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 |
<= [1661][1662][1663][1664][1665][1666][1667][1668][1669][1670] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1661) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 01.07.2023, 01:02, 01:04; Alf, 01.07.2023, 01:16, 01:19, 01:36, 01:40; Kultur, 01.07.2023, 17:04, 17:04, 17:17, 17:27; 17:27 Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 01.07.2023, 20:17; Kultur, 01.07.2023, 21:12, 22:09 (8885-8897)
If genetic engineering and so-called artificial intelligence are mastering the future, then this is not simply good, because in every history of renewal there have been two sides. And it is no different now and will be no different in the future. Billions of people will disappear, perhaps even all people. A great many other living beings will disappear, if not all of them. According to our economy, consumption is necessary. But machines do not consume. If there is no work for people (but only for machines), then the consumption of these people must be artificially covered, and that does not work in the long run.And the belief that because one can reach many people in the world with a mouse click, one has something to say in the world, is a great fallacy. One CAN reach many does not mean one reaches many. The truth is that one reaches less in the new world than in the old world. To one who sends, if the sending is to succeed, belongs one who receives. With so many broadcasts, anyone can quickly and easily decide to simply leave the worst broadcasts unanswered.In addition, there is censorship, which increases the number of broadcasts that go nowhere, so that as a result there is almost nothing left. Great new world! Brave New World!Greetings from Aldous Huxley.
Copied post in another forum.
Herr Schütze wrote:
Even ILP is hardly known by anyone in the world. It is simply lost in the infinitely large web.
Alf wrote:
One of them has now posted again after all. Great. I'm very happy again.
|
8891 |
8892 |
8893 |
8894 |
8895 |
Horny for money (and data - because of money). | Man-made space RUBBISH in Earth orbit. | Planet Jupiter and its exploiter (the Jupiterist). |
Machines can and do consume. Your car consumes fuel. Your computer consumes electricity. Factories consume fuel, electricity, parts and supplies, raw materials. Once AI is more ubiquitous these things will be transitioned largely to self-automated systems and you will really see machines consuming for their own sake. Humans might supervise and assist here and there, but the AI-governed machines and corporations, factories, self-driving cars etc. will dominate. **
8896 |
8897 |
1662) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.07.2023, 01:00 (8898)
Humanize wrote:
Okay, then marcuse me for not heideggering this.----------------------------------------------------------------------------I also ask about the essence of technology, which itself is nothing technical. Rather, this essence results from a basic metaphysical position. This is specified as the end point of modern metaphysics. The paradigm of the Cartesian notion of the »ego cogito« becomes the inventory, so that the elaborated, disembodied technology no longer allows the world to be, but makes it thematic exclusively in its preparedness, as a »Gestell« (»Ge-stell«). The uses in their repetitive structure distinguish the technique. This makes the pragmatic dimension of use impossible in the technical paradigm. Dasein is itself included in the technical Gestell.Technology tends towards the gigantic, towards a growth that is no longer bound to natural resource limits.Ethical maxims prove to be invalid in view of the autopoietic power of technology.This philosophy of technology goes beyond a conventional analysis of alienation just as decisively as it goes beyond anthropological or cultural philosophies of technology.Humanize wrote:
No, Jakob.It is not the technology brakemen, who are as old as technology itself, but today's technology responsible proponents who are decimating humanity and destroying the world. There is not only good in technology, but also much evil. This is an ethical topic, so it has to do with philosophy and with the topic of this thread: The philosophy of technology and time.Those responsible for digital technology and everything related to it are in the process of making humanity disappear and destroying planet Earth and its surroundings, so that within a relatively short time the Earth will be without higher life.These guilty leaders, who are obviously supported by you, are doing everything they can to shift their responsibility, and therefore their guilt, onto others, especially the white middle class. Along the way, they ruin it, make their wealth their own, and move on to the next intermediate goal - to the final goal: having stolen all the wealth on planet Earth. This means: from the previous relative destruction to total destruction.That is my position. And not only mine.Do not pretend that you do not understand that. |
