541) Arminius, 15.08.2014, 01:17, 03:06, 04:09, 04:33, 04:49, 05:30, 05:46, 17:05, 18:58, 20:06, 21:03, 21:48, 22:15, 22:25, 23:04, 23:46, 23:59 (1810-1826)

Laughing Man wrote:

„Nice diagram (**|**). It's missing fascism, socialism, and communism but all those isms are just representations of the same oligarchic head. Like the space imagery also.“ **

Those „isms“ are no forms of government, but forms of ideological systems, and both are not the same. But those „isms“ are included anyway because forms of government and ideological systems „like“ or even „love“ each other very much, especially in modern times, the times of „isms“.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„Or, should only the rich be allowed to reproduce ....“ **

No. As I already said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**), each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

In this way the rate remains at 1. But if not, it would be no problem anyway. If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don't want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professionell corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by "reproduction managers" ("state mothers" or "professionell mothers") who are paid by those who don't want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!

Laughing Man wrote:

„Who is the smiling one (**|**) ?“  **

The smiling one is Mephistopheles (shorter: Mephisto). And as far as I „know“ you, you’ll find Mephisto interesting. I can guarantee you.

The following links lead to Goethe, Goethe's Faust, and Goethe's Mephisto(pheles): ** ** **

Translation:
Scene in Auerbach's cellar. From Goethe's „Faust“. Mephisto bewitches the students.

Laughing Man wrote:

„»I am the spirit that negates.
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
'Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent—
That is my proper element.«

- Mephistopheles -“ **

My translation was this one:

Arminius wrote:

„»I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent -
That is my own, real element.«

- Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe,
Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67. (**).“ ** **

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„I am learning German by Reading Faust. I have Walter Kaufmann's translation which is English on
one side and the German on the other side. Interesting way to learn a Language.

My quote by the way is "back at the ranch" by me, which is my way of saying getting back to the point.“ **

Congratulations. May I test your German skills?

„Ich bin ein Teil des Teils, der anfangs alles war, Ein Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar, Das stolze Licht, das nun der Mutter Nacht Den alten Rang, den Raum ihr streitig macht. Und doch gelingt's ihm nicht, da es, so viel es strebt, Verhaftet an den Körpern klebt.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 67. **

„But I'm Part of the Part which at the first was all, Part of the Darkness that gave birth to Light, The haughty Light that now with Mother Night Disputes her ancient rank and Space withal, And yet 'twill not succeed, since, strive as strive it may, Fettered to bodies will Light stay.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 67.

„Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, Erwirb es, um es zu besitzen.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 39. **

„What you have inherited from your fathers, Acquire it in order to possess it.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 39.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„I disagree.“ **

You can disagree as much as you want: You have no argument. Demography and economy have much to do with each other, but it is the demography that has the 51%. Or to modify your sig to a metaphor: „In a pure demography, 51 percent of the people get to pee in the economy of 49 percent of the people.“

You all want to prefer to live in luxury and therefore not to make the smallest sacrifice.
You all are partly to blame for the disaster that awaits us.
You all say: „After me, the flood.“
You all do not want to see anything because you are too luxury horny.

That's a shame.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„So to you, this thread is about nothing more than loving philosophy or simply liking it? How philosophical that is. lol“ **

About „lol“: „loving or liking“? Then it would be YOUR thread, YOUR eternal „lol“.

Okay, that is what you want. I see. You want all threads to be YOUR threads.

Again: This thread is about that what the title, the topic of this thread declares.

Your „example of how communication gets shut down“ is nonsense because all threads of all webforums make the same sense. The fact that threads have titles, topics, is very much meaningful, reasonable, and useful. Why can't you accept titles, topics of threads? It's just stupid.

If one doesn't like a thread, one can even „leave“ it and look for another thread. Why do you glue so much to this thread? Do you love or merely like derailing?

And if I asked you „do you really love tomatoes“, then you would also respond, probably for years and with absurd words and signs like „lol“. How many lols have you posted on ILP? Billions? Trillions?

You are not alive, Arcturus Descending, you are lol.

Who pays for it, that many people have too many and some people too few children? Who makes sure that it is paid for?

My solution means (amongst others) that less would be paid.

Who has an interest in defending the current circumstances, thus problems?

We could really avoid these problems, if there were no interest in defending them!

Eric The Pipe wrote:

„This is how we got ... Lennon-Marxism ....“ **

Who got the „Lennon-Marxism“? The people of Liverpool?

John Lennon. Born and grown up in Liverpool.

Eric The Pipe wrote:

„....“ **

I disagree.

I don’t think that humans are as intelligent as you think. You are a shameless chess player, aren’t you, Obe? Machines are better chess players than humans because machines are more intelligent than humans.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So in answering a question such as »Do you love philosophy«, one has to consider which aspect of philosophy. Some love the reasoning aspect. Some love the poetic aspect.“ **

Nevertheless: at last there is an answer to the question. But if the one who should answer the question changes the question, then consequently no satisfactory understanding is possible, although an answer is given (whichever).

Depose? Constitution? All that is not relevant for the 1%.

No „lol“ (**) - congratulations, Arcturus Desending!

The statement „philosophy is like life“ is exaggerated. Philosophy is not merely „like life“, and life is not merely a „process of thought - questions, answers, discoveries, transformation, ad continuum“. You may say it poetically, okay, but then your statement is more art than philosophy. So if you like/dislike or love/hate poetry, you do it more relating to art than to philosophy. Anyway, you may say that art influences (for James: affects) your relationship to philosophy, so that your answer to my question („Do you really love philosophy?“) could be: „Because art influences my relationship to philosophy my relationship to philosophy is ....“ Then I would know what your relationship to philosophy is, probably also whether you like/dislike or love/hate philosophy. AND: you would respect the title, topic of this thread!

