1401) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 30.01.2021, 00:47, 01:04, 04:44 (7795-7797)

Think first before you claim such nonsense a second time!

3.

Because all good things come in threes.

A good satire, Otto.

@ Sculptor. **

Troll, there was no „dumb question“ at all.

Also, there are no dumb questions, but there are many, too many dumb answers. You have already given two dumb answers here. That's enough now!

If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, then try to find another thread. There are enough threads in this forum.

I suggest that as a beginner you should read the threads „What's for breakfast?“, „What's for lunch? “, „What's for dinner?“, „What are you doing?“, „What is your most recent purchase? - pics required“, „Post a Picture of Yourself “, „Post a Number of Yourself “. The last one could be „Post Yourself“. Try to find it.

@ Obsrvr. **

Thank you for your interesting contribution.

I guess, you know the following film (unfortunately, Wells' „Time Machine“ is missing there): **

1402) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 31.01.2021, 00:59; Otto, 31.01.2021, 01:33 (7798-7799)

We should deal with the fact that many certain „social“ (a magic word) and other phenomena and events belong together.

Examples: the deregulation and thus the increase of power of high finance to an unprecedented extent; the wars, whether local, regional, global or universal; the fear mongering (e.g. of catastrophes, allegedly e.g. by climate or/and epidemics [last: „Covid-19“]); the non-governmental organizations; the support of selected states (last the Chinese, whose rise became possible also by it); the key positions in the most important states; the westernal technology threatening the nature of the living beings (especially e.g. nano-, gene-, robot technology, AI); the eugenics for 0.0001%, the dysgenics for 99.9999% of the people; the racism (e.g. which has been waged against the white race for decades now); mass migration (immigration into the Occident: abolition of the Occident); the extermination of the middle class, the civil society (since it exclusively concerns the Occidentals: extermination of Occidentals); the abolition of Occidental national states (in favor of privatization); Occidental nihilism (annihilation of Occidental values) and deconstructionism in general; Occidental fashion as a substitute for origin, genealogy, tradition, history, past, family, children (since exclusively concerning Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); feminism (since exclusively concerning the Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); genderism, although the gender affiliation is clearly recognizable by the organs; plutocracy disguised as democracy resp. kleptocracy; the mafiotic corporatism practiced above and the downward dictated ecologism and communism; the deliberate confusion of truth and lie; the probably not coincidental similarity of many conditions with those described e.g. by Wells, Huxley, Orwell. The implementation of the strategy points means a giant profit, that is a giant increase of power for a dwarfed group of people. ** **

There had been other descriptions of a social future long before Wells, Huxley and Orwell. Goethe's „Faust“ is certainly the most famous description; and the philosophical works of Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche are certainly the most famous futurological ones; later philosophical works that also and even especially mentioned futurological aspects are those of Spengler and Toynbee.

„But the greatest danger has not even been mentioned: How, if one day the class struggle and the race struggle unite to make an end with the white world? This is in the nature of things, and neither revolution will spurn the aid of the other simply because it despises its bearer. Common hatred extinguishes mutual contempt. And how, if at their And how if a white adventurer, such as we have seen in many a case, puts himself at the head of them, one whose wild soul could not breathe in the hothouse of civilization and tried to sate himself on dangers in daring colonial enterprises, among pirates, in the Foreign Legion, until he suddenly sees here a great goal before his eyes? With such natures history prepares its great surprises. The disgust of deep and strong people at our conditions and the hatred of deeply disappointed people could already increase to a revolt that wants destruction. This, too, was not foreign to Caesar's time. In any case, when the white proletariat breaks loose in the United States, the Negro will be on the spot, and behind him Indians and Japanese will be waiting for their hour. Black France, in such a case, would have no hesitation in surpassing the Paris scenes of 1792 and 1871. And would the white leaders of the class struggle ever be embarrassed if colored riots opened the way for them? They have never been choosy in their means. Nothing would change if Moscow fell silent as a commander. It has done its work. The work continues itself. We have waged our wars and class struggles before the eyes of the colored people, humiliated and betrayed ourselves among ourselves; we have invited them to join in. Would it be a miracle if they finally did the same for themselves?“ (Oswald Spengler, Years of Decision - Germany and the World Historical Development, 1933, pp. 164-165 - the official translation of the book title is: The Hour of Decision). **

„Here the coming history rises high above economic hardships and domestic ideals. Here the elementary powers of life itself enter into the struggle which is about everything or nothing. The prefiguration of Caesarism will very soon become more definite, more conscious, more undisguised. The masks from the age of parliamentary intermediate states will fall completely. All attempts to absorb the content of the future in parties will be quickly forgotten. The fascist forms of these decades will pass into new, unforeseeable forms, and nationalism of today will also disappear. Only the warlike, »Prussian« spirit will remain as a form-giving power, everywhere, not only in Germany. Fate, once concentrated in meaningful forms and great traditions, will make history in the form of formless individual powers. Caesar's legions are waking up again.“ (Oswald Spengler, Years of Decision - Germany and the World Historical Development, 1933, pp. 164 - the official translation of the book title is: The Hour of Decision). **

And also Caesar had to prefer foreign soldiers (e.g. from Germany and Gaul), because they were more combative, braver, more reliable, more alive than the overprotected and too much spoiled ancient Roman cowards.

The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.

1403) Great Again, 01.02.2021, 01:40, 02:58, 03:55; Otto, 01.02.2021, 17:00, 17:44; Great Again, 01.02.2021, 19:45, 20:13, 20:27; Kathrina, 01.02.2021, 21:34, 22:44 (7800-7809)

The former USA replaced by new states:

Could that be a solution for you?

Obsrvr wrote:

„The New Dark Age Philosophy – Part 1, ..., Part 2 ..., Part 3 ..., Part 4 ....“ ** ** ** **

You have done a good spiritual job with each of the four parts of your New Dark Age Philosophy. Great. Thank you.

You also certainly exaggerated on purpose at times to make a point, and also used a bit of irony or satire. But the thoughts behind all of this are very serious. The text is very well thought out.

