<= [571][572][573][574][575][576][577][578][579][580] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1999 |
Arminius wrote:
»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.« ** **
Ok, so if this is not passed as a law, that we simply get rid of the tax credits with for people with multiple children, then leave people along. I can live with this and I would see it as the free market, possibly, working to reduce the amount of children people have. If this is what you mean, I guess I'm on board.
If a law is passed, I'm against it ....
Arminius wrote:
»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 dicatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.« ** **
The only real problem I've seen is that you have not really explained clearly what you mean... Bogging us down in attempting to understand what you mean .... **
(1) | Currently
there are three main modern problems:
| ||||||||||||
(2) | Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets. | ||||||||||||
(3) | Free markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back. |
2000 |
2001 |
Revolutions can be performed by people living in relative luxury, the American Revolution was orchestrated by the rich. **
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
This is the testimonial of my life and it's experiences. I do it as a testament of knowing myself and as a sort of reflection.
In short this everything of me in total transparency.
I was born in Omaha, Nebraska in the year 1987.
My family being mostly of German and French ancestral descent. On my father's side an Austrian-Hungarian Jew. His portion of the family being entirely unknown.
He also being very much unknown.
My grandfather a man who's family were from a long line of clock makers in Munich, Germany who later was a machinist and farmer his entire life.
My grandmother from Lorraine, France. She later was to be a seamstress, farm hand, and school bus driver all her life.
Both of them very much devout Catholics. They both immigrated to the United States shortly after World War I. **
My mother suffice it to say was always a crazy one. I blame it on her youthful activities of partaking in the 1960's hippie movement that she was very much a part of.
Too much LSD, shrooms, acid, and marijuana usage I think. For her life she was a waitress and for a time also a machinist like my grandfather.
The death of her beloved sister before my time slitting her wrists in bathtub over a lover that left her didn't help quite either.
She met my father at a Led Zeppelin concert and on that fourth night I was conceived.
Later my semi truck driving father left after finding out she was pregnant. In his mind he was there for the fun and didn't want to stick around for the after activities of being a family man.
My memory of my father is a bit of a haze really as I don't have much memory of him ever being around.
He did come back later at some point only to leave once again indefinitely.
I remember being three years old feeling the soles of the bottom of his boots one morning trying to smash my face into the ground of a concrete parking lot with my face covered in blood. It was the only lasting impression or memory I ever had of him.
It was clear to me at the young age as a boy that I was the product of an unwanted accident.
After that my mother couldn't stand the pressures of being a single mother. She reverted to drugs and went through many dead end manual labor jobs.
After awhile me and her were homeless living off the streets at only the age of four. It was then that the state intervened where I was to go to a foster home and where she was sent to a psychiatric ward.
I remember like it was yesterday being in the psychiatric ward with my mother holding onto her leg as she sat a table in a medical gown where the facilitators had to pull and drag me away as my mother sat with tears screaming.
This was how the first four years of my life came to be. **
At age four I was sent to a foster home in a town called Silver Lake, Kansas
The year was 1991
I stayed there for five years up until the age of nine.
I remember never being allowed to leave the house or have individual pursuits of my own.
It was a very controlled Southern Baptist household. God and the devil were invoked there on a regular basis where the brimstone of hell was always present.
I was never allowed to have friends.
I remember the long summers being locked up in the basement. The isolation, agony, and despair. The utter feeling of hopelessness.
I remember the torture of some of the other kids by the foster parents. One being starved for weeks and where a female child was forced to drink her own urine as a form of punishment. I also remember a incident of a bull whip being utilized on somebody. None of this was ever reported.
I remember my first kiss took place with one of the females my own age there. A childhood romance.
All that isolation, agony, and despair grew within me where at the age of eight I became very destructive sometimes exploding to the point that I would intentionally destroy the house or its windows. I would receive beatings on a weekly basis.
Eventually after unsuccessfully trying to burn the house down with a fire started in the kitchen I was put up for adoption once again. At this time the year was 1996.
At this point I would have visits with my mother at the asylum once a year. She was not released from that place until 1998. She stayed in that asylum for six years.
I don't believe those people ever showed compassion for the kids under their charge. For them it was just a state paycheck handed to them in the mail.
