01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [901][902][903][904][905][906][907][908][909][910] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4868 |
Arminius wrote:
»Pandora wrote:
It was an early Sunday morning and I was walking around a small town. Everything was still closed and the streets were empty and quiet. I was about to cross a small street and I stopped at the light. A young man with a baby stroller came up behind me. The red light was taking forever and because there were no cars around, I crossed the street. The man stayed behind but apparently got upset and started yelling 'Nein! Nein!' after me. So I take it as type of peer pressure or psychology of social conformism. This kind of thinking lacks discernment outside of prescribed rules (thinking in the box mentality). **
No. That was because of the child, Pandora. The man did not want the child to sea somebody doing something that is dangerous.« ** **
Actually, it was an infant in a covered stroller, like this one.
**
Nice guess though. **
Arminius wrote:
»I would not call it psycholgy! It is only logy (thus without psyche), because the pure logic and the common sense tell us that it leads to a relatively strong uniformity.« ** **
Good logic should also tell you that enforced uniformity will lower the average and make the whole easier to control and manipulate. **
Arminius wrote:
»But whether it does or not is also a question of experience, observation, empirism. I did not experience much of the Law of Jante when I was in Scandinavia. I merely had much fun there.« ** **
So if it is a question of experience and empiricism (I was not talking about empiricism but merely about empirism, thus in the sense of experience, obeservation, and that it is also or even primarily a question of logic), we can look back into history to see societies which implemented the mentality of uniformity (constancy) and see how long they've lasted in comparison to societies which were more flexible in their views. **
Arminius wrote:
»Pandora wrote:
What is the quality of that which you preserve? **
I do not preserve anything in this case. Ask the Scandinavians. I have nothing to do with the Law of Jante. The Law of Jante is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon.« ** **
It was a rhetorical question, Arminius. **
Arminius wrote:
»Pandora wrote:
Is the goal to preserve a herd of beautiful fluffy white sheep? **
Maybe, Pandora, but I do not know that for sure, because the Law of Jante is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon, and I am not a Scandinavian. Maybe you should read something about the author of the Law of Jante: Axel Nielsen (18991965), since 1921: Aksel Sandemose.« ** **
I see it as a portrayal of peasant mentality. And in my experience, Scandinavian »soul« does have a tendency of romanticizing it, perhaps a kind of nostalgia. I suspect this mentality is an offshoot from quite strong influence of Lutheran church which upheld the values of peasant parsimony and modesty. **
And there is nothing noble about it. Unless, you're a Christian. **
4869 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
»Philosophy [Society] is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.« **
I'm surprised you substitute Society in for Philosophy and not Language. **
4870 |
A society is basically a collection of people working together to increase their welfare and security, and can do this in better or worse ways, with different criteria for judging it. In a Scandinavian society the success is judged by more equal outcomes, stability and uniformity of outlook; ambitious and eccentric people threaten the order. In the US success is measured by the success of the top, and people who argue for greater equality may be vilified for holding back the ambitious achievers and stealing their success to pay for lazy layabouts. This is less of an issue in Scandinavia, where there's a protestant work ethic, etc.. **
4871 |
Some cultures have the same word for green and blue. They can obviously see the difference between grass and sky, they just denote them with the same word.
English speakers see red and pink as different colours. Russians do too, but they have exactly the same with blue - navy and sky blue are not different shades, but different colours. **
4872 |
Isn't it obvious, do you wish to see nature destroyed? **
I would like to see it make somewhat of a comeback. **
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Some estimates extend their timeline into deep prehistory, to »10,000 BC«, i.e. the last glacial maximum, when world population estimates range roughly between one and ten million.
Estimates for yet deeper prehistory, into the Upper Paleolithic, are of a different nature. At this time human populations consisted entirely of non-sedentary hunter-gatherer populations, which fall into a number of archaic species or sub-species, some but not all of which may be ancestral to the modern human population due to possible archaic human admixture with modern humans taking place during the Upper Paleolithic. Estimates of the size of these populations are a topic of paleoanthropology. A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when the Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals.
For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, ca. 130,000 years ago, Sjödin et al. (2012) estimate an effective population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals, inferring an actual »census population« of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals. **
4873 |
4874 |
4875 |
4876 |
4877 |
|
4878 |
Arminius wrote:
»There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
Mathematics is a subset of logic.