Obsrvr wrote:

„The Relevance of Truth ....“ **

Again: very good thoughts. The topic is very important, contemporary and relating to the future. Thanks.

Sometimes it is cleverer (not wiser) to live with the lie. In the past, one could keep the truth to oneself or talk about it in niches (see: terror after all succesful revolutions since the end of the 18th century, last in communism). Now, we are dealing with communism of the last kind, which eclipses the communism of earlier times, because the latter was not yet capable of using the technology of the last three decades. Today's communism is capable of doing it (see: China). Because China is now even ahead, other nations (especially the Western ones) want to become like China because they have realized that slaves make it easier to keep up or even take the lead again.

WW III Angry wrote:

„There's no reasoning with these psychopaths.“ **

Said the Psychopath and continued with his death threat: „I would love to put a bullet in your head so I can sleep better at night.“

WW III Angry wrote:

»I would love to put a bullet in your head so I can sleep better at night.« **

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„Capitalism is far less dangerous than communism. We know the examples from history. Communism has killed 500 million humans so far. And if WW II Angry will kill Joker, the number will be 500 million and one. Maybe capitalism caused communism, then it would be the culprit, but that would be an exaggeration. Yet when capitalism and communism come together, as it happened in China, then it is especially dangerous.

And the bioweapon called „Covid-19“ also came from China.“ ** **

7804

 

The new fascist is not going to say „Hello, I am the new fascist“; the new fascicst is going to say „I am the antifascist“.

Freely based on Ignazio Silone.

The difference in answering the question whether „a glass is half full or half empty“ (**) is only significant if the speaker of this statement is included. For the statement itself there is no difference, at least not in the mathematical or mathematical-logical sense. That is just the difference between a purely mathematical statement and a purely linguistic statement. And the logic mediates between the mathematical language and the linguistic language. You must use your words (your lexemes) correctly if your statement has to be logically correct; you must use your numbers correctly if your statement has to be logically correct. Only then, if you include yourself or another person (a subject) in your statement, you have to leave mathematics to this very part and to the other part you have to take care that you say what you want to say linguistically correct (well-formed) and logically correct.

@ Sleyor Wellhuxwell.

We have been only partially and/or temporarily free, because freedom is always relative. Now we are not unfree, but almost unfree. So it is again relative, although relatively near to unfreeness.

Kathrina wrote:

„History repeats somehow. Doesn't it?“ ** **

Yes. But sometimes something really new happens. And one of the examples of this really new are the technical achievements. Probably the patterns for this are not new either, but the phenomena, i.e. how it appears, and their application always lead to new forms of signs, because the people who deal with them just deal with them in different ways. It is a question of culture.

Zero Sum wrote:

„Gloominary, there's very little difference between political parties anymore, they infiltrate, blackmail, and bribe everybody nowadays. On the rare occasion they come across a politician they can't manipulate, they'll kill them or do a public character assassination hit piece against them through the mainstream media thus removing them from office. The mainstream media has become almost a quasi religious institutional church in this country anymore and anybody that challenges their perception of things are deemed heretics. You all can keep wasting your time on voting or political parties, that's all it is, one giant waste of time.“ **

Zero Sum wrote:

„I'll say this about Wallstreet, they're absolute Sith Lords of economic, social, and political warfare, and of course they are because they have practically invented the whole game as its creators. Us political dissenters and rebels are new to the game barely able to conduct an operation to put a single dent into them. Ah well, the great game continues.“ **

I'm afraid, this will only stop after they have fought themselves so much, that they will either be willing to compromise or disappear altogether.

But the more important question for us is: Will we still be there then? And if so, how will we be then?

Great Again wrote:

„We have been only partially and/or temporarily free, because freedom is always relative. Now we are not unfree, but almost unfree. So it is again relative, although relatively near to unfreeness.“ ** **

I agree.

Fuse wrote:

„*If we have to wear seatbelts (bicycle helmets, safety goggles, glasses, etc) but don't want to wear them, then we are restricted in our freedom. (But we gain reasonable safety standards that reduce risk and save lives.)

*If a surgeon has to wash his hands and equipment before operating, but doesn't want to, then he is restricted in his freedom. (But the surgeon and his profession gain the safety and trust of patients.)

*If we want goods and services for free, but have to pay for them, then we are restricted in our freedom.
(But we all gain a fairer, more functional and sustainable marketplace instead of chaos and plunder; we gain the possibility for such goods and services to exist in the first place.)

The measure of freedom is not whether I can do absolutely whatever I want, whenever I want. It is whether I can reasonably pursue my interests and make reasonable concessions such that others can do the same. There are many competing freedoms. The challenge is to find the best balance or harmony between them.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where one's liberty infringes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, it is necessarily limited in a free society. Nothing new about this.

The issue here is about basic facts. Is there a global pandemic in which a novel virus has the potential to kill millions of people at an exponential rate if left unmitigated? Do masks help prevent viral transmission, and thus many unnecessary deaths? If you answer 'yes' to those two questions, then it's overwhelmingly reasonable to wear a mask when, for instance, you go to the grocery store. If you answer 'no', then you're free to speak your mind and support your case via the means that are legally available to you.“ **

You already know that your comparisons „limp“? And the measure of freedom is always whether I can do absolutely whatever I want, whenever I want. Otherwise I would not have any basis for the measurement, I could not measure meine Freiheit. And when you are saying: „Where one's liberty infringes on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, it is necessarily limited in a free society“, then you are saying what the communist Rosa Luxemburg was saying - meaning her own liberty that should be accepted by the society. Also, why do you affirm the freedom of society, but reject the freedom of the individual? Anyone, who wants to talk about freedom, must begin with the individual, not with the society. And the freedom of the individual is relative (see also: Great Again). But the amount of relativity of social freedom must always be greater than the relativity of individual freedom in this society. Never vice versa. And if it is the other way around, then dictatorship is at work.

Which is more dangerous for you: a society that tries to be as free as possible, or an individual who tries to be as free as possible?

1404) Otto, 02.02.2021, 00:08; Great Again, 02.02.2021, 01:05, 01:37; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 02.02.2021, 02:26; Great Again, 02.02.2021, 03:30; Otto, 02.02.2021, 04:21, 04:33, 17:24 21:03; Kathrina, 02.02.2021, 23:33, 23:41 (7810-7820)

The structure on ILP is just like the structure in reality out there.

