hair-splitting, because even here in this thread there are conflicting statements:

Pro LOVE - for example:

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„I want to wallow in philosophy like a pig in shit. I love it.

PRO LIKE - for example:

Zinnat wrote:

„As far as i am concerned, i would say that i like philosophy but i do not love it.“ **

The distinction between „love“ and „like“ seems to be important, meaningful.

 

NACH OBEN 529) Arminius, 01.08.2014, 00:50, 01:25, 02:44, 03:06, 20:41, 21:34 (1701-1706)

1701

What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome („Pax Augusta“ / „Pax Romana“)?

Pax Augusta

Pax Augusta

This „Pax Augusta“ („Pax Romana“) for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?

1702

Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?

1703

Machines decide according to rational aspects, and rational decisions are not always bad. But if the machines say the humans are too costly, too expensive, and too dangerous, too rebellious, then that’s just bad (without exception!) for the humans.

1704

I am the advocate of the English word „soul“:

Wikipedia wrote:

„In psychology, the psyche /'sa?ki/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious.“ **

No. That’s not proven, and as long as it is not proven one can say that the definition of „psyche“ is unproven and probably false.


Wikipedia wrote:

„Psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche.“ **

No. That's not true because the psychology has no object (because the definition of „psyche“ is unproven and probably false - see above).


Wikipedia wrote:

„The word has a long history of use in psychology and philosophy, dating back to ancient times, and has been one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view.“ **

No. There is no psychological „nature“ because there is no psychological object (for research and so on - see above).

Wikipedia wrote:

„The English word soul is sometimes used synonymously, especially in older texts.“ **

In English the word „soul“ should be used synonymously and later replace the word „psyche“ because „psyche“ is not defined (see above) and the definition of „soul“ is able to restrict the exaggerated, megalomaniac and therefore misleading claims of the „psyche“.

No other words or concepts are more misused for propganda, agitation, oppression, elimination, etc. than (1.) „psyche“ (incl. „psychological“, „psychology“, „psychiatric“, „psychiatry“ and so on), (2.) „social“ (incl. „sociological“, „sociology“ and so on), and (3.) „eco“ (incl. „ecological“, „ecology“, but also „economic[al]“, „economy“, „economics“ and so on).

1705

First, the middle class will be eliminated, and after that the lower class will be eliminated, namely then, when it will have grown up to 99% (lower class + ex-middle class = lower class of 99%).

Indeed, the question is wether the human beings are intelligent enough to prevent what has been happening for so long.

But would you mind answering my previously asked questions: ** ** **

I guess you know my answers, and I also guess you know I know your answers.

1706
James S. Saint wrote:

**
„Well, it is more like an EMR wave is made of affectance waves. There is a huge difference in scale between basic RM:AO and common physics. RM:AO deals with waves that range from (but not including) absolute zero up to perhaps 1000 times smaller than an electron. Whereas the smallest physics gamma wave is much larger than an electron.

In RM:AO there is no such thing as an affectance wave that isn't made of smaller affectance waves. And a typical EMR wave is a huge collection of affectance waves that just happens to have similar direction and polarity because of how such waves are produced. It is similar to comparing the sizes of an ocean wave (representing a gamma physics wave) to a single water molecule in RM:AO (representing an affectance »pulse« or wavelet).

To physics, an electron is so small as to be merely a tiny spec with almost no mass or size. But in RM:AO, that same electron is filled with millions of affectance wavelets or pulses with very notable mass and size. And an EMR gamma wave is much larger than that electron and filled with billions more affectance waves. An EMR wave is a huge wave of infinitesimal affectance waves.“ **

According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. But what is an „affect“ according to RM:AO? And what is an „affectance“ according to RM:AO?

 

NACH OBEN 530) Arminius, 02.08.2014, 00:38, 01:07, 02:00, 02:30, 02:47, 02:53, 02:59, 03:33, 04:02, 14:04, 15:38, 18:21, 18:33, 22:09, 23:57 (1707-1721)

1707

James S. Saint wrote:

„Af·fect 1 (-fkt):
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects.
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in.