1663) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 21.07.2023, 22:02, 22:28 (8899-8900)
Your (**) problem is that you have no arguments and have to resort to tautologies and fallacies.It is - for example - simply not true that technology is always the solution to the problems created by technology (you say: technological innovation itself is often the solution to the problems created by technology [**], which is false in the long run). Economists believe in something similar: fight debt with debt, and the economy can grow sky-high. The limits to growth are real. This has been proven for a long time.Physics is the first science to have reached its limits - quantum physics, i.e. first Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory (1900), and then especially and for perfection Werner Heisenberg, the founder of quantum mechanics (1925), proved it (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.). Before 1925, when Heisenberg founded his quantum theory, or - at the latest - before 1927, when Heisenberg founded his uncertainty principle, every physicist dealt with constellations as if they could become independent. However, this way of thinking, culminating in the theory of relativity, reached its limits in quantum physics.Mathematics, too, has long since ceased to be able to eliminate mathematical problems again and again by finding new mathematical solutions. There has been conventionalism ever since.It is precisely these two sciences - mathematics and physics - on which our entire science is ultimately based, i.e.: without them, the overall science and thus also the basis of abstraction collapses. This collapse has been underway for a relatively long time. Philosophy also belongs to this basis of abstraction (it is a basis of abstraction of a culture, the European, Occidental one). And because ILP is supposed to be a philosophy forum, we should also talk about how philosophy can help with these problems, or whether it just participates or even sets the tone (as it used to be).Technology will soon also reach its limits. This is represented by the irreparable damage that digital, nano and genetic technology have already caused and will cause in particular.The reason for the negative side of technology is not technical at all, but the fact that there are certain people who are only interested in power and use technology only as a means to an end (power!). Here there is a relationship to money, which is also only a means to an end (power!) The irreparable damage that they have already done and will continue to do to a much greater extent is therefore not caused by the technology itself, but by the people who determine the technology. So, again, the reason for the negative side of technology is not itself a technical one, but the fact that few people think that it is about their power, their retention of power, their expansion of power and nothing else. Because if they lose their power, they themselves are also lost. That is why these extreme obsessive-compulsive neurotrics are driven, forced to spur on the technicians.I am not an opponent of technology. Technology has its positive side. Certain people are negative and misuse technology for themselves, for reasons of power, the(ir) will to power. For some time now, they have been finding the human remainder (99.99%) annoying, since it is clear that it will soon no longer be needed, i.e. will be removed: 99.99% - and that means that 0.001% are in the process of sawing off the branch they are sitting on (perhaps that is why they are already looking for a new home outside planet Earth).It is stupid for a species (here: homo sapiens sapiens) to kick itself out of evolution. And the stupidest thing is when this is intentionally caused by the pack leaders of this species, which until then had been considered by far the most intelligent species.Humanize? They call it: Humanize. But they mean: Dehumanize! Their motto is: Dehumanize! They also call it: Transhumanize! And I am not in the mood for that.So, the conclusion from what I have said in this thread is that the problem we have to talk about is not a technical one. The reason for each technique is not a technical one. And the reason for each technical problem is not a technical one - but a human one.You should not deny these problems, which are related to technology, but have nothing to do with technology in terms of the motive for the crime.
Moreover: Your thread is named The philosophy of technology and time and opened in the subforum Philosophy of the forum Philosophy of ILP (ILovePhilosophy), and ethics is also part of philosophy. |
1664) Alf, 31.07.2023, 01:00, 01:02, 01:08, 01:10, 15:04, 15:18 (8901-8906)
Pink Tones (Nacho Aparicio, Álvaro Espinosa, Cefe Fernández, Toni Fernández, Edu Jerez, Pipo Rodríguez) at Segóbriga Roman Amphitheatre, Spain, playing pieces of music by Pink Floyd, 2016.
Feelings as half-things: Hermann Schmitzs phenomenology and the realness of medical humanities. - Mathias Wirth. **
Marcuse was also a student and assistant to Heidegger.