There is the one group that is made up of many and is too stupid to notice anything at all, let alone that it is being abused and by whom; then there is the other group, made up of somewhat fewer but still many, that notices exactly what is happening and is therefore made the bogeyman; and then there is the third group, made up of very, very few, that wants to let the other two groups fight its battle by setting these two groups against each other.

And that's how it always goes in history.

Increase the stupidity! Demonize the intelligence! Divide and rule!

Who expected, when we still had horse-drawn carriages, that someday automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, rockets, space shuttles would be driving around, and that the internet and artificial intelligence would prevail? Almost all horses have been replaced by machines. And humans have never been considerate of humans in matters of power. So why shouldn't it be possible to replace all humans? After all, many have already been replaced anyway? And why shouldn't it be possible for machines to become independent of humans (in this thread this possibility was affirmed in principle by Arminius and James S. Saint). Humans want to control machines, yes, but so far they have always failed with their attempts at control. And humans want to controll other humans. Now, draw the conclusion from this, please.

Thinkdr wrote:

„What's our self-interest?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.

One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ... but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable.“ **

I agree.

Thinkdr wrote:

„It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's »ethical radius« to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.“ **

No. For purely anthropological - human-evolutionary and especially human-historical - reasons, people are not able to do what you expect them to do. Whenever people have done that, there has been more injustice than before. Humans are not capable of embracing the whole humanity for anthropological reasons, but only those from their closer environment (family, kinship, maybe more, e.g. nation or cultural circle, but not humanity).

Communism also demanded what you demand and murdered 500 million people in the process. Great, isn't it?

Here follows the whole „Carmina Burana“ by Carl Orff:

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana, 1937. **

Feel free to enjoy this great work.

Humans have to become the so-called „transhumans“ in order to change their anthropological structure. Transhumans are no longer humans, only partly humans. But the evolution of human beings is finished when humans have become transhumans. The word „trans“ means „beyond“, so „transhuman“ means „beyond human“. And that is how it should be understood. Unfortunately!

You (**) are neither beyond good and evil nor a Batman (), but just ridiculous, insane and as dreamy as the few of your kind.

Note to the sane: For him philosophy is only strategy, but he only shows again and again that he is the worst strategist and has to learn a lot, but can't (you can see that quite clearly).

He is always looking for allies, so that they support him and he can screw them afterwards. This has nothing at all to do with politics, e.g. right or left, but only with his extreme delusion that forces him to want to be like a Superman (or Batman ), a Godwannabe. It really doesn't get any more ridiculous than this.

He will never grow up. Poor guy.

And he will be the first to welcome the completed 2030 target. He hates humans. He is an insane cretin, megalomaniac and persecution maniac.

Hello and thank you (**). Nice to meet you too.

Fanman wrote:

„Introduction.
The fact that we cannot prove or disprove God’s existence empirically or otherwise, could be because we are not supposed to. Since it would not be congruent with his New Covenant. If the faculty of choice were removed by demonstrating God’s or Jesus Christ’s existence and there was evidence of his miracles, the New Covenant would be void. The New Covenant expressly states, “anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life (John 3:36 NLT)”, which is the core tenet. The nature of proof is that it removes the requirement for belief, therefore why would God void his own New Covenant by allowing us to prove his existence empirically or otherwise. That would cause belief in Jesus Christ to be unnecessary and would result in God contradicting himself.“ **

If we could really prove God, then belief in Him would no longer be belief, but knowledge, so that belief would have become obsolete, belief in God would no longer be necessary.

Fanman wrote:

„Discussion.
On this basis, which seems logical, it can be reasonably argued that God will not allow his existence to be demonstrated nor refuted, empirically or otherwise, which is why his existence cannot be proved nor disproved. He is honouring the choice that the New Covenant presents, which is a characteristic of God that can be recognized in the Bible, viz Christ’s sacrifice for the lives of people. Given the consensus is that God’s existence cannot should not (see your introduction) be proved or disproved. It is necessary for God’s plan of salvation, that the New Covenant remains valid. Necessity implies agency. I do not believe that chance or coincidence could constitute a valid refutation because there is to my perception, no remit for chance or coincidence within my argument. Therefore, his agency would seem to be the only logical answer. Thus, I propose that God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, because he wants the choice of belief in Jesus Christ to remain.“ **

We are not allowed and supposed to prove or disprove His existence empirically or otherwise, as you have said in your introduction.

Fanman wrote:

„Conclusion.
This would demonstrate that God upholds his New Covenant. Which is congruent with the way that he is portrayed in the Bible. Thus, I believe I have established that there is a valid reason for God not allowing us to prove or disprove his existence. That he is justified in doing so for the retention of choice and belief in Jesus Christ. He also has a cause for doing so; he wants people to believe in Jesus Christ. So it seems there are the grounds of validity, justification and cause supporting my argument. Therefore, I believe that my argument is logical. In conclusion, although is it inconsistent with what I have argued in terms of his existence not being able to be proved or disproved, if God did not want us to do something, in this case, prove or disprove his existence, it would follow that because of his prevention, his existence would be demonstrated.“ **

What about the other believers in God or gods?

And what about the Godwannabes, who don't allow us to prove or disprove their existence either?

Zero Sum wrote:

„6 because with three of them you get 666.“ **

Yes, 666 is an interesting number, but if it is overturned, it is done, because it has become 999. **

It just came to my mind - after urinating -, that there is another number: 1.

The 1 is „the 0 of multiplication and division“, while the 0 is „the 1 of addition and subtraction“.

And as you already know from the opening post of my thread: my number is 0.

See: ** ** .

That's so interesting, isn't it?

Arminius is right (**|**). Intelligence is a characteristic of fitness. So the intelligent people should have more children than the stupid ones. The reality of modernity shows the tendency that this ratio becomes reversed, so that relatively soon the stupid have more offspring than the intelligent.

The reasons in this counter-natural development for the reversal are economic and therefore cultural reasons.