Thus the nominative »affect« refers to the changing itself or the influencing itself (note: »Effect« refers to the end result of an Affect).

Affectance = an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.“ **

You've just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.

So I guess there is no physical definition for „affect“ and „affectance“ according to RM:AO.

1708

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yes, it is a global empire, although never totally pure.“ **

Yes, but how will it be?

Perhaps firstly ike this:

**    Globalisten    

And perhaps secondly (and probably lastly) like this:

**    **

1709

Pandora wrote:

„Of angels and demons

**

....“ **

Very impressive and somehow mighty.

Pandora wrote:

„(Angel Caido, Madrid)

**

....“ **

Very beautiful! Thank you for that picture!

Pandora wrote:

„This image caught my attention:

....“ **

And why, Pandora?

1710

Should I watch the film „Elysium“, James?

1711

Who was quoted there? **

„Greed is NOT good.“ **

That’s right. Greed is NOT good. Greed is very bad, unhealthy, and homicidal.

1712

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, I thought that was a physical explanation.
Did you what me to write it on a cannon ball or in a physics book?
How do you propose that I make it more physical?“ **

You meant „want“, right?

1713

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Who is really thinking? God?

When you think that you think, what do you then think about the question ›who is really thinking‹?« ** **

A vague, somewhat mysterious entity with me that gives rise to what we call »consciousness« and »I«.

Who does the thinking for a nation? Who does the thinking for Congress? You are but a nation within a human body, equally as demon possessed as Congress and the nation.“ **

It is a somehow mysterious might. The following picture somehow fits:

**

Posted by Pandora.

1714

James S. Saint wrote:

Tipping Point.
What’s striking is the carelessly discarded human potential on Earth ....

And RM:AO teaches the limits of greed, why they are the limits, and what happens when they are exceeded..“ **

But you are no member of the Club of Rome?

The term „limits to greed“ reminds me of the term „limits to growth“:

Wikipedia wrote:

„The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book about the computer modeling of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies. Funded by the Volkswagen Foundation and commissioned by the Club of Rome .....“ **

And you are also not Joseph Martin Fischer or Al Gore?

1715

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yep, both express the same concern and conclusion. The difference is that RM:AO is irrefutable.“ **

So you are saying that the „limits to growth“ of the Club of Rome are refutable.

1716

James S. Saint wrote:

„Certainly. They take statistical data and presume to extrapolate principles. Their premises could be wrong (much like Relativity or QP) or might be contingent upon concepts that cannot be extrapolated to the degree they take them (much like the Big Bang Theory or the second law of thermodynamics). RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.“ **

Extrapolation is a problem (outside mathematics), especially when such people apply it.

„RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.“ I think you meant „RM:AO deals only with the alternatives.“ But you said „RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives“. With the lack of alternatives? The lack? Would you mind explaining that?

1717

For example:

„EMR“ as such can be explained physically, has a „physical“ definition, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both „affect“ and „affectance“ as such can’t be explained physically, haven't „physical“ definitions, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both „affect“ and „affectance“ as such have „meatphysical“ definitions, and we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical.

1718

James S. Saint wrote:

„Nothing can be proven to be true until there is a lack of alternatives. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. You only know that something is true when there is no alternative to the fact of it, when there is no other possibility at all. Proofs are formed only from »the lack of alternatives«, »the lack of options«, »the lack of question/doubt«, or »the impossibility of fallacy«. That is why RM:AO isn't merely a »possible theory«, but an »incontestable truth«.

RM:AO doesn't deal with merely »possible truths«, but rather the »impossible to be false« or simply the »lack of alternatives«.“ **

Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?

I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): „RM:AO doesn't deal with merely »possible truths«, but rather the »impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false« or simply the »lack of alternatives«.“ Is that right?

1719

Copied post.

1720

Welcome, Pharaoh!