Technik ist eine Weise des Entbergens. (Martin Heidegger,
Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962, S. 13 **).
|
8905 |
8906 |
1665) Hubert Brune, 03.08.2023 (8907)
Es geht tatsächlich eben auch um die Praxis. Es war Konrad Zuse (1910-1995), der den ersten Computer der Welt baute, und an dieser dargestellten Praxis ließ sich das, was Kybernetik genannt wird, besonders gut ablesen. 1940 war Zuse mit dem Bau seines ersten Computers der Welt fertig. Er hat ihn von 1987 bis 1989 - also als 77-79-Jähriger (!) - aus dem Gedächtnis heraus noch einmal gebaut, weil der erste beim Bombenholocaust zerstört worden war. Die Bombenholocaustianer wußten eben ganz genau, was, wen und wieviel sie treffen mußten.1673 war die erste funktionierende Rechenmaschine, eine Addier- und Multipliziermaschine, fertig. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz hatte sie gebaut. Von 1673 bis 1940, als der erste Computer fertig war, gebaut von Konrad Zuse, vergingen also immerhin 267 Jahre. Von 1940 bis 1990, als Tim Berners-Lee auf einem NeXT-Computer die grundlegenden Konzepte (das Protokoll HTTP, das Format HTML, Client- und Server-Software) entwickelt hatte und die erste Website des Internets (WWW) am 20. Dezember 1990 verfügbar machte, vergingen nur noch 50 Jahre. |
1666) Alf, 04.08.2023, 01:03, 16:08 (8908-8909)
Mags J. wrote:
However, such statements do not make the problem disappear.You may say: I have nothing against weapons. But I say to you: You mean weapons as such, yes, they are harmless as such, because they only become dangerous when they are used. But who uses them? The owner! And if there are only a few owners of weapons, then they can use the weapons to keep other people under control. It is the same with AI. Replace weapons with AI. AI is owned by very few (too few!) people. These people have illegally usurped patents and licenses and then forbade all other people to have patents and licenses in this area. In this criminal way, the very (too) few AI owner have bcome able to control, enslave all other people through AI.Do you know what it means to have a chip in your brain? This chip is programmed to control you in any (any!) direction. You can no longer control yourself.The very (too) few AI owner want to digitize the whole planet, thus also each animal and each human.Heidegger, who was also not against technology, warned against the misuse of technology by man as early as the 1930s, and indeed since he had established (1934) what National Socialism was really all about.Since 1917/1933, three isms (titanomachia) competed with each other for a humanly disguised world domination: the National Socialism of Germany, the Americanism of the United States, and the Bolshevism of the Soviet Union. At first it seemed as if National Socialism would win, then, because Germany lost the 2nd World War against the allied Americanism and Bolshevism (both benefited greatly from German technology), National Socialism fell out of the competition for the time being, and it looked as if Bolshevism would win, but it lost the Cold War against Americanism and also fell out of the competition for the time being, so that it seemed as if Americanism would have won the competition of the three for world domination, but we have known at least since the beginning of the financial crisis (1998, especially 2007/2008) that Americanism has not triumphed either, but the privatism of a few who - quite privately - secured world power, and money helped them to do so, but also digital technology, both of which are also connected to each other - privately, of course. In the said financial crises and most recently in the corona crisis, privatism clearly showed its world domination.For Heidegger, the competition of the three said isms for world domination was only a consequence of the Occidental metaphysics of technology, of Machenschaft (poorly translated into English as machination), and that also means: of the will to will, of the absolute subjectivity, which abuses technology for only itself, its power.Ned Ludd may have said: I am not against the steam engine as such, but whoever has power over the steam engine can also tell me what to do and what not to do. So I am destroying the steam engine, even though I have nothing against the steam engine as such, but only against its owners.History repeats itself and yet does not repeat itself.
|
8909 |
1667) Alf, 28.08.2023, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:04, 01:07, 01:08, 01:09, 01:10; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 28.08.2023, 17:13, 17:36, 18:26, 18:29 (8910-8922)
Humanize wrote:
Well, these sentences that I wrote last even contradict at least partially the sentences I wrote before. But good. That's life. Full of contradictions. It is important to educate them where possible and to pick them up.But: Nonsense? You do not know what you are talking about. What you say, without knowing it, is equivalent to demanding that philosophy must become mathematics or another science. But if philosophy is mathematics or another science, then philosophy is no longer philosophy. That is logical. Have you understood that at least to some extent?Again: Nonsense? No, it is completely thought-out philosophy. Completely because it does not only start from the human being and also not only from the adult human being, as philosophy has done almost exclusively in the past. Philosophy is on the retreat because those of its disciplines that have become corrupt prevent that it can get beyond or back to certain issues, e.g. to the simplest things, as phenomenology/existential-philosophy/fundamental-ontology and the new phenomenology have been doing as exceptional philosophical disciplines of the time since the beginnig of the 20th century. So there were and are exceptions. In other words, the philosophy is still attractive. Its only problem is that it is not as powerful as those who misuse science (also parts of philosophy) and technology.So if the exceptions of philosophy will have perished (whenever that will be in the future), then and only then philosophy as a whole will also have perished (thus not before).Heidegger was right when he said that philosophy was at an end and that he called his philosophy only thinking. It was clear to him that the question to which he had devoted himself for so long could be answered by technology, because Sein (being) could be revealed through the technology of Dasein (being there, existence, man).When philosophy will have been completely absorbed into the scientific disciplines (just as all scientific disciplines have previously detached themselves from philosophy), then philosophy will have completely disappeared. But until then, we will keep going. Without resistance, but with calmness. But what if thinking will also have disappeared by then?
