01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [1081][1082][1083][1084][1085][1086][1087][1088][1089][1090] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1081) Alf, 21.10.2017, 01:41, 18:58; Arminius, 21.10.2017, 19:44, 20:12, 22:32, 23:40 (6580-6585)
Not to forget this one:- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Roeder, Flür), Autobahn, 1974.
Alf wrote:
Dan~ wrote:
You are pretty much an idealist, whereas your Dad and your brother Andrew are pretty much realists (respectively: materialists, at least your Dad, or hedonists, at least your brother) and therefore do not like your idea.Is this very first analysis true?
Those who want the seperation of Catalonia from Spain want to weaken Spain and to let come a conflict or even a war (civil war). History repeats somehow.Also, this current case of Catalonia reminds me of the case of Ukraine.Neither the Ukrainians and Russians nor the Catalans and the other Spanirads are those who want this conflicts and wars. They actually have no say. But others, who have the say, have interests in those conflicts and wars.
Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like pi or root two. They work! They function!The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word spiritual may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....
Alf wrote:
- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Trans Europa Expreß, 1977.
Or this one:- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Das Modell, 1978.I know all of them. But the music of the band Kraftwerk is not my most favorite one. My most favorite one is this:- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana, 1937. ** |
1082) Arminius, 22.10.2017, 01:01, 01:10, 02:55; Alf, 22.10.2017, 14:56, 15:24, 20:13, 20:59, 21:50, 22:24; Arminius, 22.10.2017, 22:38; Alf, 22.10.2017, 23:14 (6586-6596)
Or is it (**) called a Sleudian frip?
One of the comments:
Pilgrim Tom, can you read Chinese by the way?
Alf wrote:
If there will be no sudden incident that will change this trend, then the machines will replace humans.Arminius wrote:
So in this case, we can hope that exceptionalism (=> 2) and cataclysm (=>3) will help us somehow.
Neitzche?Do you mean Freidrisch Neitzche or Friedrich Nietzsche?And what do you mean by disprove here?Shall we disprove his existence or what?I dont know any Neitzche.
He (**) did not misunderstand you (**).And your pseudo-difference between absolute perfection and relative perfection is nonsense, because absolute perfection is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so relative perfection makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.
You (**) are wrong.You dont even know the simplest basics.1) Perfection means 100%, mathematically said. Absolute means 100%, mathematically said.2) Impossibility has nothing to do with likelihood. It's like Jams S. Saint already said:
Frank Zappa said:
Stupidest, yes (**), but also most narcissistic, most solipsistic, most nihilistic.According to the narcissistic and homosexual VO god, a stone is a cow, a planet a bacterium, ... and an insult a part of his meal for his narcissism ..., and all this just because this solipsistic nihilist has said so.So to him, equality means and has the same function as everything else: supporting and mirroring his maniac delusion that he is in agreement with himself.Vanity Occultism. I am God, and the Reality is My Mirror!
|
6594 |
What exactly is logic? **
Your (**) arguments have nothing to do with this thread. **
6595 |
6596 |
1083) Arminius, 23.10.2017, 02:11, 03:25, 19:31, 22:42, 23:57 (6597-6001)
Life could be so easy. But the greed destroys everything. If animals were smarter and capable of speaking, they would certainly say: Humans are beings of greed.
Yes, it is (**).
Pilgrim Tom wrote:
Yes, indeed. I totally agree. I would not use the word greed then. But you are right.Pilgrim Tom wrote:
That is the question.When I was talking about greed, I did not value that (I am very much an objectivist), but meant it as a fact. And it is just this fact why there is this enormous and perhaps impossible task that you mentioned obove.
Thanks (**).
Mags J. wrote:
Is that true? |
1084) Arminius, 24.10.2017, 01:34, 01:47; Alf, 24.10.2017, 04:34; Arminius, 24.10.2017, 15:20, 18:18, 18:45 (6602-6607)
We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say I am an objectivist, I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means ).
Copied post in another thread.
Although Im an academic, I like gardening very much.
It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for subjectivity and objectivity. The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.
Is Yde Opn wrote:
The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying I am an objectivist is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never besure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, being an objectivist is more like becoming an objectivist. It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.
It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists. |
1085) Arminius, 25.10.2017, 19:16, 23:59 (6608-6609)
Is Yde Opn wrote:
Idealistically said, an objectivist excludes all kinds of subjectivity. That is difficult to do. So: Realistically said, an objectivist tries to exclude all kinds of subjectivity. An objectivist is comparable to a monk. Monks were the first scientists. Excluding all kinds of subjectivity is a huge task.Is Yde Opn wrote:
A judgement can but does not have to be based on subjectivity alone; mostly it is based on both subjectivity and objectivity and sometimes even on objectivity alone. In the vast majority of cases, when it is based on both, the question whether it is more based on subjectivity than on objectivity or vice versa depends on the kind and the form of the respective culture.Is Yde Opn wrote:
They are likely confusing objectivity with fairness and also with truthfulness. All three are not the same. But to someone who is decadent, nihilistic, the meanings of objectivity, fairness and truthfulness are very close or even identical. These decadents are, philosophically said, influenced more by ethics (high degree of subjectivity, low degree of objectivity) than by logic (high degree of objectivity, low degree of subjectivity). They are no objectivists. Objectivists are more like monks who live for only one goal: excluding subjectivity by doing exercices.Is Yde Opn wrote:
Yes, and this happens currently more than ever before.