Arminius is also right in what he says about the elimination of the natural environment by humans, because humans have - again in modern times - built technical containers in which they can live without a natural environment.

Arminius wrote:

„Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own »absolute islands« - thus: without any natural environment.“

Arminius wrote:

»The ISS is such an »absolute island«. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

There are more than this human-made ›islands‹, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric ›islands‹:

 

As long as all these ›islands‹ will exist and will contradict their ›ocean‹ nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.« ** **

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).“ ** **

Humans can live without a natural environment, because the humans' artificial environment can replace the natural one.

My number is the cross-sum of the digits of my date of birth: 2.

My date of birth was pretty much important to me.

1405) Kathrina, 03.02.2021, 00:59, 02:48, 04:37; Great Again, 03.02.2021, 18:04, 18:29, 18:56 (7821-7826)

No, Phoneutria. **

You do not respond at all to what I said!

Also, I am not saying that the artificial environment invalidates Darwin's selection principle, but I am saying that the artificial (man-made) environment can replace the natural environment. I said this several times in my post.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

»So now the only issue is merely how we (you [Urwrong] included) could arrange that kind of forum.« **

How about each person creating their own website where they host their own arguments and invite others to examine them? It's easy and it's cheap, even if you're from a developing country; but if for some reason you don't want to pay for a website, you can get a free blog.

It's much more desirable to have your own website (paid or free, blog or forum) than to write on internet forums and social networks owned by people you know nothing about for the simple reason that it allows you to be your own boss. You have a lot more control over your content as well as over who gets to participate and how.

Each person chooses the rules (i.e. what's allowed and what's not allowed on their website) and how to enforce them. It's completely up to them. Others are free to accept the terms and participate or leave.

Once enough people are doing that sort of thing, people will start organizing all of the available information in useful ways (e.g. by creating catalogues of arguments on various subjects -- encyclopedias that are alive.)

It shouldn't be too difficult.

But before one can do that, one must have an argument. And in order to have an argument, one must 1) become aware of why one thinks what one thinks, and 2) find a way to express it in language.“ **

I had that thought too, at the time when the early kinds of the so-called „social media“ appeared.

The internet recapitulates modernity. In the beginning, modernity was very promising, especially for the middle class, and later also for the lower class, although the negative sides of modernity also became clear, which later could not be overlooked at all, and soon the end of modernity will be reached. If the internet recapitulates modernity, but at much shorter intervals of course, then the internet will also soon be at its end, at least for most users, because most of them will no longer like the internet.

Otto wrote:

„Existence and Life. Instance: Home and Housing (Dwelling).“ ** **

What about the ISS?

Otherwise:

Humans are quite unfit from an evolutionary point of view, because the only fitness feature they have is their brain and therefore their intelligence.

Humans do not have a single organ or anything else that can really be understood as „fit“, except the brain, because the brain is fit.

From a purely natural-evolutionary point of view:

The hands of the humans are atrophied (they can't use them to move fast on trees like apes).

The feet of the humans are also atrophied (here the same applies as with the hands).

The internal organs of the humans are atrophied (especially the gut - the only exception is the brain, which has just evolved greatly at the expense of the gut).

The sensory organs of humans are not particularly well developed either (even the eyes are atrophied from a purely natural-evolutionary point of view).

This allows only one conclusion: The humans possess only one organ, which corresponds to the requirements of the fitness: the brain, culturally said: the intelligence.

So it can be also only the intelligence which has let the human being survive.

Herbert Spencer coined the phrase „survival of the fittest“ in 1864 in his „Principles of Biology“ and introduced it into the discussion about Darwin's book on the origin of species:

„If ... individuals of a species ... must necessarily diverge in innumerable directions and degrees, ... then also among all individuals some must always be less exposed than others to the danger that their equilibrium will be completely destroyed by a special acting force .... The necessary consequence will be that those individuals whose functions deviate most from the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces must perish, while on the other hand those will survive whose functions come closest to the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces. This survival of the fittest also results in the multiplication of the fittest. ....“ „This survival of the fittest ... is the same thing that Mr. Darwin called natural selection .... The term »natural selection« is sometimes used in scientific terminology.“ - Herbert Spencer, 1862–1896: A System of Synthetic Philosophy. The Principles of Biology.Vol. I, § 164, 1864.

The view sometimes held in the literature on the history of science, that Spencer coined the „survival of the fittest“ already in 1851 in his „Social Statics“ or in 1852 in his „Theory of Population“, is not correct in this form. However, Spencer's concept did not represent the „survival of the fittest“ in a socio-political sense. He introduced the term „survival of the fittest“ only in 1864 as described above in the „Principles of Biology“ into the discussion about Darwin's book of the „Origin of Species“.

Kathrina wrote:

„I am not saying that the artificial environment invalidates Darwin's selection principle, but I am saying that the artificial (man-made) environment can replace the natural environment. I said this several times in my post.“ ** **

That's right.

Humans have only one possibility to prove themselves in nature, i.e. to survive: they have to use their brain - their intelligence. That is the only thing that can make them fit. And that is what it has done in the course of evolution.

One could also say with the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen that the human being is a „deficient being“ (**) in contrast to the instinctive animal. That is why the human is forced to develop culture again and again. The human being must use his intelligence. Otherwise he is lost and will say „goodbye“ to evolution. He can survive only if he uses his brain - his intelligence.

What man can do with his intelligence, Arminius and you have described impressively.

I have read this thread. Others apparently have not.

I would not say „that every man's home is his castle“ (**), but I have always really been satisfied with my home in the whole.