The restriction of the domain of the numerical manifold in the general manifold puts a stop to the hypertrophy of the Pythagorean thought that everything is equal to number or is ordered according to number, measure and weight, and thus to the ever stronger attempt in life to give number dominance over thinking - culminating in the cry for digitalisation - which can refer thinking back to the foundations of manifoldness.That is philosophy!If philosophy were mathematics, then it would follow numerical manifoldness alone, i.e. it would be something like numerism, which always confirms mathematics and fights or ignores philosophy.So it is exactly the opposite of what you say without knowing it.Philosophy would no longer be philosophy if it were mathematics.
I have nothing against philosophy becoming mathematics, but then no one should complain, as you seem to do, that no one cares about philosophy (**).
As I said, I am not against technology either. Quite the opposite. So I am not against digitalisation either. Quite the opposite. Perhaps technology does indeed conceal the revelation of being, which is thus revealed through technology, as Heidegger put it. That is the good, pleasant and perhaps even making very happy aspect of technology. So again: I am not against it.But I am against the misuse of technology and therefore also against the misuse of digital technology - just as Heidegger and others were against the misuse of technology. This abuse was and is a fact. You should not deny it either. I have already written about it at other places.
Humanize wrote:
That is really nonsense! It is not just about the lack, but about the fact that something does not always have to be single, but can also be manifold, and not only numerically manifold, but also non-numerically manifold.You are simply insulting because you are incapable of reasoning. You do not argue at all, but rely on the effects that the insults can produce. You only ever show that you are dumb.Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination as a precondition of the supposedly possible digitalisation of the world means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what digitalisation is?The all-determining people who pretend to know that the world can be totally digitalised should first prove it, but they are not capable of proving it. But conversely, those who are more modest can know and do know that the world can never be completely digitalised.It is not possible to determine each thing individually, whether it is alive or not, whether it exists or not or no longer or not yet.Everyone only has to remember his or her childhood to know how interwoven everything can be, that there are subjective facts as well as objective ones, that there is non-numerical manifoldness, and that BEFORE numerical manifoldness. For animals and also human infants there is no numerical manifoldness yet.And: Everyone is a different person today than everyone was yesterday, and everyone is a different person tomorrow than everyone is today. Only on the one hand everyone is himself, on the other hand everyone is in fact a different person from phase to phase. Everyone can observe this in himself.
And once again:The problem with technology is not technology itself, but the misuse of technology.
The transhumanizers are not in control of technology, but technology is in control of the transhumanizers. The transhumanists who want to abolish humans risk abolishing themselves as well.That is the true entropy!
The ghosts you once called, you can no longer get rid of.
So, to be clear again: the problem is not the technology, but the misuse of technology by a few humans.
https://imgur.com/gallery/GATYvZuAlf wrote:
He was right.The essence of technology is itself nothing technical.Ernst Jünger's concept of the worker also plays a key role in the generation of this concept of technology. Or? The technical understanding of the world also means securing existence and growth. Calculative thinking is then reduced to the cybernetic operation of distinguishing between 0 and 1.
Another sad story.Supposedly, this is the largest military force and the largest economic power in the world (!): ** (**).I can't believe it!Very sad!
Or Detroit: ** (**).It is the same sad picture all over the USA.USA = Third World Country: ** (**).USA = United Slums of America. |
1668) Great Again, 29.08.2023, 16:06, 16:24, 16:44, 16:53, 16:59 (8923-8927)
One of your (**) problems is that you have no idea about genetic engineering.A vaccine based on genetic engineering changes your genetics. If it did not, then it would not be a vaccine based on genetic engineering.Your body will react to the genetic information of the vaccine you got as long as your genetics are in you, that is: as long as you live (and in some parts of your body even beyond death).