Philosophy is the attempt of those who call themselves philosophers, to be „as dead as possible“. How does that sound? So, in that case philosophy might be like „life“ because the philosophers are like „dying people“, but I would not say that philosophy is like „life“, although I am a friend of philosophy, especially of life philosophy.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Where is the rule which says that the one who SHOULD(?) answer the question, has to answer that particular question?“ **

The „rule“ is (in) the title, the topic of this thread, but it is not really a rule, but just a matter of course, an implicitness. I guess your next question is: „Why?“. But if you don’t know it on your own, then it is useless to continue this conversation. Do you really think that someone who presents the title, the topic of his thread with a question, does it just for fun? Or anorther example: Do you think that the rich are rich just for fun?

Too many questions? Where are the rules which dictate the number of questions per post, per thread, ... per life?

My solution means that less would be paid, // And less state would be made.

That rhymes and makes very much sense.

542) Arminius, 16.08.2014, 00:27, 01:36, 02:45, 21:57, 22:22, 23:34 (1827-1832)

James S. Saint wrote:

„That is pretty much the plan, »Destroy all that is not me! Then I will be God.«“ **

Yes, but in the end the Godwannabes will probably lose against the machines.

Obe wrote:

„Not so! MACHINES CAN NEVER BECOME INNOVATIVE! Men will win out, because Faust's trick!“ **

I hope so too.

Obe wrote:

A trick is like a sleight of hand, but isn't all human intercourse like a sleight of hand? The most convincing way to go, is the one most subscribe to? How can subscriptions work if not by fiat of those, who align themselves to a cause most beneficial to them and those they can convince ?
We are all tricksters borne of apes, mimicking one another for most benefit for us, singularly, while proclaiming the others' benefit? Politics is a trick to get others to do your bidding. Can a machine ever become so altruistic , as to align themselves to the needs of other machines? I rather doubt that.“ **

A machine does not have to become altruistic in order to know what „altruistic“ means, to conclude, and, according to the conclusion, to decide and act in an „optimal“ way. This „optimal“ way is no problem for the machines, but for the humans.

Obe wrote:

„And even if so, who is to say, that a man maybe a superman will not come along to up the ante?
It has been predicted!“ **

The hope „dies“ last. So, yes, we hope and will hope, Obe.

Obe wrote:

„To become altruistic is not to act in accordance to the needs of others, so as to optimize the situation, but it is, to act, in order, to benefit the largest number of other machines/people. People can differentiate between these two types of behavior, but in order to do that, machines would need to differentiate between qualifying and quantifying the varieties of experience. So far, machine have been restricted to the latter, and i do not see any conceivable technological advance to overcome this hurdle.“ **

Let me give you a simple example:

It is known that economists should be and sometimes really are rational humans. And what do economist mostly do? As far as possible, economists try to quantify any quality! But it is also known that economists are humans. Machines are much more rational than humans and their economists. Machines are much more efficient than humans and their economists. We count 1 and 1 together: machines are far more rational and far more efficient than humans and their economists; thus machines are also the much better economists.

Technologically spoken, the last two economic crises were caused by machines, although they had got their numbers and data from humans, humans with no idea, but power.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„The solution of more restrictions ....“ **

No!

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The „restriction“ you mentioned refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control („oh“, you may think, „China!“, but it is not like „China“) and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and „for us“ via dictatorship.

It is possible to do it via market.

In this case referring to China means distracting from the subject, and referring only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dictatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.

Uccisore wrote:

„See, this is why conservatism exists. Because there are people out there who can, apparently with a straight face, propose a global authority with the power to monitor and regulate the reproductive activities of everybody on the planet; and they see this the »solution« to the »problem« of people having as many or as few children as they want to have.
I think there are a lot of moderate liberals out there that see stuff like the above as looney, but don't realize that »Hey I know, how about we let the State own all the means of production!« or »Hey, I know, how about we only allow State law enforcement to have access to firearms!« or other such things are exactly as looney for basically the same reasons.“ **

I’ve never been to the US and the distance from my Saltus Teutoburgiensis to New York is about 6000 Kilometres (air-line distance). So would you please explain me the seemingly typical US dualism of „conservative“/„liberal“ because I think that this dualism is merely a show.

Moreno wrote:

„I don't think any machines are rational. (not that they are irrational.) Their programming may follow logical lines (or not), but rational, to me implies qualities not yet achieved, at least by any publically revealed device. The computers that beat the best chess players still rely on a great deal of number crunching, if they have some guiding heuristics. Rationality, it seems to me includes some kind of overview of context, ability to set goals, choose what to evaluate and what is outside the scope of the issue, set priorities at this kind of abstract level and then move in on the specific question involved. Machines may make good choices that they are programmed to make, but I would not call that rationality, nor is it theirs, yet.

It may come, it may come soon, but I haven't seen any examples of it.

My personal computer is not in anyway rational. No more so than my toaster, though it can perform more functions than my toaster.“ **

Machines were created by humans because humans wanted the machines to rationally work for and/or instead of humans. Thus the reason for the existence of machines is a rational one.

If humans knew the exact origin, cause, reason for their existence, they would give themselves a name which refers to that origin, cause, reason. You may compare it with the hebrew name for the supposed „first human“: „Adam“ = „loam“, „mud“, „clay“; so according to the Bible the first human is originated from loam. Therefore it is appropriate and correct to say: „machines are originated from the rationality of the humans“. Adam originated from loam, machines originated from rationality of humans. If humans were not as rational (or as rationally oriented) as they are, then there would be no machine. And that what machines do is rational (even if they relate to emotions). So one can really say: „machines are rational“.