Pharaoh wrote:

„There are two different factors, here, which should be considered.
1. The power of like or love.
2. The depth of like or love.
On the other hand, you have to either accept that there is something essentially different in love as an emotion, or believe that there is a continuum( for power, as well as depth of that emotion) starting from the left with »hatred«, passing through "indifference" on the middle(0), and moving still to "like" and then right up to the end which is »love«; each of which, being gradually expanded within that continuum; that is to say that love for example, is not a point on the continuum, instead a part, gradually starting from no particular point. On that basis, You could possibly find no two love which are of exactly the same power or the same depth (as there are no two actual quantities in the world which are exactly of the same size) . therefore, two people could say that they love something, whereas the amount of their love is not the same.
The depth of like, or love also needs to be carefully defined and examined. To briefly look at it,this involves the intricacy present in each love; somehow like the amount of "knowledge" you have of the inside of what is being loved. A mother normally loves her kid, but that love does, by no means, depend on what she knows of the baby; only that it is her own baby. It is no use to say that "it is only an instinctive reaction", since the nature of love is instinctive altogether. Here is what I call a powerful emotion with a shallow depth. I once heard someone saying "I love onions"; where there is essentially not much in onions to be loved. At the same time you hear people saying they love philosophy (which has surely more than onions in it) just on the account that it sounds pompous (this is not of course, what they would confess, or even be aware of!). There are cases in which, when they are presented with the amount of attention and accuracy needed for examining philosophical thoughts, they no longer show that much interest! This is where they have acquired more knowledge of it.“ **

First of all, a kid is normally loved not only by the mother, but also by the father. So you should say: Parents normally love their kid.

Pharaoh wrote:

„Now your question, I suppose, could be more exactly dissected into two different part, and asked in such a way :
1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)?
2. How deep are you interested in philosophy.
The answer could be any number from -100 to +100 (if those are the limits), may it be the power, or depth. Of course it might lean towards love, or like or hatred. As people are not so exact about their own likes and dislikes(If that would be possible at all), they normally prefer to announce what their feeling leans to. Most of the time, you can find out more about other people's feelings by cross questioning or other interrogating ways!“ **

Like I said: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. So before I give you a "number from -100 to +100", I would like to determine that scale a little bit, for example in this way:

-100 to -51) „I hate ...“;
-50 to -1) „I dislike ...“;
+1 to +50) „I like ...“;
+51 to +100) „I love ...“.

1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)? My answer according to the scale: 40 to 50.
2. How deep are you interested in philosophy? My answer according to the scale: 90 to 100.

But again and again: I don’t love philosophy, I like philosophy. Although I like philosophy very much, I don’t love philosophy.

What about you?

1721

James S. Saint wrote:

„You can only know that »2+2=4« with 100% certainty because there is no possibility of it being anything else.

If someone defines »ephalante« as »a large gray beast«, then there is no possibility that an ephalante is anything other than »a large gray beast«. There is no alternative to the fact of it because the ephalante is defined to be that. A word or concept can only be what it is defined to be. Thus there is a »lack of alternatives« concerning what an ephalante is.

RM:AO deals with what things are defined to be and the proceeding logic due to those definitions. Thus RM:AO is always dealing with (and guided by) a lack of alternatives (due to the practice of using the very definitions involved rather than speculations of probable truths).

When RM:AO deduces something (and gets properly verified), there is no alternative to the truth of it. RM:AO deals only with 100% certain truths, or worded differently, »deals only with what things are defined to be and the consequential logic« or »deals only with the lack of alternatives«.“ **

So, when you say „RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives“ you mean „RM:AO is true“ which always and tautologically means „100% true“, „without any alternative“, „the lack of alternative“. Is that true?

James S. Saint wrote:

RM allows for many ontologies to be fully acceptable and changed to and from depending upon rational use. RM:AO is merely one that exactly describes the make of the physical universe. Sometimes that is not important (most of the time). But a corollary to the fundamental physics of the universe is (for example), »PHT«. PHT dictates ALL human and animal behavior (aka »spirit«) and thus when dealing with psychological or religious concerns, PHT is indispensable.

RM:AO is more exacting than both Science and Religion. But often, being exacting is not important.“ **

Does „clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony“ (**) mean that one has merely to clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats in order to get the anentropic harmony? Does „clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony“ mean that clarifying, verifying, instilling, and reinforcing the perception of hopes and threats always lead to the anentropic harmony?

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN