And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.
Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).
I am not looking for another word. Isms are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.
The last one is homo hedonisticus.
Can machines become living beings?
Can machines get a living being consciousness?
What about the double-aspect theory of consciousness?
For example: In one of his threads, Erik seeks to outline the double-aspect theory of consciousness as follows:
Money has a good and a bad side. Most currencies in the world are not tied to the gold standards or anything substantial. Gold and other rare material things have also a good and a bad side. The less tied money is, the more catastrophic the effects are, if the trust in money has vanished. Since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years.
To whom belong the following four avatars?
Can machines become living beings?
Can machines get a living being consciousness?
It is no accident that trust is very similar to faith and belief.
672) Arminius, 20.03.2015, 01:01, 01:30, 02:03, 13:25, 14:02, 20:21, 21:56, 22:34, 23:57 (2734-2742)
Hegel's dialectic was, is, and will be Hegel's dialectic, Hegel's method! Of course! That's logical, even tautological.
Pythagoras' dialectic or others' dialectic, thus also Kant's dialectic, are not like Hegel's dialectic.
Mosrt of this gold and silver and other rare material things are stolen from Germany (1945). When will the US respectively the Fed (!) give the whole gold (especially the whole gold of the Reichsbank - I don't mean the Nazi gold, altough that should also not be in US or Fed ownership, but it is), silver and other rare material things back to Germany?
I want twin grandchildren one named Hedon and the other named ...? **
This is an easy question to answer actually... human genetic code can match machine code, it just depends on whether we engineer humans to be as smart or smarter than machines. That should take all the hype away. I just recently read Gates and hawkings warnings... nonsense, we can engineer humans to control robots with their minds. **
So we will treat humans as and make them machines. Sure, as I said in an earlier post, this is one way machines are replacing humans.« **
There are already humans with these abilities, we'd just be replicating them... there are other species with these abilities as well. **
Yes, yes. Pardon any confusions my way of participating leads to. **
I think that if you are a modern rationalist (small r) you should think that machines or some kind of artificial mixed thingy humans and then mixed things make, will replace us. So when I see arguments against this that I think are being made by people who have, given their system of beliefs, a good reason to doubt this, I press for the yes position. I see this as wishful thinking and denial on their part. An unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of what they take as normal and rational and the at worst nature of corporations and those with power. I might react similarly to a Christian asserting that they knew they were going to heaven and were clearly relishing the thought of their opponents going to Hell. IOW I see this as a problematic moral position for a Christian. With the rational often materialist modernists I see logical, perceptual and intuitional weaknesses when they think machines will not replace us. Not having their system of belief I have reached another conclusion. **
So, I've been inspired by Prismatic's thread ( on the dollar **) to create my own thread about the value of money, in particular: the dollar.
Could society function without it? **
2.) If yes, then how come primitive societies could function by merely exchanging coins? **
I'm not adept in economics, so forgive me if I come off benighted; but frankly I think the value projected unto money by gold is an illusion, better yet, a delusion! **
The greatest problem with immaterial money is the ease with which a governance can delete someone's worth and manipulate the world. **
»Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.« **
Most parts of Sigmund Freud's whole theory are false.
James S. Saint wrote:
They are mutually dependent.
Immaterial money makes the 1% of the humans richer and richer (more powerful and more powerful) and the 99% of the humans poorer and poorer (less powerful and less powerfull). Both groups differ more and more from each other, so that they have nothing to do with each other anymore. Perhaps they will become two different subspecies of the species homo sapiens or even two different species.
Would you mind going into details?
674) Arminius, 22.03.2015, 00:13, 01:01, 02:24, 13:47, 14:10, 14:30, 21:55, 22:22, 23:13, 23:44 (2748-2757)
Philosophy does not mean love of wisdom. Philosophy means love to wisdom.
The first definition would mean wisdom's love or that wisdom loves, thus it would mean nonsense. The second defintion is the right one and means that one loves wisdom or one has the love to (have or/and get [more and more]) wisdom.
In German this love to wisdom is called Liebe zur Weisheit - you may compare it to Wille zur Macht (will to power), if you know the German nihilistic philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.