543) Arminius, 17.08.2014, 00:01, 00:30, 00:37, 01:11, 01:50, 03:00, 06:05 (1833-1839)

Gib wrote:

„I went through and did a search for »conservativism« in this thread and it begins to take a huge rise in frequency around here: **.“ **

Thank you. But in that text it is not much said about the difference between „conservative in US“ and „liberal in US“. Please note: I know the meaning of „conservative in US“ and „liberal in US“ very well; so my question is merely: „Does the difference between »conservative in US« and »liberal in US« really exist?“ And my answer is: „No - because it is only show (of the rulers, not of the people).“

Gib wrote:

„So you're saying that the »rulers« of the US (The Republicans and the Democrats) are putting on a show for the rest of the world--claiming that the US is divided between liberals and conservative--when really the people themselves could care less about the distinction?“ **

Yes, I am saying (questioning) that.

They are not powerful enough; so they aren’t „putting on a show for the rest of the world“, but for themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.

You (**) have forgotten one point: Is that what machines do rational or not?

The humans who made machines wanted them to be rational (and nothing else).
The humans who made bacterias for specific purposes wanted them to be such bacterias (and nothing else).

And the machines did what humans wanted them to do.

Humans didn’t want machines to be like humans, but wanted them to - more efficiently (!) - do what humans do; so they wanted them to be rational.
Humans don’t want bacterias to be like humans or to do what humans do.

Humans who want the machines to be rational, don’t want them to be exactly like humans, but they want them to be more rational than humans.
But what if they will replace all humans?

Do you (**) know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
And if you don't know it (99% also don’t know it), are you then no longer a member of your boss’ company?, or are you then „brainwashed“?

Are you no longer a member of your boss’ company, if you don’t know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
Are you brainwashed, if you don't know what your boss is doing when he is at home?

99% of all concern or company members do not know what their boss is doing when he is at home. Are they all brainwashed?

The people don't have to be brainwashed, most of them believe it’s real anyway. You may call it „brainwashing“, I call it „influence“ because influence is always there, but „brainwashing“ is a very extreme form of all affects. You are influenced but usually not brainwashed by your boss (I hope so). Party members are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their leadership. People are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their government, their media, ... and so on. This all depends on the societal system and its political system, especially the form of government, and if those systems are extreme, then the probability of brainwashing is very high.

So we have to ask whether the societal situation in the US, or elsewhere, even in the world, is already extreme.

Uccisore wrote:

„I think capitalism is good for socialists for example, even if they aren't smart enough to realize it.“ **

Capitalism is the pre-condition for socialism. Without capital there is nothing to share, to redistribute.

Uccisore wrote:

„So there isn't really such a thing as socialists who believe practically the opposite of everything I do when it comes to economics, culture, and ethics, I've merely been tricked by (who, other conservatives I guess?) into thinking there is? What kind of absurdity is this?“ **

Absurd is what you are saying. I have never said anything about „beurocracy“, but you have, and that’s absurd „rhetoric“.

Uccisore wrote:

„Look, Arminius, you proposed a global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce.“ **

That's nonsense. I didn't say that. You presume it, and that is terrible. I have said several times that the reproduction should be „regulatied“ by the market. The current demographic policy is regulated by a „global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce“ (your words) - it is the declared goal of all global institutions to reduce the population. So what I want to do is nothing else than change this dictatorship of global institutions into a market. It is that beurocracy of the global institutions which costs a lot of money.

Maybe you haven't read my posts. I recommend you to do it.

Uccisore wrote:

„I think that's a terrible idea.“ **

Then you think wrong! Please read my posts!

If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

You have no idea, Uccisore. The deep forests in Maine are perhaps too deep, at least deeper than my Saltus Teutoburgiensis. :)

Another fact is that this theme / topic - reproduction / demography - is a taboo for the people (and not for their rulers). But if we want to talk about it we have to mention the facts. Do you believe that there is no global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction? If so, then you have really no idea. Excuse me. Ignorance is horrible.

544) Arminius, 18.08.2014, 02:54, 21:39, 21:57, 23:41 (1840-1843)

Uccisore wrote:

„....“ **

That's because you are a member of a political party! A PARTY!

You are not interested in philosophy, you are interested in kaffee klatsch and some „ideals“ of political parties. Okay, I see; so: good bye.

You and your political party and all other political parties support the global bureaucracy!

People „around you do not decide to have or refrain from having kids every day“ (**) because they „decide“ according to what is regulated by the global institutions and „think“ (!) it were their own „decision“. There is a global bureaucracy that regulates anything and everything, and the „national states“ have to implement what the global bureaucracy dictates (and it does dictate!). What you are saying, Uccisore, is nonsense, and you believe in this nonsense. Whether or not humans, especially Western humans, have children is determined by the global bureaucracy and the regulated markets. The people are not „free“ - this is merely what your party leaders always say, have to say -, and there is no real democracy.

It is just your megalomania that makes you think people were „free“ or have a „free will“. Humas are not „free“ and do not have a „free will“. You are not „free“; no human is „free“; humans do not have a „free will“, but merely a relative free will.

You are more influenced, affected, as you think.

My solution of the demographic problem leads to more market!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Do you believe in the management technique of subtly influencing the masses such as to get them to want for what you choose?“ **

Probably his party has forbidden him to answer your question. Moreover, today there is party conference again.

Gib wrote:

„I'm kind of insulted. Why don't you think I'm part of a political party?“ **

Do you really know that I think you’re not a „part of a political party“?

Zinnat wrote:

„Marx was not liberal by any streach of imagination. He was just the opposite.“ **

That's right.

This „isms“ are totalitarianisms.

545) Arminius, 19.08.2014, 00:08, 00:36, 02:06, 02:59, 03:48, 14:35, 15:06, 18:48, 20:47, 22:01 (1844-1853)

Have I ever said whether or not you are a member of a party?

Why do you always ask absurd questions, Gib?

By the way:

Gib wrote:

„»When people attempt to stop the ups and downs of the free market they also put restrictions on the solutions to problems.«
- Eric the Pipe.“ **

A „free market“ means an absolutely free market. That's logical, even tautological. The „liberal humans“ want a „free market“? - Okay, here is one:

When will the next „liberal“ party conference start, Gib?

Which videos do you mean?

And do you understand what's meant by „liberal“?

For example here and here. And they are not disturbing because they are very important, Gib.

B.t.w: Why are you insulted, boy? Is that the reason why you are compelled to insult? Are you a member of a party?

You should keep your chickens, because you’re a chicken farmer. The chickens are your „trademark“. Alternatively I recommend this sig:

„When people attempt to stop the ups and downs of the free market they also put restrictions on the solutions to problems.“
- Eric the Pipe.

Liberal crocodiles and liberal lions are as liberal as liberal chickens, aren’t they? Vote for the liberals!

You want to insult me? Anf if so, then why? Why are you so angry? I was always dear to you!

if it wasn't for the fact that I know where this is coming from, I would think you’re a deeply sick and disturbed and almost brainless.

„Fuck, fuck, fuck .... FUCK OFF!!!“ - Angry Gib:

Peachy Nietzsche (Neachy) wrote:

„No fundamental distinction can be made between science and religion.“ **

That's right. Theres is no fundamental distinction between science and religion. Both - and also philosophy - begin and end with the belief: belief in truth.

Eyesinthedark wrote:

„Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/AverageIQ-Map-World.png.“ **

The following map is a bit more exact:

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Science is based on evidence. Religion (arguably) not so. - Thus, there is a fundamental difference.“ **

That's wrong. Religion is also based on evidence. Both - religion and science - are not the same, but based on the same fundament: belief, belief in truth.

You should not always believe what you have learned in school(s) or universities.

Long ago, before the historical religions, there were only primitive religions, and this primitive religions were based on evidence too. Most crucial is the belief, the belief in the truth. And primitive pople believe as well in truth as modern people. There is no difference. The fundament is the same. Different are merely the objects and the methods, but neither the objects nor the methods are the fundaments of science. When science has its objects and methods, then it has already left his starting point since a relative long time. The fundament of religion, theology (divinity), philosophy, and science is always belief in truth. Then they go different ways or meanders. At last they find together again, but as new forms.

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Religion makes unfalsifiable statements, science does not.“ **

Science does also make unfalsifiable statements.

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Any scientific theory is open to being proven wrong.“ **

Any? Really? - No. Come on, Ben! That is merely what the priests of the scientific church have been telling you for so long - too long.

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Religion doesn't accept the possibility of being wrong, and doesn't give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of it's claims.“ **

That’s not typical for religion as such. Another issue are the specific religions or specific religious communities. But all this can also be said about science. Some specific sciences (branches of science) or scientific communities do not accept the possibility of being wrong, and do not give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of their claims.

Again: Religion and science are not the same, but they have the same fundament, and that's the reason why they are similar and often „behave“ in the same way.

Humans are able to see, the most animals are able to see. Are humans and animals the same? No. Can they act in the same way? Yes. They are related, have the same origin, the same fundament.

546) Arminius, 20.08.2014, 03:05, 16:38 (1854-1855)

Are all people who interfere with the flow of discourse trolls?
And what does that have to do with the question „Do you really love philosophy“?

Humans have no „free will“, but only a relative free will.

547) Arminius, 21.08.2014, 16:57, 19:40, 20:27, 20:58, 21:54, 22:07, 23:44 (1856-1862)

James, you are speaking of „positive noise“ and „negative noise“, also of „positive waves“ and „negative waves“. How much is that in accordance with the positve and negative particles?

D 63 wrote:

„Logic is after all, as is suggested by thinkers like Chomsky and Pinker, a product of the language we use to interact with the world which is, in turn, a product of the physiological structures of the brain.“ **

There is an interdependence between language and logic. But which of both came first? Chomsky and Pinker say: „language“.

Interterrestrial wrote:

„Most people, even here, hate philosophy, and do not truly love philosophy at all. Because most are too weak to love philosophy, and lack the power to love philosophy. Only a powerful mind can claim to love philosophy, to begin with. A weak mind cannot, never, love philosophy. Only the strongest can love philosophy.“ **

Most of the people who say that they „love philosophy“ either do not know what they are talking about, or exaggerate and cheat other people and especially themselves.

You really do not have to say that you „love philosophy“ in order to be very much interested in philosophy and to keep yourself busy with philosophy. Those who say that they „like philosophy“ do not exaggerate and cheat, but do much more know about their relationship to philosophy than those who say that they „love philosophy“.

Zinnat, I have some questions:
1.) Are you Muslim?
2.) This thread is in the wrong subforum because Islam means a religious community, right?
3.) Or Islam does not mean a religious but a political community, then this thread is in the right subforum, right?
4.) Because you have chosen this subforum, I conclude that you assume that the Islam is not a religious but a political community, right?

So you are a „traditional Hindu“, as you said, and yet you defend the Islam. That reminds me of the modern Christians of the Occidental culture, thus the Catholic and Protestant Christians, because many of them also defend the Islam in order to destroy their own religious community. So why I am saying that? The modern Occidental Christianity is the only religious community which destroys itself. Today Christianity is the most attacked religious community. So it is more attacked than Islam. Christianity is attacked by other religious systems and also by itself.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius,

For more clarification, i am a proud Hindu, but even if i were a Muslim, i would not be ashamed of that either.“ **

I don’t know any Western Christian who would say: „I am a proud Christian“. This Christian would not survive the agitation of the Western media. And that fits exactly to what I said in my last post (**|**).

Zinnat, how can you know whether or not you are ashamed, if you were a Muslim? You are no Muslim!

Zinnat wrote:

Arminius,

I am defending truth, not Islam. And, by the way, i defend Christianity too in the same way.“ **

You are saying that you defend Islam and that you are no Muslim, but merely defending the truth. So, I conclude that for you the Islam belongs to the truth, and you mean „reality“, when you use the word „truth“. Right? That's important because reality and truth are not the same. Religious communities are a part of reality, regardless of whether they are also a part of truth or not; but if religious communities are a part of truth, then they are always also a part of reality.

