761) Arminius, 11.07.2015, 17:59 (3274)

Islamic invasion of (for example) Sweden: **

762) Arminius, 12.07.2015, 15:12 (3275)

Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.

763) Arminius, 13.07.2015, 17:35 (3276)

But God as the „limit to possibility“ (**) and the „impossibility itself“ (**) means that „God exists as that limit“ (**) and beyond that limit, right?

764) Arminius, 14.07.2015, 17:37 (3277)

Mags J. wrote:

„The migrated (Caucasian) tribes interbred with Neanderthals after they had migrated out of Africa, hence no (or hardly any) Neanderthal DNA in Africans.“ **

It is not certain that thye interbred because of the lack of indications in the genomes. There are two theses: (1) the thesis of non-interbreding and (2) the thesis of interbreding.

In memory of the Neanderthals: **

R.I.P..

765) Arminius, 15.07.2015, 01:18, 01:20, 02:41, 19:20, 19:48, 20:13, 20:29, 23:49, 23:56 (3278-3286)

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Sexuality is a survival mechanism, not a product of luxury.“ **

You must have misunderstood something. Probably you do not know what human „luxury“ really means. In addition, sexuality is not only a „survival mechanism“.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Same with communication and emotions.“ **

No. You must have misunderstood something. Probably you do not know what human „communication“ and „emotions“ really mean. In addition, communication and emotions are also not only a „survival mechanism“ or two survival mechanisms.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Rich people did not sit down and decide to make up emotions one day.“ **

Nobody said that rich people did „sit down and decide to make up emotions one day“. You must have misunderstood something. ....

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„I don't know about you, but my goal here is to get everyone to have the same ideals I do.“ **

And what are your „ideals“?

Here is an example that shows how much a person can love philosophy:

Orbie wrote:

„I was in prison only once for prostitution. I sold myself so i could study philosophy. In prisn, one month, i did not experoence anything, because i was in with the blacks, and nobody bothered me in spite of my pretty boy status. I was not queered, nor did i become anyone's bitch, because i knew how to play the game, learned from the streets. I lost my job with traffic violations when they found out, but had the whole affair ex-punged after 3 years because i was considered a minor at the time. I was arrested several times after that but never served time for them. I became very claustrophobic after this, and even to this day, developed all kids of phobias. I developed a very deep respect for the law there after. Thank You.“ *

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„My ideals, is that humans are mostly retards, and they need their DNA changed.“ **

From another thread:

Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.

**

Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals and also not capable of being gods.

So you are saying that humans „need their DNA changed“. Okay, but what, if they will have changed their DNA?

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Philosophy is not something you need money to study. Philosophy is something you craft on your own volition. Not read long books to parrot others.“ **

I agree. But it could nevertheless be possible that Orbie loved philosophy and thought (wrongly) that he needed money to study his „true love“.

3281

If one says „there definitely was a big bang“, then this one should not be taken as seriously as that one who says „the Earth orbits the Sun“. But the reason I was referring to Sean M. Carroll's theory was merely the aspect of the time, namely the problem of the arrow of time, in order to suggest a discussion. This forum is (or should be?) a philosophy forum. So we should try to ask and answer all questions in order to finally get the truth.

3282

Liber 8 wrote:

„We have no idea what human nature is ...“ **

You do not know what all other people know; so you can only say: „You have no idea what human nature is ...“.

Liber 8 wrote:

„IMO it's a scientific question, and one with no good answer at the moment (and honestly, I don't really see much space for philosophy in answering a question like this).“ **

That is a dangerous statement. If merely scientists were allowed to answer that question, then we would already have what we are going to have: a new religion!

Science works like a selection system. The scientific results are never complete, perfect, and correct; they are always merely the results of the zeitgeist. This means that it is absolutely necessary to be sceptical and to not let the scientists alone with the answers to questions of us all.

Liber 8 wrote:

„Natural selection created substantial variation in our nature.“ **

The „natural selection“ is not God but merely one aspect of the natural development.

Liber 8 wrote:

„Some segments of human populations bred with neanderthals ....“ **

That it is not proven.

Arminius wrote:

„It is not certain that thye interbred because of the lack of indications in the genomes. There are two theses: (1) the thesis of non-interbreding and (2) the thesis of interbreding.

In memory of the Neanderthals: **

R.I.P..“ ** **

Liber 8 wrote:

„Some evolved in very cold climates, others in warm climates, while others evolved in mild climates. Some had ample access to food and friendly surroundings, allowing them to multiply in higher numbers (also allowing more members of the society to reproduce), while others did not. These and countless other factors affect our evolution, and by extension, our nature. Evolving in harsher climates tends to promote greater levels of cooperation, and so we can expect these sort of attributes to be selected for. Evolving in milder climates reduces the need to cooperate, and so other factors may be selected for. I could on and on with this, but the point is ....“ **

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature.