Quite surprising I saw the same foster parents with new kids in their custody in the year of 2006. The vicious cycle repeating itself again and again. **
2005 |
Everything said in this thread as hard as it might appear to believe in actually happened, yes. **
I didn't know about that historical bit on Lorraine. Thanks for sharing that with me. **
2006 |
That's all well and good, Arminius, but how does that tie into the problem of political corruption? **
2007 |
I like no regulation whatsoever. **
2008 |
Now, what's the connect between deregulating the market and your one-child-per-adult rule? **
The merely one law ... leads to more wealth because the productive people can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.
....
I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all higher living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have less or more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.
Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth. ** **
2009 |
|
2010 |
I know the last name of my grandmother and it is very French. **
I inherited the last name of my grandfather however where my full name is very German.
Before he died he was always telling me we had relatives still living in Munich.
Relatives I've never met. He was always telling me stories about great uncles of mine who died in World War I fighting for Germany. **
2011 |
Arminius wrote:
»The merely one law ... leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they cant).« ** **
And why is this? Is it because the productive consist of couples each of which is holding down a full time job and has no time for children? **
And why would the »less productive« being limited to no less and no more than one child per adult resolve this? **
Besides all that, I would think having no children is the best way to accumulate wealth. Only have to distribute it amongst two people in a couple (assuming one works and one doesn't) or only one's self (if they both work or one is single). **
But if you're talking about the need for children in order to keep civilization going into future generations, I agree, but that necessarily entails a limit on wealth as income must be distributed at least amongst the children. **
2012 |
The concept of luxury is always changing.
What was considered luxury of our ancient past is commonstock now.
This is why there will never ever be total satisfaction for everyone concerning luxury as a whole. **
2013 |
Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?
*Laughs* **
2014 |
I no longer care about race, ethnicity, culture, and ancestry.
My own people haven't done a fucking thing for me.
In fact my own people shun me and treat me as a disposable poor white guy putting it mildly. **
2015 |
That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity. **
Do I pass your screening good sir? **
2016 |
I'm not sure I quite got that. Sounds like you're say that all the money that has to be spent on the less-productive's huge families will be unnecessary when they limit the number of children they have to one/adult, and so that money will be redistributed to the more-productive, meaning that they don't have to spend as much time working for it and therefore can use that extra time to raise children. **
But some things don't add up .... **
How is it that a couple without children has to spend all their time working just to scrape by while a couple with several children and who work less (because of lack of time [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work]) has enough money to feed several mouths (these mouths are mainly feeded by the taxpayers, the more-productive people [see above])? I would think the trend would work in reverse. Having several children would force a couple to work long hours just to make enough money to feed all those little mouths, whereas a couple without children wouldn't have to work nearly as hard just to feed themselves. **
And why do you imagine wealth being redistributed the way you describe? Suppose we take a couple from your »less-productive« class. They're less productive because, with all their children, they have no time to work [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work {see above}]). But we limit the number of children they can have to one/adult. Now they have more time. They become more productive. They earn more money and become more wealthy. Seems like the wealth got »redistributed« back to themselves, not to the »more-productive« class. **
2017 |
|
2018 |
It seems the falling apart process has already begun, though. If it falls apart in the next century it will be because of mistakes already made by the oldsters, and not the fault of the millenials, animals though they may be.
Anyway, isn't everybody an animal at that age?
2019 |
Oh, you're imagining a welfare system. That's the missing element... but I was supposed to know that anyway.
....
Well, that's clear now that you mentioned getting rid of the welfare state. **
2020 |
2021 |
The greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident). **
2022 |
Both of my grandparents are unfortunately deceased. The only people of my real family I admired and respected. **
2023 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Laughing Man wrote:
*Grabs a bag of popcorn.* **
Didn't we used to have an icon for that?« **
Yes, I believe so. **
2024 |
Glad I meet your approval. Carry on sir. **
Here's an interesting related article on ongoing studies into the dangers of superintelligence. **
She was in her late forties when I was born. Only child and all that jazz. **
2025 |
Another favorite avatar of mine. **
2026 |
Something to think about concerning the concept of »force« as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called »spooky action at a distance« and didn't agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires »magic« because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.
This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called »metaphysics«.
And that is why I say that »forces« don't actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don't sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.
Both Newtonian physics and Einstein's Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why. **
RM:AO is all about »Why?« - the »Meta-physics«, the Logic.
2027 |
What is the »justice of generations«? Is that just your one child/adult rule? **
2028 |
Arminius wrote:
»Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Anyway, isn't everybody an animal at that age? **
An animal ....
« ** **
Not sure what's funny, but i'm glad i can amuse. **
|
2029 |
You know, that whole free-will argument has been misleading to me. One would think that if a person has free will they can freely will whatever it is that they want.
Then this whole morality bit comes into play with free will saying what you can and can't do.
Doesn't sound free, does it? They should rename free will into restricted will.
We can call it the restricted will argument. **
2030 |
Arminius wrote:
»The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.
Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations. ** **
Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring. ** **
We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring. ** **
If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: We are a global society. That's lunatic.
So the justice of generations is very important.« ** **
Ah, then I agree wholeheartedly. **
2031 |
2032 |
What »other Faustian theories«? **
2033 |
2034 |
2035 |
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4naoVjdFxCA
(The
Doors [Morrison, Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore], The End, 1967).
2036 |
I'm not sure that I can discern a "Faustian theory" from anything else. It seems that no matter what reasonable theory one has, it could be dubbed "Faustian". Can you give an example of a theory that would be something reasonable, even if not correct, that would be consider non-Faustian? **
|
2037 |
Belief in God makes you do crazy, negative, hurtful things.
Belief in God makes you a bad, illogical moron. **
Christians want to destroy science and truth. **
Belief in nothingness, abiogenesis, a dead random universe, Scientists, etc. Will fix all of the world's problems. **
We evolved from apes and everything we do and are is for survival through many deaths and natural selections. **
Therefor christian is bad and science is good.
Theism is bad. Antitheism is good. **
»Theism« is one particular »theory«. **
I was being sarcastic. **
2038 |
I'm not arguing with you but I need a specific example of a theory that is very »non-Faustian« and explanation why it isn't. **
2039 |
It's ok, since a lot of my stuff consists of automatic writing. **
2040 |
Damnable hubris of it all. **
In a sense i am a machine. But as i have said i am staying within the non committed column. It all depends on You. I am but here to point to the difficulties which can be experienced toward the way. It is like that certain warrior who came across dragon's teeth in a field, like that of modern minefields where everybody is replaceable. Who am i to replace You?
But in another sense, the machine which dictates to me, still, as the nacht which the winter solstice , evaporating the hubrice of the dreams of mid-summer, where fauns, still, inspire, then as there unreservedly so, all as in that dream , is, replaceable. But it's not i, believe me, it is those whom i loved, those who challenged and channelled me, please believe me, of course you may not, and yet again, you might, if, only You can will it!
Machines can never replace You, not because of a stereotype i have of a German that's long gone, a romantic, whose world view has been post-scribed and expressed as the vision of a beautiful world. How can a machine ever express that longing, guilt ridden none the less, and mistaken because of it's exclusivity,??? **
See what Ouzo does? Arminius, if you had known me in Solingen, well, that's another story. **
2041 |
Arminius wrote:
»The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called Middle Ages but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.
I'm afraid that has already happened.
My understanding of Faust is that he was a character best known for his »dance with the Devil« (meaning skepticism, doubt, hedonism, and magic). He sought to understand the world, material reality (hence the physical sciences), certainty, freedom, and power. And being so focused, lost all sense of morality. My similar "dance with the Devil" turned out differently. In my case all doubt and magic got banished in the face of irrevocable certainty while any skepticism was/is invited, leaving me with an irrevocable morality (where real science eventually leads). I played the game differently (dancing to a different tune even though from the same »fiddler on the roof«. Perhaps I was just tone deaf. :-? ).
»Faust is bored and depressed with his life as a scholar. After an attempt to take his own life, he calls on the Devil for further knowledge and magic powers with which to indulge all the pleasure and knowledge of the world. In response, the Devil's representative, Mephistopheles, appears. He makes a bargain with Faust: Mephistopheles will serve Faust with his magic powers for a set number of years, but at the end of the term, the Devil will claim Faust's soul and Faust will be eternally damned. The term usually stipulated in the early tales is 24 years; one year for each of the hours in a day.
During the term of the bargain, Faust makes use of Mephistopheles in various ways. In many versions of the story, particularly Goethe's drama, Mephistopheles helps him to seduce a beautiful and innocent girl, usually named Gretchen, whose life is ultimately destroyed. However, Gretchen's innocence saves her in the end, and she enters Heaven. In Goethe's rendition, Faust is saved by God's grace via his constant strivingin combination with Gretchen's pleadings with God in the form of the Eternal Feminine. However, in the early tales, Faust is irrevocably corrupted and believes his sins cannot be forgiven; when the term ends, the Devil carries him off to Hell.« **
It seems that you are distinguishing any verifiable theories or science as »Faustian« and others as religious (dependent upon handed down knowledge). **
2042 |
I was in Solingen, once. But in a sense i will always be there. Solingen for me is not an ouzo, but an ouza. **
Ouza, also Samiaza, Shemhazai, Amezyarak, Azza, Uzza, Semyaza, a major leader of the fall from heaven in Christian mythology, he was also one of the angels that came down from heaven alongside Azazel to interbreed with humans. Ouza before the fall was of the rank of Seraphim. In legend, he is the seraph tempted by the maiden Ishtahar to reveal to her the Explicit Name of God. **
2043
Yes possibly that too. Someone in another forum pointed to ouza as being. But i am hanging this morning, ouzo is a strong chaser. **
2044 |
Arminius wrote:
»The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.«
Yes, I think that one statement says it all. I'm getting the feeling that I should write a thesis on »Will to Ascension«, which probably sounds terribly religious to you. Realize that I am at a place wherein religion and knowledge come together into a synthesis that is neither.
If the Sun represents the source of all knowledge and the fires of hell (metaphorically), the safe haven is »on the other side of the Sun«, beyond it. What they refer to as »ascended« is a state wherein one has accepted all of the nasty truths of the world of Man and holds no ill will against it, accepting reality for what it is (a whole lot of noise). The problem is that the path to that haven (the "stairway to heaven") is buried in the chaos of the horde, ego, and lust for power (thus lust for knowledge = flying into the Sun). And one must get past the Sun, going through it and out the other side. There is a specific way to do that which goes beyond the simple notion of "have faith and love thy neighbor".
2045 |
Is that gal in the picture holding something up over her head, or just showing off?
![]()
**
2046 |
Do you believe that the principles governing physics and the principles governing social dynamics are related? **
2047 |
2048 |
This is an anime of a small seeded community forming over time;
You might also know it as a sub-atomic particle. **
2049 |
|
2050 |
Dan was being sarcastic. **
2051 |
2052 |
2053 |
2054 |
2055 |
James S. Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»How many machines are in the humanised (mechanised) world?« ** **
»Approximately 1,966,514,816 computers (2 billion).
As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004.
The number of »machines« is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.« **
From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?
Golem.de: Roboter - Mensch: fast 1:1 (robot - human: almost 1:1), that means at least 7 billion robotics (!). ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right? ** **
Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers. **
And Ask.com, right? ** **
I didn't do an exhaustive search. I just picked a couple that first sprang up. The others that I could see didn't seem to disagree. If you want an accurate count, you have to ask the question with far more detail. »Machines« is too ambiguous of a word. Do iPhones count as computers? Hell, I don't know and it isn't worth finding out. **
It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.
The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines? ** **
2056 |
All of those (**|**) are indicators of the »New Moon« rising to guide Man through the night and worshiped in Islam. They are the effects of instituting a new religion over an old one, »new wine in an old wine skin« (»Secular«). Islam increasingly publishes numerous videos associating Science and the Quran in order to maintain itself with the new order and religion of the new night and its false Sun, »Moon«. **
2057 |
2058 |
Anti theist isn't just another theist, just like atheist (obviously) isn't just another theist. **
Anti theist is simply a person who opposes the position of theism .... **
2059 |
Atheists define god as non existent and impossible. But why? **
2060 |
|
2061 |
You're dodging the point, so I'm going to presume that I'm right about this topic and how atheists presume god is impossible from the onset/premise. **
I disagree that humans can think of, or imagine, nothing. **
2062 |
Arminius wrote:
So you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of »zero«, or »nothing«, or the »nothingness«? ** **
You're dodging the point that atheists pitifully, miserably attempt to define god as impossible, but fail of course. Because what is impossible to one person, can be possible to another. **
And yes, a person cannot think of nothing. Because to be cognizant, is to always think of something. Nothing does not exist. Everything exists. **
2063 |
I say this as an atheist. A god may exist for you but, not for me. **
Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called »agnostic atheists«).
....