Zinnat wrote:

„It is neither my fault nor i can help it for the simple reason that i do not see much wrong in either of those.“ **

Okay.

Zinnat wrote:

„My knowledge/faith in Hinduism does not restrict me to defend Islam.“ **

That is what a modern Western Christian also says. But Christianity is originally a so-called „monotheistic“ religion, and as a such it demands defending other religions, especially other „monotheistic“ religions. So, what you are saying is something which belongs thematically to the Islam but refers to your own religion, the Hinduism. Hinduism as a whole is no so-called „monotheistic“ but a „polytheistic“ religion. And in polytheistic religions the defense of other religions is not as big a problem as in „monotheistic“ religions because polytheistic religions are able to integrate other religions. Thus: when Christianity defends other religions, then it attacks itself because it is actually a „monotheistic“ religion; and because the modern Western Christianity has been destroying itself more and more since the beginning of its modern times it probably has been changing from a monotheistic to a polytheistic religion.

And if all religions do that what the modern Western Christianity has been doing since the beginning of its modern times, then there would merely be polytheistic religions. And polytheistic religions can also be called as one polytheistic religion, if there is no monotheistic religion anymore (maybe that will be the case in future). A good omen for you and your religion, Zinnat.

Maybe for 99% of the humans in the future the religion will be a polytheistic one (similar to what the monotheists call heathendom), the society and its economy and policy either a „Brazilanised“ one with an impending dominance of the machines, or similar to that of the hunters and collectors of the past.

Zinnat wrote:

„However, it may be diificult for a Muslim or a Christian to do the same for Hinduism.“ **

Not for many modern Western Christians. But probably you don't know much about Christianity and other „monotheistic“ religions (see above and below).

Zinnat wrote:

„I know their reasons.“ **

Really? One can doubt that.

Zinnat wrote:

„Secondly, my guess is that you have not studied Hinduism much, otherwise you would have not said this.“ **

Said what? I knew more about Hinduism than you about Christianity.

So, thanks for your insults and good bye.

548) Arminius, 22.08.2014, 01:38, 02:40, 02:55, 03:14, 17:51, 17:58, 19:15, 19:30, 20:31, 21:27, 21:57, 22:26, 23:07, 23:38 (1863-1876)

James S. Saint wrote:

„That is a anime pic of positive, negative, and neutral „noise« made of positive and negative »waves« (or »wavelets«). Each of those is a particle. They have a Lorentzian density curve of wave(lets) causing the formation of the »particles«. And each of those applies, not merely to physical reality (physics), but also to; sociological, psychological, and economic reality. Each has its own form of »particle«. And each is made of positive and negative noisy wavelets.

Those are only the monoparticles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Or single memories, single-priority groups, and monetary banks/savings. For each of those monoparticle types, a polyparticle type can form with a limited stability; anti-protons (»negatrons«), protons, neutrons. Or collections of associated memories/thoughts, multi-priority groups (such as a family), multi-monetary banks (savings or collections from different sources or currencies).

All levels of life, thought, and existence can be understood as groupings of noisy positive and negative wavelets of influence/affects. Order is created from the natural groupings of noisy particles known as »matter« or »material concerns«.

And in all things, a negative is no more than merely the lack of a positive affectance. A negatively ordered house is merely a house less orderly than the average (ambient). Ugliness is merely the lack of average or expected beauty. And interestingly, as the Catholic Church teaches, Evil is merely the lack of the average or expected Good.

A wise man doesn't think in terms of positive and negative except relative to a known expectation. To the wise man, all things are simply different levels of positive/good. But that doesn't mean that nothing gets rejected from a particular setting. Things that are less good are still certainly filtered out when attempting to form a more positive setting. They are just never proclaimed absolutely negative, bad, or of no use at all for anything. To the saint, in reality, there is no negative (although there can certainly be a very substantial lack of positive).“ **

But why is - or even must be - „a negative ... merely the lack of a posive affectance“? Does „negative“ affectance not esxist? Is affectance always „positive“?

It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts, enemies, dualisms, ... etc.. The universe is made of opposites. We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance with it.

Thanks to the linguistics, we know the semantic field of the morpheme „love“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And scientists don't decide when to use what they make. Doctors, politicians, business men, bankers, and military minds do that.“

And don't forget the people of the judiciary, the media, and the education system.

And moreover, don't forget the machines!

Pandora wrote:

„Remembering and awareness.

Hansel and Gretel, by Carl Offerdinger.“ **

Yes, or this two for example:

Alexander Zicker, „Hänsel und Gretel“:

Alexander Zicker, „Hänsel und Gretel“.

Or maybe this photographs can also give an imagination of the fairy tale „Hänsel und Gretel“:

Obe wrote:

„I remember a time when the the doomsday clock was set two minutes before 12, during the Cuban missile crisis. Doomsday may have happened back then ....“ **

Obe, the Cuban missile crisis is not so long ago. The crisis that we are talking about in this thread has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the modern times of the Western culture, thus for the most part it will be a problem of the near future. If we didn't talk about this problem, nobody would talk about it. The most people don’t notice or don’t want to notice this problem. This fact belongs to this problem too. Thus: it is important to talk about it.

This is a philosophy forum, isn't it?

Or is it true that the title of this forum - „I love Philosophy“ - means „I hate philosophy“? If it is so, then I have to ask the members of this forum again: „Do you really love philosophy?“ ** **

Obe wrote:

„Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered ....“ **

Accept what others see? Choose defeat? - That is „horrific at worst“ (Obe).

Obe wrote:

„Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered ....“ **

And it is the case in this thread! The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the „yes“-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the „yes“-sayers are the fewest.

Obe wrote:

„Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered, and as philosophical as this forum is, exponentially the philosophical tread relating to recent events goes back at least to Leibniz, a thinker Yourself referred to in this forum albeit in a different context? I think it was whether Chomsky is designated more a follower of Kant, then of Leibniz.“ **

It was in the „Public Journal“ thread; and this is what I posted in that thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Leibniz, Wolff, Kant - that's the line from Leibniz to Kant (with some more philosophicals „stations“ and persons between them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines, amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky's linguistic theories are based on the philosophy and especially on the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus - New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that he is at first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but in some aspects (see above: linguistics) it is reverse: at first a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let's say he is a rationalist and idealist.“ ** **

1873

James S. Saint wrote:

„All things have a form of opposition to their existence, but what has an actual opposite?

I meant that form of opposition.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And affectance certainly has no opposite, nor does gravity or mass (both merely being affectance). We call a charge the opposite of another, but what we see with RM:AO, is that in reality, a negative electric charge particle is merely a concentration of lesser charge than the ambient and positive is merely a greater charge than the ambient.“ **

Why do you then calling the charges „positive“ and „negative“ instead of „greater charge“ and „lesser charge“?

Could you please explain your statement because I do not agree with you about that statement. I say that the whole issue has not very much to do with pessemism or optimism.

Obe wrote:

„Therefore, those in the minority column, at least in this forum, should be the ones to downplay the effect, that the other 99% can have on a most likely outcome.“ **

You are speaking of a „minority column“ and of „the other 99%“, but there is no column with merely 1% in my interim balance sheets - the smallest column has 20.87% (average), so „the others“ have 79.13% (average).

Those who are represented by „the minority column“ - the „yes“ -sayers - are statistically 4.8 (average) of 23 which means that they are 20.87%. The „no“-sayers are statistically 10 (average) of 23 which means that they are 43.48%. And those who belong to the „abstention“ are statistically 8.2 (average) of 23 which means that they are 35.65%.

Arminius wrote:

„The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points of view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the »yes«-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the »yes«-sayers are the fewest.“ ** **

4.8 • 100 / 23% = 20,86956522%
10 • 100 / 23% = 43,47826087%
8.2 • 100 / 23% = 35,65217391%
------------------------------------
23 • 100% / 23 = 100%

_/

Or do you mean the 99% who are facing the 1% globalists, Obe?

549) Arminius, 23.08.2014, 02:24, 03:11, 17:46, 21:42, 23:52 (1877-1881)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Because when I am explaining, I have to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can't learn to speak a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn't ever use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn't exist, one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn't. Thus I say, »[what we call] a ›negative charged particle‹ is merely a concentration of lower affectance than the ambient«. And that ALL of the things that we CALL »negative« are in reality merely lesser than more positive things, not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard, or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations. Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no negative of anything.

It is similar to the notion of »force«. Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing, ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use the notion of »force«, the pulling and pushing that doesn't actually exist.“ **

AO accepts the mainstream definition of „charge“, but does not accept the mainstream definition of „positive“ and „negative“. The mainstream definition of „wave“ is accepted by AO, but partly not the mainstream definition of „particle“.

What you call „affectance“ is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call „attraction“, and that is especially true for the electromagnetic „attraction“.

Again:

„Arminius wrote:

»The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the ›yes‹-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the ›yes‹-sayers are the fewest.« ** **

4.8 • 100 / 23% = 20,86956522%
10 • 100 / 23% = 43,47826087%
8.2 • 100 / 23% = 35,65217391%
------------------------------------
23 • 100% / 23 = 100%

_/“ ** **

If we add the middle column (43.48%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 79.13%. That are the not-„yes“-sayers.
But if we add the left column (20.87%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 56.52%. That are the not-„no“-sayers.

Relating to the thread question, the realtionship of the „yes“-sayers (20.87%) to the not-„yes“-sayers (79.13%) is really interesting:

According to the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) 20% of the population own 80% of the land, 20% of the pea pods contain 80% of the peas, 20% of all clients cause 80% of all sales, 20% of all websites are the goal of 80% of all weblinks, ... and so on. This 80–20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.

Relating to the thread question, it could be interesting, if the Pareto principle applied also to the „yes“-sayers (20.87%) and not-„yes“-sayers (79.13%), as I already said (**|**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„It isn't a matter of accepting their definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean.“ **

It is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic forms (morphemes, lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes, textemes, and even languages themselvses) have a meaning. So, the definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions „say“. If (for example) a definition „says“ that „charge is electric potential“, then it means that „charge is electric potential“.

I guess, you mean a kind of extended meaning.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What they mean by »charge« is electric-potential. »Potential« means exactly what it is. The »Potential-to-Affect«, PtA, uses the word »potential« exactly as they do. They don't use »charge« to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for a change of definition because RM:AO has a »potential« and thus a »charge«, although I only use the word »charge« when referring to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron.“ **

Yes, like I said:

Arminius wrote:

„AO accepts the mainstream definition of »charge« ....“ ** **

Have you not read it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such words can only reference an average, not an absolute.“ **

Yes, like I said:

Arminius wrote:

„AO accepts the mainstream definition of »charge«, but does not accept the mainstream definition of »positive« and »negative«.“ ** **

Have you not read it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„They couldn't grasp the idea that space isn't empty.“ **

They say that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).

James S. Saint wrote:

„I am merely pointing out that space is not »zero« and electrons are lower than space; lower »energy«, »potential«, »PtA«, and/or »Affectance«. And neither are negative things »equal«, even though they have opposite direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.

So „electrons are lower than space“ means that electrons have „»lower energy«, »potential«, »PTA«, and/or »affectance«“ than space; but what is your definition of „space“ then?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought ....“ **

Yes, like I said: They estimate that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (see above).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the »average« that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.“ **

Like I said:

Arminius wrote:

„AO ... does not accept the mainstream definition of »positive« and »negative«.“ ** **

Have you not read it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Affectance comes much closer to being their »mass field« or »energy field«.“ **

But „affectance“ is a word, related to „affect“,„affected“, „affection“, ... and so on. So if I say „X has more affectance than X, and Y is affected by X“, I can also say: „X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X“.  –  James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And there is no »attraction« in RM:AO, nor »repulsion«. Things merely migrate toward or away from other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a »solid mass«. In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about feeding off of the non-zero space all around it.“ **

So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect.  –  Could you agree with that?