Liber 8 wrote:

„Human nature is a really really complex issue.“ **

If (if!) that were right, then it would be just one more good reason to talk about it.

3283

The changing of the human DNA has been being in the works for so long. .... Solutions? More good than bad or more bad than good? I would say „more ...“.

3284

The word „afflate“ means probably the compound word of the two words „affectance“ and „oblate“. Is it a tiny objectified affectance? Is it a tiny thing of affectance?

There are so many other ILP members that should have been banned but not Lys and some others who have been banned. I am again disappointed by ILP.

Who is really satisfied with the ILP rules and its moderation (**|**)?

One example of the problem with the ILP rules and its moderation is the permaban of Lys (**). ILP has double standards. There are so many other ILP members that should have been banned but not Lys and some others who have been banned. I am again disappointed by ILP.

766) Arminius, 16.07.2015, 00:27, 00:45, 01:00, 01:00, 02:16, 03:06, 03:20, 18:19, 19:57, 23:48 (3287-3296)

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius, we're doing alright according to your poll, and I haven't even voted yet.“ **

Yes, but another fact is that many users do not know anything about that poll (**|**).

Carleas, do you really know what Lys „knew“ (**) at that moment and what „her intent was“ (**)?

Copied post in another thread.

The real reason for the „both“ (**) is that one has a brain and senses, thus that one has a logical theory and an empirical praxis in life as well as in science.

So we need not only thoughts, mathematics, logic, and a well defined language but also the observation, laboratories and other empircal things.

So, you are „sure“ (**) ....

Do you also know why you are sure and why you can be sure?

No. You do not know that. So you are wrong.

Liber 8 wrote:

„https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... anderthals .“ **

That is wrong. So my statement is correct: it is not proven!

In 20 years scientists and you will probably say that „machines bred with neanderthals because of a nice text of newscientist.com“. .... „Nice“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Liber 8 wrote:

»Nope, I'm sure ... no one can define human nature (at least not in a satisfactory scientific way).

IMO it's a scientific question, and one with no good answer at the moment (and honestly, I don't really see much space for philosophy in answering a question like this).« **

The young of mind .... and the preprogrammed secular religionists.“ **

Exactly.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What we know as "time", the measure of change, can never actually "go backwards" because a change is a change. But beyond that, even if all changes were perfectly reversed in their direction, the universe would still not actually be able to run backwards. The closest thing to reversing time is to merely place macro objects back as they were at a prior date, perhaps rebuild a small town exactly as it was 100 years ago.

... and there was no BB from a singularity. That thought seems more dumb to me every time I hear it.“ **

Probably it was meant as a joke.

There is probably a competition for a prize of the best science joke.

But if there is such a massive joke in physics, then I don't want to hear anything about the other science disciplines. They themselves are probably jokes.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„Semantics, playing with words and their meaning, or is race really a social construct?
Now perhaps what we call a race needs to be more precisely defined in biological terms ....“ **

It had been precisely defined in biological terms before the rulers forbid to define it and even to speak about it (except in a negative sense). That is interesting, isn't it?

So the rulers forbid a part of science and more and more parts of science, and at last there will be no science but merely a new religion.

There are some ILP members who are indirectly declaring war on Europe, especially on Germany, without any rationale and justification. I don't know whether, and if yes, which drugs they take, but their statements are based on their envy, resentments, inferiority complexes, and - of course - stupidness. That is merely good for those who become rich by war - who are few but all the more misanthropic.

So maybe we will have war in Europe before 2050, and some ILP members will then be proud of being a tiny part of the cause. Shame on you!

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„Modern psychology - a joke?“ **

One can call it a „joke“, yes, but unfortunately it is a „serious joke“, so that one should say: „it is a part of a typical modern problem“.

Amorphos wrote:

„I think this is part of the whole philosophy of ‘the system’, their means of control.“ **

That said „system“ is the main part of the typical modern problem.

Laughing Man, I am glad, welcome again!

Where have you been since Christmas 2014?

This is for you: **

767) Arminius, 17.07.2015, 00:01, 00:11, 03:08, 04:29, 18:07, 19:41, 21:11, 23:10 (3297-3304)

Is it a nice place near the Canadian border, isn't it?

That makes me happy.

I like forests, lakes, and wilderness areas.

Laughing Man wrote:

„United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada against the rest of the world initiated by Russia and China simultaneously in sync..“ **

And at last the EU will probably be the prey of the rest of the world.

3300

Laughing Man wrote:

„Africa and Latin South America is China's playground. Might as well revise that chart.“ **

Africa and Latin America are the prey of the others anyway. They have been being it since the 15th/16th century.

That chart refers to the Trilateral Commission.

This is the current top 5 rank of GDP:

1) US.
2) Japan.
3) Germany.
4) China.
5) UK.