Instead of the preposition zu (to) one can alternatively use the preposition für (fo): Liebe für Weisheit (love for wisdom) - for comaprison: Wille für Macht (will for power). But one should never use the preposition "of" in this cases because the terms would get an entirely different meaning.
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called psyche, soul; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.
Probably they will not preserve humans, because humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness -probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:
Machines are rational products of humans, but they are nonetheless not like humans: too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.
Yes, mainly. And that is also a reason for machines to replace all humans. It is just rational. It fits to what I said before: humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.
You mean this:
Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society??
For the past 50 years or so, the promotion in the West is that there IS no difference between the male and female other than the placement of their genitalia. Of course, due to tens of thousands of years of contrary experience people (and even Science) have declared otherwise. The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different? **
Please explain what said rational is!? **
But machines and humans and consciousness and unconsciousness are not independent that's the flaw in the argument. There is a co dependency. **
Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests. **
If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice. **
Back, sorry. back,You said consciousness is a little bit independent, a little bit? **
I propose that they are not at all independent. **
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called 'psyche', 'soul'; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent. (**|**). ** **
Let's put it in a different way. How do You define dependence or independence? **
On what level of reality are You talking about? this definitional objection is what interferes in the basic sense, in any way to determine, how anything at all can be said about relationships in general. In fact it can not be defined, regressive lay to the level,Magen and where it was customary to do so. **
675) Arminius, 23.03.2015, 01:02, 01:18, 01:30, 15:49, 16:08, 16:49, 19:19, 19:19, 21:09, 22:41, 23:07, 23:59 (2758-2769)
In my example, I was not speaking about any product but about humans themselves, although they are also products.
I do not know what your point is. Excuse me.
As long as we humans do not know whether the consciousness is dependent or independent, we can say that the consciousness is partly independent or partly dependent but not that it is absolutely independent or absoluetly dependent - similar to the will as a relatively free will or relatively unfree will.
And look at the machines again! Study the machines!
The intellectual can be the brute, and the brute can be the intellectual.
Philosophy means what philospohy means. The definition of philosophy is about 2500 years old. There is no other definition possible. It is not debatable. There are no opinions of the meaning and definition possible, because it has already its meaning and definition. It is not possible to change them, but it is possible to not know them or to forget them.
The need of the difference between males and females is to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.
And the free will is merely a relatively free will.
If sex and gender belong together, then: A person's sex is not assigned at birth but long, long, long time before the birth. A person's gender ... doesn't fit is as long nonsense or even a lie as this person has the same sex that he/she had long time before birth. A person's hormone therapy does not change the sex of this person. This person merely thinks that his/her role does not fit and perhaps wants to change this role. That's all. This person can do it; so there is no problem at all. If you are a man and want to behave like a woman: okay, just do it! But your sex can merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs in order to get the new (female) sexual organs. If you are a woman and want to behave like a man: okay, just do it! But your sex can merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs in order to get the new (male) sexual organs. But this is what 99.99% of this male-female and female-male persons do not want.
Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society?? .... The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different? **
But you do. The »yes« or »no« was the easy part. **
It is the exact »WHY?« that matters. **
Exactly how does male and female distinction help prevent extinction considering today's and the future's technology? **
But all that is going to happen is that »homo-sapian« is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; »mutants«, cyborgs, Rev2, »new and improved«, .... **
676) Arminius, 24.03.2015, 01:07, 01:32, 02:01, 17:23, 18:08, 22:37, 23:01, 23:27, 23:42 (2770-2778)
The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.
When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.
So, I thought that I did not have to explain to you (!) what to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens means, because it implies these differentiations / specialisations.
Again: Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.
Humans designed and design machines, and machines were and are better, less emotional, less egoistic, ... and cheaper than humans. Humans gave and give them value. Humans did, do and will commit a fault. Machines also konw (because they have learned it from the humans) that machines are better, less emotional, less egoistic, ... and cheaper than humans. And at the end of this process the humans will be replaced. I estimate that this probability is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
Where did you find this fantastic song, Artimas?
Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise. - Thomas Gray.