It is a huge difference wether one says »God does not exist« or »I do not know that God does not exist®. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists. ** **
2064
I think that the issue isn't the number of machines versus people, but rather exactly what the machines are being used for. **
Currently they are being used expressly and only to empower a global empire, humans are not relevant to them and thus are being annihilated slow enough so as to not cause alarm and rebellion.
The proper (and distant only use) of machines is for the enhancement of individuals in the effort to live. That means machines (as well as medicines and chemicals) that enhance the senses for each individual, analyze data for each individual, and move objects for each individual.
The improper use of machines (that should be outlawed) is having them replace individuals so as to satisfy a higher governing power's lust for more power. In a sense, a machine should be voted into existence democratically, except for the fact that people are being prevented from learning how to govern themselves and thus cannot vote effectively. Socialism detests public autonomy and thus socialists build machines solely to disable and/or eliminate the individual and empower the rulers even if it takes being rid of all other humans (the current plan). **
2065 |
Arminius wrote:
»Kriswest wrote:
I say this as an atheist. A god may exist for you but, not for me. **
So I guess that you can agree to this statement:
Arminius wrote:
»Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called "agnostic atheists").
....
It is a huge difference wether one says God does not exist or "I do not know that God does not exist". A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.« ** **To a point yes and to a point no. The word theist and atheist and agnostic have different meanings to different people. You have a god, you have religion, you have no god, you have no religion, you have inbetween , you actually have religious atheists and non religious theists .... **
2066 |
2067 |
2068 |
History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.
History cant have ended yet because the »historical existentials« haven't ended.
Arminius wrote:
»According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following historical existentials:
Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o); Rule (leadership, a.s.o.); Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.); Classes; State; Great War; City and country as contrast; Education, especially in schools and universities; Science; Order of sexulality / demographics, economics; Historiography / awareness of history!« ** ** There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.
Since the beginning of the Western modern times:
1. Religion has been becoming a more secular religion, a modern religion, thus an ideology; so religion has been expanding. 2. Rule (leadership, a.s.o.) has been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric one; so rule has been expanding. 3. Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.) has also been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric one; so nobleness has been expanding. 4. Classes have been changing: a richer becoming upper class, a shrinking middle class, an increasing lower class; so classes have been changing badly. 5. State has been becoming a more and more powerless institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear. ** ** 6. Great war has been becoming smaller but much more wars and threatening; so we still can't say much about the end of this historical existential. 7. City and country as contrast have been changing by expanding cities and shrinking countries; so the contrast will perhaps disappear. 8. Education, especially in schools and universities, has been becoming a catastrophic issue; so education has been changing very badly. 9. Science has been becoming a new religion for the most part; so science has been changing very badly. 10. Order of sexulality / demographics, economics has been becoming a catastrophic issue too; so this order has been becoming a disorder. 11. Historiography / awareness of history has been getting under ideological (modern religious) control; so historography has been changing badly! ** ** So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don't know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive. ** **
2069 |
Arminius: If St. James argument (**) is carried to its limit, there will not be any humanity left, except the 1%. Now lets look at the math. Let's say it will take another few hundred years to eliminate 99% of the population, and since can not calculate this exactly, a ball park figure should suffice. Let's say in a century or two the curve will be reduced incrementally by an increasing gradient of change. let's draw a straight line through the curve and calculate this way.
Say around 8 billion to 10 billion souls very roughly reduced to 1% leaving 100 million people world wide. That would be pretty much a fair equality to what the ancient world population was. I am not too certain of this number but i will look that up.
Now 100 million is a good re-start, but is it conceivable, that this kind of reduction is practical or even conceivable? Would not some bright soul or more than one, become wise to this and do something to try to prevent it? Or will the population like bleating sheep be led to the slaughter? I am very much in doubt that this economy or even one projected a few centuries into the future would be capable to develop this kind of feasibility.
I would propose that projects like Space X, and vastly extended space stations would be constructed and other like planets developed. Thereupon the uneducated and the misaligned, would be given another chance to re develop new frontiers. Their progenitors will look upon the 1% back on earth as Olympian Gods, as long as technological decay will not enable to form anything but myths. Although both versions are more fiction then fact, the later is more credible. **
A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply its intelligence to itself and improve itself. ** **
|
2070 |
Arminius is too perceptive for you, Dan~.
Your filthy lies don't get past him.