If the EU were considered, then it would be: 1) EU.

And this is the current top 5 rank of of GDP PPP:

1) China.
2) US.
3) India.
4) Japan.
5) Germany.

If the EU were considered, then it would be: 1) EU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not confuse the GDP with the GDP PPP or even the growth with the GDP or with the GDP PPP.

Zinnat wrote:

„The situation is such that European countries will loose their present status. Their leaders are well aware of that too. That is precisely why they are trying to form a singular, unified and powerful Europe, which would be able to withstand the future challenges. They know that they cannot compete with Asian nations like China, India and even Indonesia by size. They have to as big as US and these Asian countries.“ **

Economically Europe is still much bigger than US, China, India, Indonesia (cp. my last post [**|**]).
Demographically Europe (750 millions) is much bigger than US (317 millions) and Indonesia (238 millions) but much smaller than China (1370 millions) and India (1210 millions).

Zinnat wrote:

„That is why they cannot let Grece out at any cost, though their ways of helping are not helping much.“ **

The main reason why the EU does not let Greece out of the Eurozone is angst: if Greece gets out of the Eurozone, then it is very probable that the Eurozone or even the EU will collapse, at least the Euro will lose its worth, and the EU will lose its reputation.

Zinnat wrote:

„Though, i cannot predict 2050, but keeping all that in the mind, it looks to me that there will be no war in Europe, because there would be nothing much to fight.“ **

Would you mind going into details?

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius,

I am well aware of the difference between the two. That is why I said that India will be at 3 by 2020, not before that. Otherwise going by ppp, it is there even now.“ **

But nevertheless: we should not forget that it is based on abstraction, that the link to the real world is not always given.

Zinnat wrote:

„And, European countries can be in that race only as a Eurozone, not individuals.“ **

The European Union (EU) and the Eurozone are also obstacles for some countries, for example for Germany, Austria, Holland. In other words: there is also a brake in the EU and in the Eurozone, and this brake brakes as a motor brake, and the motor of the EU and Eurozone is Germany. So Germany could probably do better without any EU and Eurozone. Like Japan, and Japan is economically comparable with Germany. The EU and especially the Euro is a huge burden for Germany. From the German point of view the EU and the Eurozone have never been economically necessary. The EU and the Eurozone were politically forced - by dictatorship, thus without any democratic processes. Until the early 1990s the economical rank of the top 3 was: 1) US, 2) Germany (until 1990: only West Germany), 3) Japan. And it was not Germany's so-called „reunion“ but the EU that forced Germany into that huge burden. This burden grows and grows, and there is no other country in Europe or elsewhere that is capable of bearing this burden. But some states, especially the United States, are interested in the economical destruction of Europe.

Zinnat wrote:

„There are many new such entrants, which are very eagar to make a cut: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea.“ **

Yes, and most of them are banded together.

Amorphos wrote:

„Speech itself is what makes us human.“ **

Without it human beings would not have come into the world:

„The »birth« of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.“ ** **

768) Arminius, 18.07.2015, 01:53, 02:36, 02:37, 02:38, 04:45, 22:33, 23:11 (3304-3311)

Copied post in another thread.

Why do humans have their language?

1) Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication (information system).
2) Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence between language and thinking.
1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence between language and culture.

Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals: (1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2) they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking; (1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical human tool for culture.

For example:

If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future, thus you have more leisure, more luxury; and this gives you and your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual / intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.

Copied post in another thread.

But nevertheless: the human nature is not only the human language but the whole human culture; and merely the rest of about 2% is a pure natural aspect of the human nature (these 2% are not really few - as we know, especially from genetics).

Arminius wrote:

„If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!“ ** **

Zinnat, I hope I may remind you of what you wrote exactly 30 days ago:

Zinnat wrote:

„I am willing to write a long post regarding what we left unfinished in Machine thread. I will post that in a day or two.“ **

30 days are gone, but unfortunately your promised post has not arrived here.

With „banded together“ (**|**) I meant that they are not merely economically but also militarily banded together, for exanple in the so-called „Shanghai Cooperation Organisation“ which is a political, economic and military organisation and was founded in 2001 in Shanghai.

Germany is the leader - it did and does not want to be the leader but had and has to be it because of the economical and political facts (that is what I meant by the word „forced“ [**|**]) . But okay, now we have this facts that have been making and leading to the scapegoat role for so long.

The „price“ you mentioned (**) could be paid in another, namely a better way. That was my main point. No EU, no Eurozone, no NATO but nonetheless a powerful political, economic and mliitary organisation of European countries without any influence of the USA. It is namely a contradiction that there is a military parrtnership with an economic enemy („competitor“) like the USA, because this means the contradictional politics between Europe and the USA.