Ignorance und arrogance
No! Ignorance is when you do not know better, arrogance says »I don't give a damn«. **
Again no, because ignorance may have an undercurrent of good intentions as a driving force, but arrogancee lacks this. Sure they may walk the walk, and dance the dance, but they mis step, stepping on each's others' toes, it is a very frightful and nervous jitterbug, not a greater waltz at all. **
Arrogance spawns ignorance and ignorance spawns arrogance. **
677) Arminius, 25.03.2015, 00:12, 01:13, 02:17, 15:29, 15:41, 15:52, 16:19, 16:57, 17:19, 17:43, 18:34, 19:43, 21:14, 22:41 (2779-2792)
The arrogance and the ignorance are no opposites. They can even be (for example) the ignorant arrogance and the arrogant ignorance. They have the same origin - both linguistically and extralinguistically.
Mommertz calls the relationship between ignorance and arrogance a dance. Okay, he is right. He is a poet, and poets use metaphors. But why do I explain this? Do you really not know what is meant by the words of this poet?
Ignorance und arrogance
The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.
Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.
For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament. ** **
Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are »ja-sagende Religionen« (»yes-saying religions«) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are »nein-sagende Religionen« (»no-saying religions«). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, »Der Wille zur Macht« (»The Will to Power«), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no »three Abrahamic religions« because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam. ** **
Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.
Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.
Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.
.... Not that any of them do a very good job of any of it. **
Prismatic 567 wrote:
»Abraham has a loaded gun pointed on head to the extent that he was willing to kill his only son when he believed God would pulled the trigger and send him to hell if he did not obey God's command.
The question is how did Abrahamic believers end up with a loaded gun pointed on their heads?
This is based on their false beliefs that they will die in hellfire if they don't adhere to God's command in the holy texts.« **
That part would only be true of the Judist and Muslim faiths, a bit anti-Christian. Christianity is Hope-based, not threat based (you might try actually reading the NT). **
Those who argue along this line of reasoning will definitely arrive at a misinterpretation upon those to whom such differentiation will spell impossible. here both ideas will become reversible, therefore a spawned ignorant from arrogant will spell same as arrogant from ignorant. fewer excuses will be allowed, and a theatre of torture will consume both. **
The theatre of torture refers to Artaud. And the next ref. Barthe. How far can You carry literature by association? How much farther by poetry? Much more so, but nit within the mode of traditional poetry. Free form has been along very long, and the proof is in the pudding, analysis may be variously supported by a network,much as robots have been instilled within, choosing open systems over closed. This is not an example of systemic arrogance born of ignorance. It is based on newly arrived encyclopedic associations. Most arguments are still done in closed systems, patently waiting for structural renewal. **
If robots arent benign in design, i do think there will be trouble, human beings will use them for crime etc... **
Some when soon »they« will need to be controlling what schematics can be used in 3D printing and other additative technology [dont know why they cant call them replicators?].
The future is going to happen, we need to be dealing with it very soon imho. **
Disagreement does not change anything .... **
The facts speak for themselves. **
No big issue, to explain what the term meant in this OP. **
»Abrahamic Theism« = Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. **
If you don't think »Abrahamic Theism« is appropriate, just interpret it as theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. **
Well... what would you call it? Adam and Eve theism? **
There are clearly passages where people exhort to Jesus as on the son of David (Jesus never refuted this), but in the story Joseph never had sex with Mary, and he was the descendant of David. The whole tale starts with Adam and Eve, moving into Islam and then Christianity. I'm not sure what your argument is here. **
*It's called the dollar because of the Thollar family, which was a rich family that used paper as receipts for things... The receipts would be passed around as Thollar receipts .... The crazy ability of English speaking people slowly turned it into dollar .... Which is why other countries use the name Dollar...
On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called Joachimsthaler, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ??? (talari), Italian tallero, Polish talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar.