He knows you weren't being sarcastic!
Arminius wrote:
»So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.« ** **
Golden bullet.
Arminius wrote:
»Should my ILP membership be thought over?« ** **
It's run by these antitheist scum!
How could the humble theist hope for well balanced communication? **
2071 |
Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly by an ancient construct of the word. **
English Prefix a-
1. a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning »on«, »in«, »into«, »to«, »toward« preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away), or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride; and originally, awry).So strictly by the construction of »toward«, the word in English would be »toward-theism«, »into-theism«. English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary to another.
Greek Prefix a-
prefix
1. not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocialNot only has the formal definition of »atheism« been established for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn't changed a bit. Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They are God-haters. And for those who simply don't know or care, English as a specific word that means that, »Agnostic« (which uses that Greek root for »a-«: »a-gnostic« = »void-of-knowing«, »without-knowing, and also »against-knowing«).
Greek Prefix an-
prefix
1. not; without: anaphrodisiacIf they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use the word, »Antheist«, »Antitheist«, or »Agnostic«. They don't because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god »Plausible Deniability«, the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves. **
2072 |
»An adjective modifies the verb .... **
What I do have is an opinion, that the way you argue it, gives me, at least, the impression of a crackpot, and that is no insult .... My impression of you hasn't changed. You are nothing but a bully and you are and will be where you are as result. .... You are a bully. Just read your posts. .... You're a crackpot" on and on. .... Yeah, I'd call that being an intellectual bully. You think you are the owner of the playground and it is apparent in your contempt for anyone else playing on the playground. .... A bully will always deflect blame. - Bully. - And I don't need to feed a troll. .... Shit, You are such a putz. **
Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called »scientists«, proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious »force« to be called »gravity«. Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this »force of gravity« so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object..... The Modern Science concept of »Forces« is merely a Modern Science superstition stemming from the Newtonian era.
Mowk wrote:
»An adjective modifies the verb, such that the verb does not get modified without it.« **
What »adjective« are you talking about? A »force« is a noun, not an adjective. »Gravitational« is an adjective of that noun, although »gravitation« is a noun.
Mowk wrote:
»Forces do exist. Perhaps, and I don't think anyone will argue, our knowledge of what we call a gravitational force is incomplete but I continue to see that the mathematics that applies the concepts can still calculate the required energy to escape it's "grasp" (perhaps 'grasp' isn't appropriately descriptive either, as it seems to evoke an effort or force that maintains it).« **
And here you state something of which you know so little about (physics) as though you had proof. Why do you believe that forces exist? You believe it because someone told you they do. And they told you that because they have a reliable predictive formula which they have demonstrated. That certainly is evidence of the possibility of something's existence. But it has not been falsifiably proven (a demand within science). Many predictive theories can be formulated out of complete non-sense. Something can't be falsifiably proven to exist until there is no other option left but for the entity to exist.
Mowk wrote:
»But the theoretical model works in an effort to predict how much energy is required to propel a mass into space and to determine return methods that counter its effects to prevent the result of a rather bug like splat against the windshield earth on the return trip. The theory has a functionally applicable component. It remains useful. Your choice might be to present something as or more useful.« **
Certainly true. But something being »practical« does not make it true. Newton's laws were practical only to later be stated as wrong. It was practical to calculate very many things throughout society based upon the theory of the gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. How practical something is at that moment depends upon how much precise detail is required concerning the specific subject. The Roman gods theory was of little use in predicting the path of a cannon ball. And the forces theory is of no use in explaining why the universe exists, why protons stick together, or why charged particles separate. They merely declare these things as »fundamental«, just as the Roman gods theories used to do, »it is just the way it is«, or in the Abramic religions, »I am that I am«.
Mowk wrote:
»They aren't claiming they know it is magic.« **
They claim that it is inexplicable (ie »magic«), at least until THEY can explain it in such a way as to make it appear as though they were right all along, no one else can for sure, nor is allowed to.
Mowk wrote:
»If you wish to change the circumstance of that lack of knowledge go for it, but I doubt that vector will take place arguing theories on an internet philosophy forum. I certainly don't have the mathematical background to argue with you regarding 'your' theory.« **
Why do you think it requires mathematics? Because they use mathematics? I made one single post on Physics Forums merely introducing the concepts and what I did to substantiate them because someone asked me of »your theory«. The post was immediately deleted and I was immediately banned for life for »arguing an alternate theory«. Is that the kind of forum you are recommending? All of the other »Science« forums do basically that same thing although usually with far less hysterical reaction. They do not permit controversy. They are there to preach THEIR gospel, not listen to alternatives. They have been invited to come here. Where are they?