Pandora wrote:

„People tend to see what they want to see. There is a video currently circulating of "dog saving the fish". Notice that most viewers see it as evidence of dog's awareness and altruism: **

However, as was also pointed out, the dog is acting purely out of instinct. It is trying to bury the fish, not save it.

Here's the same behavior observed in other circumstances: ** **

Is this altruism?: **

No.

Altruism refers merely to closed relatives (kinship), perhaps also to other relatives, and to closed friends.

Apart from that, the nature is full of violence, marked by the will to power: ** ** ** ** ** **

The wildest market is the freest market.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The definitions of physicists also mean what their definitions ›say‹.« ** **

That is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such as when they say that a photon has zero »mass«, they now only mean that it has zero »rest mass« (because it never rests). They declared that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter, »rest mass« (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).“ **

They say, „a photon has no mass but a rest mass“ - which is in fact a funny statement.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So in RM:AO, when I say »mass«, I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance. A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction. Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly). When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction, it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).“ **

Because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino? Can you explain that a bit more, especially „out running“?

Stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle? Can you explain that a bit more, especially „dissipating“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Also when they use the word »particle«, they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a »gluon«. Quarks are »quazi-particles« and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely a neutrino if it didn't entirely dissipate.

The point is that they have altered their words' meanings to fit their theory's needs such that at times, their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally meant.

RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance. The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered, dense, or whatever. It is all the same »affectance« merely in varied forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like Hinduism).“ **

Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»So ›electrons are lower than space‹ means that electrons have ›'lower energy', 'potential', 'PTA', and/or 'affectance'‹ than space; but what is your definition of ›space‹ then?« ** **

Space is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes noticeable as either a »mass« or a »radiation« depending on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated, there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable, seemingly empty.

An »object« (any and every object) is merely a higher concentration of the affectance of space.

There are only two forms of physical existence;
1) Potential (the situation that brings change, involving locations of concentrations: »PtA«)
2) Changing (the potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: »Affectance«)“ **

Two pre-conditions: space and time.

James S. Saint wrote:

Science and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent. All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names, one is merely asking »To what form of affectance is this word referring?«

In Christianity, those exact same two are named;
1) God, the father of creation
2) Creation

But in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what they were actually talking about?“ **

Yes. But not in any case.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Christian followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers in all of the religions, including secular science).

A black-hole is the »Real God's« actual Hell, not merely »hellish« or »like hell«, but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But in Jewish wording, it would be the »Abyss« wherein all order and form are totally randomized.

Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated »Heaven« with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually. Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small concentrations of noisy chaos (»particles«, »thoughts«, »groups«, whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within which people can live: SAM.

The religions and science are talking about the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees. They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.

Arminius wrote:

»But ›affectance‹ is a word, related to ›affect‹,›affected‹, ›affection‹, ... and so on. So if I say ›X has more affectance than Y, and Y is affected by X‹, I can also say: ›X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X‹.« ** **

Affectance has nothing to do with »attraction« except as an aberrant appearance. Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient. concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration, a different focus of concern.

Arminius wrote:

»James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.« ** **

I DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.“ **

Right, to clarify!

550) Arminius, 24.08.2014, 00:16, 01:42, 01:57, 02:27, 03:21, 03:33, 04:20, 05:42, 14:40, 15:26 (1882-1891)

The numbers in the tables (interim balance sheets) are quite meaningful; they didn't change very much even over a longer period of time (this is especially true for the left column):

Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
	Yes (by trend)	No (by trend)	Abstention
Sum:	3	8	3
	21.43%	57.14%	21.43%
Sum:	4	8	9
	19.05%	38.10%	42.86%
Sum:	6	11	9
	23.08%	42.31%	34.62%
Sum:	5	11	9
	20,87%	43,48%	35,65%
Sum:	6	12	11
	20,87%	43,48%	35,65%
Ø :	4.8	10	8.2
	20.87%	43.48%	35.65%

The question how representative are ILP members of the general population are can be answered with: MUCH; and there is the fact that some of them have a deeper relationship to philosopy than others, some of them have even an indifferent relationship to philosophy, some of them love philosophy, some of them like philosophy, some of them dislike philosophy, some of them even hate philosophy (cp. my thread: „Do you really love philosophy?“ [**|**]). So it is quite representative.

You have forgotten to answer this question:

Arminius wrote:

„So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino? Can you explain that a bit more, especially ›out running‹?

Stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle? Can you explain that a bit more, especially ›dissipating‹?« ** **

A particle is formed by random, ultra-fine, ultra-minuscule »wavelets« of EMR (or »affectance«) accumulating around a center location. It happens because as those wavelets of ultra-fine affects encounter each other, the slow each other into a crowd or cluster of noise.

If one has a bunch of EMR or affectance that is propagating through space (a field of affectance), it is traveling at the maximum speed that affects (or »light«) can travel through that particular density of affectance. As it propagates, it changes its »center« location, disallowing any "side coming affects or EMR from being slowed toward that center. The center keep moving out of the way of what would have been an accumulation of affectance. Thus the accumulation doesn't occur.

Dissipation occurs when a bunch of affects (EMR) that had an association in either location or direction of propagation, changes or weakens its association, either by slightly changing its location or its direction. What they call a »photon« is merely a relatively large bunch of affectance (EMR) traveling in a single direction. But the truth is that every bit of that photon's affectance isn't propagating exactly in the same direction and even if is started so perfectly, it would be doing so for long. Thus a photon will actually dissipate, spread out, if given enough time and distance.

When photons of light »reflect« (another dubious word) off of a mirror, a very tiny portion of the photon absorbs into the mirror. A photon can only reflect off of so many surfaces before it becomes too small to detect (another defeat of the »quantum« theory). Very small bits of the energy of a photon is taken away with each reflection.