A later Dutch coin depicting a lion was called the leeuwendaler or leeuwendaalder, literally »lion daler«. The Dutch Republic produced these coins to accommodate its booming international trade. The leeuwendaler circulated throughout the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. This coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies and in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New York). It was in circulation throughout the Thirteen Colonies during the 17th and early 18th centuries and was popularly known as lion (or lyon) dollar. The currencies of Romania and Bulgaria are, to this day, »lion« (leu/leva). The modern American-English pronunciation of dollar is still remarkably close to the 17th century Dutch pronunciation of daler. Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies were known as dog dollars. **
Is art dead and buried, that we have to visualize a period in visiting representations of it? **
Are there not people today who still live as if the period was still meaningful and alive within their own sense of being? **
I would say yes to that, and there need not a confusion arose as a consequence, although. It takes a lot of,art appreciation to change the way things are looked at. **
To me surrealism is the most meaningful way to gap the ages, a visual stream, and a method this develops, very painful at diets, and visually excruciating, but then, one must not fear the method of this madness. Lest it becomes lost for ever. (Not the madness, but the method). **
I know You will disagree, however, disagreement is the bedrock of constructing reality, and really I do agree, to disagree. **
Thank you very much, Orb.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
No. Are you sure that you really have read books of Immanuel Kant?
Kant merely argued that a too speculative metaphysics which his philosophical predecessors excessively used is not able to realise without any perception. Many of his philosophical predecessors had tried to realise God by pure reason. Kant has changed the (concept of) metaphysics, because according to him metaphysics should not longer be the science of the absolute what it had been to all his philosophical predecessors, the dogmatic philosophers. According to Kant metaphysics is the science of the knowledge borders. Kant re-created i.e. the epistemology, but he did not say that metaphysics in general is an impossibility. The epistemology is the border policeagainst all pretension, hubris, border crossing beyond that what is experiencable, Kant said for example.
Matt MVS 7 wrote:
No. That would be no evolution. You define pleasure as the only good (look at your title of your thread).
Just compare the Old Testament with the New Testament and you will soon notice that the Old Testamet deals very much more with threat than with hope and that the New Testament deals very much more with hope than with threat. And the quality of threat and hope shows the same difference and relationship, also the violence and the quality of violence, ..., and so on .... The bottom line is that one could say: the Old Testament and the New Testament almost contradict each other.
Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word gender?
James S. Saint wrote:
Thus the difference is hidden. ....
How would you exactly define these two different words and concepts: sex and gender?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, of course. That was my point.
Following: a copied part of a post.
679) Herr Schütze, 27.03.2015, 23:09 (2801)
Deutschland hat genauso wenig Kinder wie schon in den 1970er Jahren. Daran hat sich nichts geändert. Die Prozentzahl der Kinder hat sich also nicht wesentlich geändert. Aber die Zahl der Sozialhillfeempfänger hat sich geändert und durch die Einwanderung sogar dramatisch verändert. Die Quantität und Qualität der Verbrechen sind dramatisch gestiegen. In bestimmte Stadtteile traut sich die Polizei schon längst nicht mehr. Die Ausländer müssen zurückgeschickt werden, und zwar möglichst bald. Ansonsten werden wir hier bald den schlimmsten Krieg aller Kriege erleben.
680) Arminius, 28.03.2015, 00:55, 01:30, 04:09, 04:23, 04:24, 04:53, 16:18, 17:10, 17:25, 18:43, 19:11, 20:38, 21:20 (2802-2814)
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Prismatic 567 wrote:
You did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy, perhaps because you have read Kant's books in English.
Otherwise you would not post such false statemants (see above).
We do not need any other word for sex than sex. Gender is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
No. Hegel and Schopenhauer did not miss the central message and the various nuances of Kant's work.
What are the central message and the various nuances of Kant's workis according to you?
Prismatic 567 wrote:
One of the worse defense?
The following video is about the wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn: **
Conservation. Thus the left is conservative, the right.
Actually, my take is that obfuscating the differences in gender cause more problems than pointing them out. **
Oh please, then we would also have to not differentiate between left and right, up and down, etc.. **
Gender has been in use since the 14th century. **
And if it is being used to control, they are certainly doing a piss poor job of it. Because according to you the people do not have a problem with it. So your control does not exist. **
If you can resolve gender differences, you can resolve wealth disparity and war and suicide and disease cure innovation and energy innovation... the goal of dispersing is money and sexual hoarding. **