Humanize wrote:
Humanize wrote:
Humanize wrote:
Yup.Evil is always one step ahead of good.You can compare this with the criminal and the police in a good community. The criminal is always one step ahead of the police. It can't be any other way, except in societies that are already dominated by evil, because in those societies evil is considered good and good is considered evil. Here, evil reigns absolute.
Neuralink.com wrote:
Is this good or evil?
The only good presidents of the United States were those who were killed.
Tab wrote:
No.Tab wrote:
You are absolutely right.Tab wrote:
The Fermi paradox is quite irrelevant.Tab wrote:
It is a 0.0001% club!Tab wrote:
No.1% = 80 million. So: 0.01% = 800000.You should take mathematics more seriously!The hard core of the 0.01% club is again 0.01%! So in relation to the 8 billion, it is only 0.000001%. This 0.000001% = 80.And of this hard core, only one person will remain as a universal dictator.Your task: Calculate the percentage for one person out of 8 billion persons!
200 million = 2.5%.If you want to have 0.01% of 8 billion, then it is 800000, as I said, and in order to find the amount in history, you have to go back even further, namely to the Stone Age.Tab wrote:
The answer to the question of the other intelligent life in the universe is also quite irrelevant. Either the others are more intelligent than we are: then they are not interested in us or only in the way we are today about animals and plants. Or they are just as intelligent as or less intelligent than we are: then they are not able to visit us, just as we are currently unable to visit them either.Tab wrote:
These are the worst of all times.
What? |
1669) Great Again, 10.09.2023, 21:19, 22:01, 22:44 (8928-8930)
You (**) want to calm yourself and others, and you obviously belong to the denial system, the unteachable deniers of reality, who, on top of that, consider themselves optimists, as all reality deniers, all cowards do.Poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, and other signs of Third World are everywhere in the United States, in all cities, in every city.In 2019, for example, the official rate of poverty in the United States was 17.8% (see excerpt from the film [**]), and with the number of unreported cases together, it was even far higher, moreover, this number has continued to rise exponentially since then. |
8929 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Devil's motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise ..., until it is too late to choose otherwise.« **
Mephisto's motto:
»Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.«
(»I am part of that power // That the evil ever wants [to do], and ever does the good.«)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64 (**) -. ** **
8930 |
1670) Great Again, 20.09.2023, 21:00, 21:07, 22:44 (8928-8930)
Gloominary wrote:
That is not correct.Globalization is a process (isations are always processes); globalism is something like a goal to which globalization should lead and has already led, i.e. globalization has come to its end (I would say: since about 1990/2000); NWO is pretty much the same as globalism - with the difference that NWO is an order, while globalism is the ideology or rather an idealism of it. is an idealism for it, and a rather nihilistic one, which assumes that our globe can and will be regulated to infinity by data and money alone, that there can and will be an order for this globe regulated to infinitely small and infinitely large.Gloominary wrote:
( )Gloominary wrote:
Yes, of course. Just as they have always dominated the USA.Gloominary wrote:
Not the next phase, but the reinforcement, the supplement, just to their completion (see above: definition) needed antithesis, i.e. antithesis in the Hegelian sense. In this way they can now finally dominate the whole globe in such a way as it corresponds to a reality which is indeed characterized by contradiction. They also have to control the contradiction. In this way, the opponent becomes a harmless pseudo-opponent. Whether this calculation works out, however, is questionable, because contradiction (resistance) forms again and again, unless one controls also the brains to 100%, e.g., by nano and genetic engineering (chip in the brain etc.).Gloominary wrote:
Oh, these conflicts do exist, but they are managed conflicts (as I described above). Every opponent (every contradiction) shall be managed, thus: controlled.
Bob wrote:
Yes. The statement creation makes a creator is nonsense because it violates the grammatical rule of the well-formed sentence and thus also logic.If, for example, the producer produces his product, this does NOT mean that the product produces its producer.Such phrases are allowed in lyrical language, but not in prosaic language.That's easy. Those who do not understand this do not understand much else.For me, the authors of such sentence constructions try to prepare humans for the transformation from humans to transhumans (whatever that is: it is what comes after th end of humans). |
==>
|