« ** **
That is true. And if one cannot get the logic straight, the mathematics is wrong, regardless of what anyone has ever said or believed.
The Zeno Dichotomy conundrum has a logically valid solution without having to distort the logic in mathematics. **
4879 |
Arminius wrote:
»I guess you know that Thomas Hobbes wrote his book Leviathan or the Matter, Form and Authority of Government (1651) because of the experiences with the terrible civil war in England. ** **
That would be his ideal containment of human nature I was referencing in which I disagree with. **
Thomas Hobbes was quite correct. **
4880 |
4881 |
4882 |
4883 |
4884 |
4885 |
4886 |
When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:
»The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.« ** **
Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak of several human cultures and not of one human culture. ** **
Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just because of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. ** **
We can say that an »authentic human life« means a »life according to the human's nature«, whereas an »unauthentic life« means a »life according to the human's culture/s«.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**|**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically. ** **
4887 |
4888 |
4889 |
4890 |
4891 |
4892 |
4893 |
4894 |
4895 |
4896 |
4897 |
4898 |
|
4899 |
I still fail to see how we currently don't live in a culture of »we« but I agree that there may be a contradiction between »Individualism« and how culture actually IS. **
4900 |
4901 |
4902 |
4903 |
4904 |
4905 |
4906 |
4907 |
4908 |
4909 |
Our »we« is just as strong as it has always been (if not stronger) but we just do not value it as much. **
4910 |
4911 |
4912 |
4913 |
When two people have resolved a debate to the point of disagreeing upon a particular thought or principle, what is left to do but to attempt to teach of the correctness of one's stand?
Math is not some mystical field independent of logical and rational thought. Math is in fact a product of logical thought concerning quantities.
But of course, as history strongly reveals, Man often preaches with grand certainty against logical thought, only to later fall. The issue of infinities and infinitesimals seems to stretch Man's mind to a dubious limit whereat he chooses passion for preference over restraint to rationality.
Note that the title and OP ask if the concept is »Really« true. The question isn't about what is currently most popular to believe or what the contemporary experts teach. And to discover what is really true despite what authorities are preaching requires logic. Unfortunately even on a philosophy forum, logic is seldom the guiding light. **
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
4914 |
4915 |
4916 |
|
4917 |
Arminius wrote:
»The merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length does not contradict its real finiteness.« ** **
Precisely.
It is always and forever merely up to what standard of minimal measure one chooses - what degree of infinitesimal is going to represent »1«. If none is chosen, then a physical ontology cannot be formed because every infinitesimal distance could be infinitely divided such as to have no means to sum up any distance at all.
Ontology is a Choice. One must choose how many infinitesimals are going to exist between 0 and 1.
And a necessary choice if any understanding is to be formed or maintained. Ontological understanding is not reality itself, which has no limits for infinity. Thus the limits for infinity and infinitesimal must be set by choosing a standard independent of the fact that reality has no limit. It really isn't any different than choosing the length of a meter. Reality has no such thing as a meter, so someone must choose a length, else length measurements are impossible to logically handle. **
4918 |
Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive .... **
4919 |
I don't have a motive (moral or immoral) for killing insects. **
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule. ** (**|**)
4920 |
I think the »I« and »we« continue to function how they have always functioned but we have developed exaggerated views of these; which subsequently creates dysfunction as they do not behave how we expect them to behave. **
4921 |
4922 |
Arminius wrote:
»There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
Mathematics is a subset of logic.