And in reality, the »photon energy« doesn't really »reflect«, but rather gets duplicated. The affectance that propagates from a mirror is not the same affectance that came to it. The significance of that is in the fact that once a photon strikes a mirror, a »phantom photon« is produced that continues through the mirror. A »phantom photon«, is merely a relative vacuum of affectance that proceeds along the same path that the original photon was on.

Arminius wrote:

»Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).« ** **

I'm not sure what you mean by »closed«. If you mean that RM:AO is more solidly defined, disallowing ambiguity and conflation of concepts and words, then yes, I agree.“ **

I mean it in the sense that it is more defined.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But RM is open to any ontological construction that bothers to exactly define its words and their concepts into a coherent understanding of the universe (or anything else for that matter). RM:AO is one particular ontological understanding of ALL of reality, but most obviously of physics where the simplest of concepts can be examined and pieced together into the larger, more familiar picture known to Science.

„Arminius wrote:

»Two pre-conditions: space and time.« ** **

Space = »Potential«/»Situation«
Time = »Change«.“ **

You may believe it or not: that is what I wanted to write before I decided to write: „Two pre-conditions: space and time.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

They aren't »preconditions«, but the same things. Together they ARE physical reality.“ **

Yes, that's right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Right, to clarify!« ** **

Half of the only purpose in life.“ **

Are you sure?

James, „clarify“, „verify“, „instill“, and „reinforce“ are four; so „clarify“ is a quarter of that unit.

Kriswest wrote:

„You forget how one applies philosophy. To know the philosophical teachings from ancestors is one way, to learn from life is another, to do both is another. Most of the people that consider themselves philosophers are book literate, not life literate.“ **

Yes, that's right.

I was referring to Obe's question:

Obe wrote:

„A sub-set question here would be, »how representative are ilp members of the general population?«“ **

According to that, I don't think that it is important to go into details, and you probably know: the devil is in the details.

In addition: I do not know all ILP members; so I have to extrapolate their relationships to philosophy. My statistical tables („interim balance sheets“, as I call them) should give only an orientation, not more.

By the way:

You joined ILP on 22/12/2005. If you didn’t change your „avatar“, then the cat which is seen on it would be „not very young“ anymore:

Lovely.

So for you there are two parts and each of them is a more meaningful part than all four parts by themselves or even as a whole?

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»You have forgotten to answer this question:

Arminius wrote:

›So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?‹ ** ** ** **

Oh, sorry. Yes we could say that, but I prefer to add a little;
»Affectance is ultra-fine electromagnetic radiation forming electromagnetic and gravitational fields, not forces. Existence is that which has affect. And is no more than varied concentrations of subtle affect upon affect, found to concentrate into particles with either more or less potential-to-affect than what the average of open space has.«

More abstractly or philosophically;
Affectance = an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

And in physics, that amounts to subtle electric potentials causing electromagnetic radiation as well as mass particles with charge potentials that gather into stable molecules of various types.

In psychology, that amounts to subtle perceived hopes and threats causing behaviors and attitudes with charge potentials that gather into stable mindsets of various types.

In sociology, that amounts to subtle interactions causing social movements and ideologies with charge potentials that gather into stable groups of various types.

In economics, that amounts to subtle exchanges causing currency and incentives (values) with charge potentials that gather into stable banks of various types.“ **

Thank you.

Kriswest wrote:

„She passed away this week from autoimmune disease. Odd that you mention Screamer a day after she passed. Life has interesting and sometimes painful twists. But I thank you for posting her photo. See on this phone Avatars are not shown. That photo brought good memories though tinted with tears.“ **

Maybe it’s telepathy that I mentioned your cat. I'm very sorry that your cat is dead.

Do you have any more cats?

Before we deviate too much from the topic, here is a cat buying fish from gumball machine.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Another way to „clarify“ and „instill“ what I mean is;

A) Clarify or order a situation and then clarify it from multiple perspectives (»verifying«)
B) Instill or affix the situation and then affix it from multiple angles (»reinforcing«)

The multiple perspectives and angles are not necessary for basic life to begin, but necessary to form a life that is strong enough to withstand entropic forces more permanently. And both of those basic concepts apply inwardly and outwardly. Clarify and instill the situation within your mind and the minds around you. And clarify and instill the situation within your body and the environment/society around you.

The process of doing that forms a purifying momentous harmony both within oneself (causing joy within) and expanding around oneself (causing harmony and safety around). Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is »anentropic«, also known as »holy«.“ **

So for you „anentropic harmony“ is a pleonasm, a tautology.

The situation surrounding and including one is the »god« that dictates what one can or cannot do, what will and will not happen. By harmonizing that situation, which includes oneself, one is always favored by ones »god«. By making that harmony momentous and expanding it (having the surroundings do the same as one has done to it) that harmony expands the region of ones ultimate authority to be joyfully sustained, ones »loving/supporting god«.

For ones surroundings to perform the same function, the surroundings must include life, because life is what one is doing and thus to do the same function, it must also be life. Thus all life becomes an expanding momentous harmony that is anentropic and immutably persisting. SAM is merely a structure/order for ensuring it. It cannot be done without SAM.

That is actually what Christianity (or at least Jesus) was about. I am just »washing the feet« a bit (clarifying the understanding). But don't get me wrong. I am neither a prophet that is never mistaken nor a saint who has never sinned. And that is why it is me clarifying it. It doesn't require a perfect person. It requires a more perfect understanding of the entire situation being improved by the participation of everyone else, whether they be perfect or not. The less perfect must instigate and inspire the more perfect.

The point is to convert the disharmonious into the more harmonious, continually throughout all time, to convert the universe itself into a process of joyous, eternal Life (which includes the foundational physics), not merely a place for life to struggle.“ **

To convert the „negative charge“ into a „positvie charge“

==>