On a philosophy forum, one would expect for a theory to be questioned in an inquisitive way. When I say, »It works like this«, there are three basic responses;
1) Why do you think it works that way (concerning some detail perhaps).
2) No, it works this other way instead (your response).
3) You are just demanding faith from us.Philosophical thinking people, including scientists, would be expected to respond with option (1). Eugene Morrow did it (so as to defend his own theory), Sanjay did it (only contending with my definition of »conscious«), Mechanical Monster did it, Arminius did it. None of them have questioned it to my satisfaction and thus I know that none of them fully grasped it, but none of them could find anything contrary, logically unsound, or evidence to be otherwise. Science cannot argue with it. And thus on Science forms, it isn't even allowed to be mentioned (I have asked ahead of time. They say »NO!« without even seeing it), the exact same treatment one would expect from a defensive Church; »Doubting us is not allowed. You are the Devil«. **
2073 |
The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what »nature«, »physics«, »universe«, »life«, ... means. This is even perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat's texts because they indicate, although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own »worlds«, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how »science« was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called science nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.
You may say (for example): »there wre the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)«. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous »science« and »technique/technology«. You may see what it means to have a more religious »science« and »technique/technology« when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called enlightenment (Aufklärung). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the enlightenment (Aufklärung) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an enlightenment (Aufklärung), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science. ** **
Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of »relativity«, »gravitational force«, »electromagnetic force«, »strong nuclear force«, »weak nuclear force«, »speed of light«, »thermodynamics«, »quantum«, »big bang«, »inflation of the universe«, »black holes«, »dark matter«, dark energy», ....?
That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The »scientists« of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.
My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.
In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), »scientists« or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call »science« lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.
The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called »Middle Ages« but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist. ** **
You have to know Goethe's »Faust«, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with »Faustian culture« and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe's »Faust« or Spengler's »Decline of the West« when it comes to really and well understand what »Faustian culture« means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.
The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called »monotheisms« have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.
Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.
It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.
Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his »Faust«, but also predicted the future of the Western man.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**). ** **
The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for belief is Glaube (and to believe = glauben), and this has its roots in the the term FÜR WAHR HALTEN - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and higher than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume. ** ** (**|**).
I am a traditional Hindu. **
Arminius, ..., i am a proud Hindu .... **
2074 |
Secondly, this concept of the presence of 96% matter and 4% antimatter does not seem to be logical. **
As some define antimatter as a opposite of matter, how 4% of antimatter would have survived that long since Big-Bang? Why it did not intract with the same amout of matter and destroyed at the very moment it came into existence? **
Higgs-Bosan (if that is true) .... **
2075 |
We need not to think for blinking so a sleeping person also can do that, just like the case of breathing. **
I have no visual perception at all, having been born without optic nerves, so I don't see anything at all, not even darkness. **
»What do you see when you watch the radio transmissions from an antenna?«
- Nothing. **
2076 |
Empathy declines in masses. In less populated areas its still a staple.
Do I care if a million people in one metropolis do not care about each other? No. **
And it is the cities that are declining. **
2077 |
|
2078 |
It may be objected that machines will be able to ultimately self replicate, but such replication again will lead to the post utopian sexual replication, because the discovery by an ontology which would be evaluated by the machine as driven by a power? Pleasure and replication would necessitate the simulation of mammalian sexual behavior, and through the hedonistic progress, there would occur a con current devolution of intelligence, as the result of the shift in the primary focus away from the emphasis on intelligence, toward natural selection, via dominant characteristics? **
2079 |
It is only a difference in words and names. **
2080 |
2081 |
![]() | ![]() |
|
2082 |
2083 |
Arminius wrote:
»Are you a friend of the motto or principle NULLIUS IN VERBA« ** **
You're kidding me, right? **
Are you a friend of the German language? **
2084 |
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Are you a friend of the German language? **
Yes.« ** **
Just in case you dont understand English sarcasm;
The same answer equally applies to the question that you asked. **
2085 |
![]() | ![]() |
2086 |
2087 |
==>
|