Is Yde Opn wrote:
Yes, knowing that the validity of these laws of nature can more or less only be temporary. The more exercises, ecperiences, experiments, observations, objectivity are done, the closer comes the goal (aim).It takes time ....It needs calm .... |
1086) Arminius, 26.10.2017, 01:00 (6610)
- Susumu Yokota, Acid Mt. Fuji, 1994. |
1087) Alf, 27.10.2017, 01:13; Arminius, 27.10.2017, 03:04, 21:26 (6611-6613)
Mags J. wrote:
Yes, because I said: they will tend ....!Mags J. wrote:
Humans and machines are in state of competition, and many of the humans help the machines to win this competition in a similar way as the white humans help all other humans to eliminate the white humans, although or because the white humans have brought the progress to all humans, thus also to the non-white humans. And now white humans as the inventors of machines are not needed anymore, since other humans and even machines can already invent machines.This situation seems to be paradoxical. There is the same seeming paradox between two groups of humans too: Those who give benefit and help and those who get this benefit and help. The disappearance of those who give benefit and help is affirmed by those who get this benefit and help from the former. So, this is in spite of the fact that the latter are benefitting and getting help from the former. This seeming paradox can be solved, since those who give benefit and help are too expensive and not needed any longer, and those who get benefit and help are still cheaper and still needed (this will likely change in the future too). There is a similar seeming paradox between machines and certain (and later likely all) humans.So, not only can and do e.g. feminists and islamists or e.g. white white-haters and non-white white-haters have the same enemy, this can and do e.g. intelligent machines and stupid people too. They all have only one enemy: the white men.Mags J. wrote:
Why should machines not do what living beings do? Machines are products of humans. Being like purely rational humans, machines are more rational and thus more efficient than humans. Humans are not purely rational, but only relatively rational, since they are emotional too. So, the sentence humans invented machines can be interpreted as humans invented purely rational humans who lack a biological system. This purely rational humans who lack a biological system are the machines. If they get a biological system, then they are merely androids, not humans. And if humans become more like machines, they are merely cyborgs, not machines. Maybe humans and machines will become similar to each other in the future, but they will never become the same. As Arminius has already explained, the only chance for the humans survival in the future will be to get more and more similar to the machines, because otherwise humans will likely disappear.Surreptitious 75 wrote:
Not necessarily. Thats right. I was speaking about a tendency.Alf wrote:
Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.Machines as the product of humans tend to do the same. The difference is that machines are capable of doing this much more effectively than humans. If they will do it, is a different issue. What I have said is that there is this tendency to eradicate all competitors.
Is Yde Opn wrote:
Agreed. Goethe was right.
|
1088) Arminius, 28.10.2017, 02:15, 02:48, 20:31, 21:49 (6614-6617)
Does a thought not always be a conscious one (according to you)?
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Brando wrote:
There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.Brando wrote:
The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.
Alf wrote:
There are some hints in his thread Leaving Society, Dropping Out, And The Proverbial Rat Race (**). |
1089) Alf, 29.10.2017, 20:55, 21:18; Arminius, 29.10.2017, 23:04, 23:18 (6618-6621)
The question reamains: Why followed this permaban?
The more global control, the more Liberias.
And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million Liberias?
I thought that the question was, why there was that warning at all. |
1090) Alf, 30.10.2017, 17:44, 18:33, 18:56, 19:43, 22:31, 22:42; Arminius, 30.10.2017, 23:23, 23:48, 23:58, 23:59 (6622-6631)
|
6623 |
Alf wrote:
»The more global control, the more Liberias.« ** **
And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million »Liberias«? ** **
6624 |
Brando wrote:
»Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.« **
There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.
Brando wrote:
»This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?« **
The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science. ** **
6625 |
6626 |
6627 |
Only Humean wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings. ** **
Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.« **
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!). ** **
6628 |
6629 |
Arminius wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
Arminius wrote:
'Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.' ** **
Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs. **
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).« ** **
And when will the third phase end? ** **
6630 |
Ur-thoughts are conscious too. All thoughts are conscious. Even if they are in contact with instincts: Thoughts are always conscious. ** **
6631 |
Arminius wrote:
»Alf wrote:
The more global control, the more 'Liberias'. ** **
And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million Liberias?« ** **
Unless the globalists will be stopped.. ** **
==>
|