Zinnat wrote:

„War needs reasons to happen. It cannot happen out of the blue. And, I do not see any reasons whatsoever in Europe. Social unrest can cause only rebellion in that country. It cannot be enough reason for manifesting full scale military war.

Can you tell me any reason why Europe will have to face wars?“ **

First of all, the reasons for wars to happen are always given just because of the nature of living beings in general and of human beings in particular. Secondly, econimical wars as several forms of extreme „competitions“ are typical for the modern „humanity“ and always accompanied by media wars (you can even see it here on ILP). Thirdly, the kind of war I am most afraid of is the so-called „civil war“, and this kind of war is what Europe will probably have to face. The contradictional politics of and between Europe and the USA are one of the main reasons why Europe will probably have to face a civil war. I just said „probably“, thus not „certainly“. But the probability is not low.

If you can't defeat your enemy economically, then defeat him demographically. And if you will have defeated him demographically, then it will soon be easy to defeat him economically too. This implies the high probability of a civil war.

Again: I did not say that it is certain but merely probable that there will be war in Europe before 2050. Hence the title of this thread as a question.

By the way the current US debt:
US national debt: $ 18 320 000 000 000.
US debt per taxpayer $ 154 500.
US debt per citizen: $ 57 000.
(Cp. US Debt Clock)

Okay, Zinnat (**).

769) Arminius, 19.07.2015, 00:12, 00:16, 19:10, 19:13, 19:44 (3312-3316)

Language has an innate and a non-innate feature. The capability of language learning is an innate feature, but if the environment of the said infant is without language, then this infant will not learn any language, and if an adult has never had any language experiences, then the language learning is almost impossible for this adult. So there is a critical point of time as a border for the capability of language learning. The capability of language learning gets lost (the older a human becomes the more the capability of language learning gets lost), generally and especially, if there is no language environment, no possibility of language exercises.

Copied post in another thread.

The workload and the speed of a little child's language learning are not to top after the age of that little child who learns the language for the first time.

Copied post in another thread.

Destroy the motor of a car, and this car will not function anymoe.
Destroy Germany as the motor of the EU and the Eurozone, and the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

Since the wars in Central and Southwest Asia and in Africa that are caused by the USA and Israel the number of immigrants in Germany has increased gigantically.
Since the beginning of the huge problems in Greece Germany's debts have also increased gigantically.
This obviously never ending demographical and economical war will lead to the fact that the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

And this can't be in the interest of all Europeans.

770) Arminius, 20.07.2015, 02:05, 04:29, 04:46, 17:46, 18:24, 18:53, 20:49 (3317-3323)

Topic: Is an authentic dasein (existence, life) possible for human beings?

„IJOT“ is the Integral of Joy Over Time.

Thinkdr wrote:

„Human beings are a part of nature and have less suffering in life when they comply with natural order - with nature's laws.“ **

Human beings are human beings mainly (about 98%) because of their culture/s. Do you want them to completely return to nature, to completely become animals?

See, that's the problem with quick responses: one asks a question, and others get entirely wrong impressions. It is possible that you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you did not exclude it in your posts.

I asked you a valid question. So would you mind answering it?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Imagine a mother keeping very close tabs on her family such that she can keep a diary of about how good each member is feeling day by day. In a SAM Coop that same thing is a very high priority. And each day an accumulating IJOT value is calculated so as to reflect how much total joy is being experienced by each life, regardless of how or why. The mother figures out ways to keep her family as happy as possible and the Analyst in the SAM Coop figures out ways to keep the IJOT figure as high as possible.

The purpose of a government is to improve the lives of those it governs. And the purpose of each life is to increase its IJOT. Thus for a government to improve lives, it must be aware of and understand how to affect the IJOT levels of all members. And that is why the SAM Coops must always be very small. If a SAM Coop gets very big at all, the intimate awareness of the actual quality of life of each member cannot be known or governed efficiently.

It's a principle throughout all of nature requiring local support for local concerns. Even subatomic particles exactly obey the same principle (which is why larger nuclei are radioactive, falling apart, staying small). Individual living bodies have size limits for that exact same reason. If a body gets so large that parts cannot be sensed properly or adjusted, those parts atrophy. When governments get too large, ... guess what.

And the Communists still think that the entire world can be remotely governed by merely a few people with computers, surveillance cameras, microphones, and drones.“

That’s all true. SAM must work according to the principle of subsidiarity.

You can interpet it as you want: dasein, existence, life (see above). It is up to you to interpret „dasein“, but you should explain how you mean it and specify it.

But you should not necessarily refer to the following:

The question of this thread also includes e.g. the following question: Is it possible to not lie, to not be insincere / hypocritical, to not be corrupt, to not want to be like the others, but just to be oneself? I am asking you, for example, whether you think that you live or can live according to the imperative „ BE YOURSELF ! “ .

==>