1406) Kathrina, 04.02.2021, 00:02; Great Again, 04.02.2021, 00:28, 00:46; Kathrina, 04.02.2021, 22:38 (7827-7830)

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»The internet recapitulates modernity. In the beginning, modernity was very promising, especially for the middle class, and later also for the lower class, although the negative sides of modernity also became clear, which later could not be overlooked at all, and soon the end of modernity will be reached. If the internet recapitulates modernity, but at much shorter intervals of course, then the internet will also soon be at its end, at least for most users, because most of them will no longer like the internet.« ** **

I stopped liking it long time ago. I believe it's because it has become more difficult to find what I'm looking for. There is less and less variety. I have the impression that whatever I'm searching for, I always get the same exact results. That might be thanks to Google but I am not sure it's entirely thanks to Google. In any case, a different way of browsing the internet has to be considered (assuming there is relevant content to be found on the internet.)“ **

Google and other global players who dominate the internet ensure that they are always the first to be found via the search engines, and because people are lazy and don't search further, they get the most clicks, so that their oligopoly becomes ever more powerful. Market laws do not apply to them. And this has a lot of consequences.

I would very much welcome an independent, legally secured web presence of any person. It seemed to take this development in the 1990s, but the history of modernity initially also showed a pleasant development for each individual and then took a different course.

Before the turn of the millennium, it should have been ensured that the internet did not fall prey to total control. But that was gladly avoided. Now it is too late for such a development. But as I said, I am sure that the internet, which itself is part of modernity, will recapitulate modernity, with which it will end.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Humans have only one possibility to prove themselves in nature, i.e. to survive: they have to use their brain - their intelligence. That is the only thing that can make them fit. And that is what it has done in the course of evolution.« ** **

I can't claim to have observed the development processes of humans but isn't it laudable that humans only grew to dominance due to their social skills?

And without the, perhaps inadvertent, development of more diverse vocal cords (beyond the oo-oo--ay-ay stage) the human brain would never have developed the required communication diversity that led to logic and extended reasoning skills - the conscious intelligence (not merely instinctive intelligence).

Isn't social communication the first step to domination over the wild and woolly? In higher realms of society, isn't the media control (propaganda) the first step to national and global supremacy (exampled by recent events as well as many throughout history)?

Once the variations of sounds were capable of being broadcast and thus distinguished (many animals can distinguish them even tough not being able to replicate them) the, perhaps inadvertent, survival of the brains capable of utilizing that new function seemingly would have little choice but to rise and become more dominate - literal armies would form due simply from advanced propagation of danger alerts and direction signaling.

So I'm thinking, to be aligned more with historic social developments, it is really the vocal cords that deserve the credit - without which the brain would never had inspiration to advance past - "oo--oo -- ay-ay".

And socially it is the language, the written word, the documenting, the news paper, the radio broadcasting, the tele broadcasting, the internet connectivity, and finally at the moment "social platform" development and control. The brains behind it all are more of an post development - after seeing the utility of a new way to spread influence to more human creatures.

The tool develops the mind - the mind then develops new tools - the new tools then develop new minds.

The sophisticated automobile did not invent the wheel. I think that is a safe bet.“ **

Yes. It's the language. It is itself a product of the unique development of the brain, both of which have hyped each other up. Body and mind/spirit, spirit/mind and body; later also: body against mind/spirit, spirit/mind against body.

	**

It started with the upright walk and then with the development of the hands. The hands became more and more graceful. But the real process that made humans successful was the one after that: cerebralization.

There were three conditions for these developments:

1. Exogenous (environmental changes with corresponding necessities for adaptation).
2. Endogenous (further development of certain organs, atrophy of others).
3. Autogenous (as a distancing mode as production of self-created changes in conditions).

For humans, the importance of these 3 conditions to each other has shifted more and more in favor of the autogenous factors (see: 3.). For this relationship system the meaning of the migration into the savannah (exogenous) or the meaning of the upright walk (endogenous) or the meaning of the hand for the culture construction (autogenous) is emphasized again and again. However, a decisive basis was the cerebralization, i.e. the size development of the brain, which was triggered in a network from all 3 directions. The brain of an early hominid in the animal-human transition had a volume of approx. 500cm³ (example: Australopithecus) and grew up to approx. 600-800cm³ (Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis), approx. 750-1250cm³ (Homo erectus), 1200-1800cm3 (Neanderthal man), up to approx. 2000cm³ (Neanderthal man and Now man).

The cerebralization enabled the superstructure of repressed instinctual programming through conditioning (trial and error) and cognition (imagination and thought).

These humans would never have been successful without this brain development, but would have disappeared from evolution after only a short time.

Everything that humans have created, their culture (including technology), goes back to their intelligence. That made them successful. Thus, the characteristic of human fitness is their intelligence.

Meno wrote:

„@ Great Again. ** **

.... I think this part of the general consideration of »compensation« has been downplayed by Darwin, and the rise of behaviorism downplaying the more cognitive aspects form a naturalistic fallacy that expands focus into the larger universal categories.“ **

Yes. See my response to Obsrvr.

The 19th century was a century of natural science. Everything was interpreted in terms of natural science. Philosophy was also strongly influenced by this, of course. This can be seen exactly in the history of phisosophy in the 19th century.

The turning point came with the turn to the 20th century, in dates: 1900; in terms of cultural history: World War 1 (1914-1918).

Let's wait and see, because the 21st century will not be like the 20th century. That's for sure!

Meno wrote:

„The early paradigmn of anthropological effects of genetic superiority, are replaced by political varience later on.“ **

Yes.

7830

Great Again wrote:

„Yes. It's the language. It is itself a product of the unique development of the brain, both of which have hyped each other up. Body and mind/spirit, spirit/mind and body; later also: body against mind/spirit, spirit/mind against body.

	**

It started with the upright walk and then with the development of the hands. The hands became more and more graceful. But the real process that made humans successful was the one after that: cerebralization.

There were three conditions for these developments:

1. Exogenous (environmental changes with corresponding necessities for adaptation).
2. Endogenous (further development of certain organs, atrophy of others).
3. Autogenous (as a distancing mode as production of self-created changes in conditions).

For humans, the importance of these 3 conditions to each other has shifted more and more in favor of the autogenous factors (see: 3.). For this relationship system the meaning of the migration into the savannah (exogenous) or the meaning of the upright walk (endogenous) or the meaning of the hand for the culture construction (autogenous) is emphasized again and again. However, a decisive basis was the cerebralization, i.e. the size development of the brain, which was triggered in a network from all 3 directions. The brain of an early hominid in the animal-human transition had a volume of approx. 500cm³ (example: Australopithecus) and grew up to approx. 600-800cm³ (Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis), approx. 750-1250cm³ (Homo erectus), 1200-1800cm3 (Neanderthal man), up to approx. 2000cm³ (Neanderthal man and Now man).

The cerebralization enabled the superstructure of repressed instinctual programming through conditioning (trial and error) and cognition (imagination and thought).

These humans would never have been successful without this brain development, but would have disappeared from evolution after only a short time.

Everything that humans have created, their culture (including technology), goes back to their intelligence. That made them successful. Thus, the characteristic of human fitness is their intelligence.“ ** **

Just as you said, intelligence is the fitness characteristic of human beings, and therefore, according to Darwin, the most intelligent humans must be those humans who have the most offspring.

1407) Kathrina, 05.02.2021, 00:01, 01:50, 18:40; Great Again, 05.02.2021, 18:40, 18:56; Kathrina, 05.02.2021, 20:24, 21:13; Otto, 05.02.2021, 23:30, 23:48; Great Again, 05.02.2021, 23:59 (7831-7840)

Everyone here has so far agreed that it is true that Darwin was concerned with the survival of the fittest, and everyone here has also so far agreed that intelligence is a characteristic of fitness. That those will survive who have more offspring than others, that was probably known tens of thousands of years ago. But Darwin, clever as he was, also said that.

So the characteristic of fitness and those with the most offspring must be related. And according to Darwin, they are related, namely causally. Their relation is the causality. Darwin was a typical 19th century scientist (thank you, Great Again [**|**], for pointing this out), always and everywhere looking after natural causes.

Natural selection does not only reuqire references to successful progeny - that would had been nothing new under the sun for Darwin -, but requires also the cause for the successful progeny! Regardless whether Darwin was right or not on this.

In winter:

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„The way I understand it, to say that someone is fit in Darwin's sense of the word is to say that that someone has reproduced or that he will reproduce at some point in the future. Thus, if you do not reproduce, you are unfit. Doesn't matter how intelligent you are.

But to say that someone is fit in the usual sense of the word is to say that that someone has what it takes to perform certain task in a desirable way. So when your employer tells you that you are fit for the job, he's telling you that he thinks that you have what it takes to do what he wants you to do. He's talking about your potentials and not about what happened and/or what will happen.

It's easy to confuse the two and I think it's Darwin's fault to an extent.

But I didn't read Darwin, so there's a possibility that I am wrong. Is there anyone here disputing my claim? What about you, Kathrina? Are you claiming that Darwin didn't define the word „fitness“ this way?

See below (the bold print).

Sculptor wrote:

„Have you ever thought of reading a book?“ **

Have you (**) ever been kind to people in your life? Always only communist? Anyone who disagrees with you is against you? Always only orders and obedience like in the communism!

Sculptor wrote:

„The Origin of Species is clear and well written. You can read it free online (**).“ **

Written by a communist.

In the Darwinistic sense, „fit“ or „fitness“ describes the degree of adaptation to the environment (i.e. adaptive specialization), or the ability to reproduce despite low specialization. This means that not that species survives which defies everything and displaces other species, but the one which either adapts to the environment or manages to reproduce continuously despite adverse environmental conditions.

Darwin had recoined the 18th century idea of development through national economic tendencies, which he took from his teacher Malthus and projected into the highest animal kingdom.

Facts. Period. Facts are not for communists though, which can be seen in this forum.

The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.

Microcomputers (nanobots) the size of a cell are supposed to improve our brain function (probably even when we don't want them to!) This is to explore the brain, scan synapse by synapse, transmitter by transmitter, and be able to copy a brain.

Virtual spaces are created with such microcomputers. Billions of nanobots will be sent into our brains as artificial neurons, attaching themselves to every single nerve cord coming from our sensory organs.

„When we want to experience real reality, the nanobots hold still. For the virtual reality experience, they cut off the supply of real stimuli and put artificial signals in their place.“ - Ray Kurzweil.

Copied post in another thread.

Maybe it should be something between a hull (bubble), a cave, a cottage, a simple but economic, for instance neolithic house (?).

Skyscrapers?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Otto = Arminius?“ **

Do you mean the Cheruscan Arminius, who defeated the Romans in 9 AD? This guy has been dead for more than 2000 years.

So I guess you mean a different one. I've researched and found this one. Do you mean him?

Even then, if Tim Berners-Lee wanted to change something, he most likely wouldn't have a chance to do it, would he?

Why didn't he think earlier about the huge problems that the internet already brought us shortly after its creation?

Obsrvr wrote:

„I think the objective of the powerful is to gain more power - »only serving the peasants to cause them to serve power«. - The Borg.“ **

Agreed. Gaining more power is the goal of every creature. It is nevertheless necessary to limit power, howsoever.

1408) Kathrina, 06.02.2021, 00:48, 01:28; Great Again, 06.02.2021, 02:30, 02:32; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 06.02.2021, 20:46, 20:53 (7841-7846)

It is quite obvious that you are just offended because you do not tolerate any other opinion than your own, and that is typical for communists. Fact.

Go away, you stupid and unfriendly communist.

WIKIPEDIA wrote:

„Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, published in 1868, »This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term »natural selection« is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity«. He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the »attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets«, or the way in which »agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection«. He had »often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,—and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events.[3]“ **

Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you „Sculptor“.

WIKIPEDIA wrote:

„In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase »natural selection«.[10] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[4] Darwin implies again the synonym: »Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest«.[5] By »fittest« Darwin meant »better adapted for the immediate, local environment«, not the common modern meaning of »in the best physical shape« (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[6] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing »I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.«[11]“ **

„By »fittest« Darwin meant »better adapted for the immediate, local environment«, not the common modern meaning of »in the best physical shape« ....“ JUST WHAT I SAID IN MY LAST POST (and you illiterate communist could not read it):

Kathrina wrote:

„In the Darwinistic sense, »fit« or »fitness« describes the degree of adaptation to the environment (i.e. adaptive specialization), or the ability to reproduce despite low specialization. This means that not that species survives which defies everything and displaces other species, but the one which either adapts to the environment or manages to reproduce continuously despite adverse environmental conditions.“ ** **

So again, Scalped Sculptor, go away, you illiterate and unfriendly communist. And don't start with your insults again, because that's the only thing you can.

Go away, ugly man.

Copied post in another thread.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Gaining more power is the goal of every creature. It is nevertheless necessary to limit power, howsoever.« ** **

It seems the prevailing strategy is proving to be - eliminate the encumbrance - replace the less harmonious with the more harmonious - replace unserviceable with the serviceable - manufacture the servant to design specifications from the ground up as soon as possible - and eliminate that which doesn't serve.

Yes, that's right, and I believe that we are among those to be eliminated, so, given the alternative, I almost feel like a martyr already.

Otto wrote:

„Even then, if Tim Berners-Lee wanted to change something, he most likely wouldn't have a chance to do it, would he?

Why didn't he think earlier about the huge problems that the internet already brought us shortly after its creation?“ ** **

Maybe Berners-Lee was one of those who won back then, but while the others have won and probably will continue to win, he hasn't won in quite some time.

Some are more free than others. This sentence shows that freedom can only be relative.

Urwrong wrote:

„Otto wrote:

»The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.« ** **

Absolutely this.

This is why these cowards need to threaten violence here on this philosophy forum, because they have nothing left in terms of conviction, argument, debate, and rationality.“ **

Will the „cowards“ get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?

1409) Great Again, 07.02.2021, 00:01, 00:44; Otto, 07.02.2021, 01:00, 01:14, 01:17, 01:22, 02:03, 02:20, 02:44, 02:47; Otto, 07.02.2021, 04:00; Great Again, 07.02.2021, 04:08, 04:12, 04:25 (7847-7860)

Topic: Renewing the Moderation?

Do you have any suggestions on how to renew the moderation here, which seems to not exist?
Warning or banning should be judged by moderators, right?
Or we denounce others to Carleas, who then judges accordingly. Many already do that anyway.
But can and should we not better design the moderation?
Or should we just let it go on? The world is heading for chaos anyway.
Are there no problems with the moderation?
How would you answer the questions?

My number is purely private, top secret.

Meno wrote:

„Ho Otto are You really Arminius?“ **

|23|8|25| |19|8|15|21|12|4| |9| |2|5| |1|18|13|9|14|9|21|19|?

Can you decipher that? I guess that you can, because otherwise you would never have posted in this numbers thread.

235 1981521124 715 1514 239208 208919 142113251819 20818514 225 21199147 15141225 142113251819. 238120 415 251521 20891411 12152120 208120. 208919 231521124 25 69145, 120 12511920 141520 1915 214.

251521 61520 920?

15145 1315185 209135 61518 2085 18520118419: 235 1981521124 715 1514 239208 208919 142113251819 20818514 225 21199147 15141225 142113251819. 238120 415 251521 20891411 12152120 208120. 208919 231521124 25 69145, 120 12511920 141520 1915 214.

61518 2579141451819 1121851425 17219205 715154.

Oh, I'm the first to comment. That makes me very happy.

I voted „no“. So I would not renew the moderation of ILP (**|**). leave it as it is.

Maybe you should prefer a middle-class house?

Monad wrote:

„Humans are already machines albeit genetic ones simply through the process of serving programmed functions without much thought for anything else. As humans this usually gets transcribed into some higher imagined purpose which actually serves no function at all except wishful thinking. The counter question would be can a machine become what a human is supposed to be? After all, just like a machine, humans are just another assembly of various entities.“ **

If a human is supposed to be a machine, then the answer to your „counter question can a machine become what a human is supposed to be?“ must be „no“, because a machine is already a machine. A machine can perhaps become another machine but not a machine, just because of the fact that a machine is already a machine.

I believe in a god or gods or something somehow transcendent.

What about you (**)?

I think, the humans will never replace the machines.

I meant primarily the belief in God, in gods or in any transcendent beings, because you (**) have indicated this topic (**).

Did you (**) vote?

The machines invented by humans are not humans, even in the case when it is tried to interpret the machines into the humans or the humans into the machines.

1410) Great Again, 08.02.2021, 00:00, 00:36; Kathrina, 08.02.2021, 02:06; Great Again, 08.02.2021, 02:40, 18:29, 18:41, 19:15, 20:28, 20:43, 21:07, 21:31, 22:08 (7861-7872)

Perhaps they wish for a better moderation, but have realized that a better moderation is not possible here.

That is one of the most important question in this issue: Whom does it serve? „Cui bono?“, as the Chinese says.

The overlords believe that they are being served by this, because they know that they are being served for economic reasons (bubbles everywhere) and ecological reasons (energy problems, soon everywhere too). They want energy saving machines and energy saving humans. Both are to draw their energy mostly from outside the planet earth, in order to preserve it - allegedly. For this more alleged reason and because of their delusion (Godwannabe ) they want humans (inventors) and machines (inventions) to merge. This is rational, yes, but in the end it serves no man, no machine, no machine-man, no man-machine, unless „rationality“ is understood to mean „purely economic benefit“, which would be wrong, because this is not only about economy but also about ecology, more precisely about the consideration for the environment, and that does not mean „benefit“, but „servanthood“, „sacrifice“, „death“.

This whole thing will probably turn out to be a milkmaid's calculation in the end.

It could have worked, if the wiver had been made early enough. Waiver also has to do with rationality!

The biggest problem is the desire for power, which here extends to the Godwannabe.

Zero Sum wrote:

„I know you think you're trying to relate to me but you can't Peter, try being homeless for almost ten years straight for starters and then imagine what it's like skewering a snake on an open fire for a meal.

Imagine what it's like feeling empty and numb every single day of your existence like feeling your entire body has been embalmed, that's what I feel like every single day, but you're not dead you see, you're very much alive, you've become the living dead. Then imagine the most horrific nightmare you've ever had and then when you wake up everyday your life or own existence is much worse than your own scariest nightmares asleep, your entire life or existence a living nightmare that you constantly have to endure daily. Then think what's it like wishing you were never born, wishing that your own mother would of saved you all the trouble in life and had you aborted at birth. Think of what it's like going from one shitty low income bullshit job to the next having to deal with shitty ass people you hate and having everything you can do to restrain yourself from going on a homicidal rage where you think to yourself that if that person makes one more bad remark you can just see yourself bashing their skull in until blood comes out of their eye sockets, I have really bad days sometimes. I have everything I can do just keeping myself from going into violent outbursts against other people, takes tremendous willpower to restrain myself. Your entire life shuffling about from one place to the next where every time you breathe or are conscious you feel like you're drowning in water with somebody's hand on your head forcing you down into the water where you're swallowing water drowning, imagine feeling like that all the time.

Wife? How fortunate you are. Women generally want nothing to do with me, I've tried everything I can to attract a mate or spouse, but to no avail. Something about being too poor, not good enough, and so on and so on. They always seem to have a long list in rejecting me and niceties with them gets me nowhere. In truth, I view a majority of women with contempt, they talk about love but with me all I ever see in them are huge dollar signs. I have an extremely negative opinion of a majority of women, they're vicious gold diggers, opportunists, and grifters with tits that will sell you what they have to offer so long as you can match their outstanding price. Paradoxical really, on the one hand I hate a majority of women, but on the other hand I envy or desire the devoted love of a woman, I just never can see one getting with me and as a general rule in my life they don't. Infrequently I'll bag a whore here and there but it never seems to last or go anywhere as the prospects of long term relationships simply non-existent. Always wanted a family, doesn't happen of course. I have no close friends and no family of my own, both parents deceased, no siblings. Just me and my miserable lonely self, an individual who is constantly damned.

I've read all of your hopeful socially utopian favorite writers and authors too Peter, I've read them all, but none of them ever seem to have advice for the damned, condemned, or cursed. Just some irrelevant pieces of advice from hopeful idealistic fools, bourgeois, or aristocrats with too much money and idle time at their disposal, people who have never truly suffered, lost everything, and have never been banished from society as a whole casted out like a leper. They don't know true meaning of pain, misery, suffering, or despair, but I do.

I'm sorry Peter, your happy magical positive thinking doesn't work for me, it never has, and since it never has all I have left is anger or rage along with a desire of retribution. There is much more to this world than perception and there are grave consequences to it.

Retribution against whom? And who benefits from that? You? I do not think so. I know that you are actually very nice. There are still many women who want a nice man. I also know that you are mentally very fit, that you use the language properly, unlike most here. So you would realize it quickly if you did something that was not good for you. Do not throw your life away.

Merely „partially true“ (**)?

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»The machines invented by humans are not humans, even in the case when it is tried to interpret the machines into the humans or the humans into the machines.« ** **

Although ---

If James was right (and I strongly suspect he was) the idea and name »human« meant »hue-of-Man« - the lower order creatures that made up the higher Man-ager of the paradise Eden originally called »ADM«, »Adam«, »Ahdam«.

So I can see the possible day when those machines, in whatever form, are the actual lower order creature making up the Man(ager) of Earth. And at that point, homosapians will no longer be »humans« - the androids will be instead - just like conservatives in the US are no longer citizens with equal rights, but »domestic terrorists« - the Jews would call them »the goyim« and the Musslims would call them »the kafir« or »infidels« - not humans.

It is an issue of who or what makes up the constituency of who or what is managing/governing life on Earth.

Fortunately James also had the ethical solution for all of this but it isn't clear that Man will ever realize it. “ **

„Hue-of-Man“? And the machines will become this „hue-of-Man“? Will there still be homosapiens then? The homsapiens will then have been replaced, i.e. will have disappeared, right?

But it may also be questionable whether people will still be alive in this „fully automated world“ (**).

I am not saying that people will not be alive then, but only asking whether they will be alive then or not.

Those two (**) were not the only ones who wrote about it.There are quite a few who did that as well. Hobbes experienced a terrible war, and because of that he wrote both about it and about the conclusions he thought should be drawn.

Kant was the inventor of anthropology. After Kant came other conclusions concerning anthropology as well. I don't know if we have to go into them in detail. But I do know that one has to use one's own head to come to certain conclusions, which one then confronts with ethics and reconsiders, especially with regard to all historicity of such questions.

The prospect that one can always interpret all this only relatively is great.

According to the number theory, 0 is not a so-called „natural number“, but a so-called „integer number“.

The machines and the androids (both are not humans) will utilise and benefit from a fully automated world. Machines will get what they will need from other machines and vice versa.

Yea, it would not be my world, it would not be your world, and it would not be a world for humans at all, because humans would already be dead then.

Thesis.

The people will slowly die out, namely on the following way: They will become demented (their memory is already reduced by censorship). They will have no more memory, i.e. history and history narrations will be no more possible, because the memory for it is missing. They will become communistic, whatever that may mean in reality, because they will be machinized at the same time, become cyborgs. They will be fought and defeated by the androids and the pure machines, so that at the end of this fight no human will be left.

Note and take into account that this is a thesis.

Mags J. wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»The machines and the androids (both are not humans) will utilise and benefit from a fully automated world. Machines will get what they will need from other machines and vice versa.« ** **

Are you assuming that machines will appreciate this benefitting, or that it will be a passive/non-sentient machine code level operation?“ **

More the latter, Mags. However, the former is also possible, but not yet thinkable for most of us.

Mags J. wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»Yea, it would not be my world, it would not be your world, and it would not be a world for humans at all, because humans would already be dead then. « ** **

How all very West World.“ **

The whole world has become a West World, at least in a technical and economical sense. Like it or not.

This (**) is all known, especially the history of numbers. But for the not very old number theory the 0 belongs together with the negative numbers to the so-called „integer numbers“.

Even Wikipedia agrees:

Wikipedia wrote:

„0 (zero) is a number,[1] and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity[2] of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems. Names for the number 0 in English include zero, nought (UK), naught (US) (/n??t/), nil, or—in contexts where at least one adjacent digit distinguishes it from the letter "O"—oh or o (/o?/). Informal or slang terms for zero include zilch and zip.[3] Ought and aught (/??t/),[4] as well as cipher,[5] have also been used historically.[6][7]“ **

==>