« ** **
Exactly. Get the logic square/clean, and the math will be just fine. **
The merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length does not contradict its real finiteness. ** **
4923 |
We have the expectation that they behave (function) according to how we view them and we never question our view when things don't work out how we expected them to. **
Ierrelus wrote:
»The protestant reformation essentially established the I as having precedent over the we. It preached rugged individualism that has affected both religion and politics.« **
Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the »we« more than the »I«. The »we« is important, yes, but the »I« is important as well. ** **
Martin Luther appealed to the I. The belief or faith should be a thing of the I and no longer of the we, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments! ** **
4924 |
4925 |
I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment. **
4926 |
I do not have an emotional need to kill insects and if I did then I would have to rationalize my emotional needs. **
4927 |
I didn't say... I don't know what enlightenment means. **
4928 |
I did not post that in this thread. **
4929 |
Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful. **
4930 |
You don't have to delete it. **
4931 |
4932 |
You are making the statement that your health/life is more important than the health/life of an insect without any good reason. **
4933 |
4934 |
4935 |
Don't bother Arminius as nobody listens to reason anymore if it is not apart of the corporate controlled script. **
4936 |
In the Bush administration the unemployment ratio was a lot higher than the official government released number just as it is right now under Obama. The United States economy really is in a death spiral and nothing you quote from HuffingtonPost or Bloomberg is going to change that.
Failure to adapt? With technological automation replacing all segments of societies where there is no margin of biological adaptation that is just a bullshit cop out by technocrats.
The influx of global immigration is a mechanism of driving down wages of native or indigenous workers keeping them stagnant which is why corporations everywhere have adopted the neo-liberal and multicultural political script. It's good for their financial bottom line. Of course they won't admit that it's all about greed or profit where rather conveniently they hide behind social justice, multiculturalism, and historical revisionism in masquerade. **
There needs to be a serious public discussion or discourse on how global immigration is a financial tool or policy by corporations to depreciate domestic wages of nations. Americans are sick of it and Europeans don't want any of it.
In the future historians will note that the decline and death of union jobs or occupations with some level of security for its workers died with the advent of enacted global immigration policies. **
4937 |
In the world political deception is becoming the norm suffocating, silencing,and choking everybody. We're just supposed to get used to it, right? **
4938 |
4939 |
4940 |
4941 |
4942 |
4943 |
4944 |
I found myself asking the question, »can temperature exist in a singularity?«. **
4945 |
4946 |
|
4947 |
4948 |
The hypothesis of the »big bang« has much more to do with dogmatism than with science. ** **
The theory of the Big Bank is true, but the theory of the Big Bang is probably not true. ** **
4949
Psychology and sociology, as practiced today, are a monumental hoaxes. **
4950
4951 |
4952 |
4953 |
Arminius, I do much more mistakes. **
4954 |
Big bang is scientific fantasy . . . .
===
According to big bang the Universe exists 14 billion years. Woman gives birth to a reasonable child during 280 days. A body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells. A single human cell contains as much information as a librarywith a thousand volumes. Book: The unity of Nature - The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes. / page 40, by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (**).Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a thousand volumes in each) create a reasonable child ( by the chance ) during 9 months if according to the Probability theory it is impossible? By the chance woman must be pregnant more than 14 billion years before to give life to her reasonable child. So, before a big bang was an intelligent woman. She was pregnant and gave life to a child . . . and . . .. . . . . . . after 13.7 billion years and after many generations new children invented the big bang theory. **
4955 |
Yes, I will die despite all of my efforts to preserve my life and no amount of killing other people or other animals will preserve my life. **
4956 |
4957 |
Arminius wrote:
»Claiming to be the one who has reduced unemployment is almost always a lie.« ** **
It's true, but all presidential legacies are built on such lies. Honestly, Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery was not fucking it up. Fact is though, the economy is, for the moment, just about where it needs to be in a capitalist economy. Since the global recession hit its nadir around 08-09 the US has basically enjoyed the most robust economic recovery of any advanced nation in the world. **
Arminius wrote:
»There is an increasing number of lost jobs.« ** **
Well yeah, duh. The more jobs get added the more jobs will be lost. **
Arminius wrote:
»There is an increasing number of machines that replace the jobs of humans.« ** **
Yup, that's how technology works. **
Arminius wrote:
»There is an increasing number of immigrants that replace the jobs of natives.« ** **
Now this is bullshit. **
Back it up, i challenge you. **
Arminius wrote:
»There is an increasing number of women that replace the jobs of men.« ** **
That's so hilarious that you would say that. Seriously. Because women fill positions previously occupied by men just as well as men, and often better than men ... **
... that is framed as some kind of injustice .... **
The fact that women are just as, if not more, capable than men of fulfilling traditionally masculine roles .... **
... means men are fucking victims of ... idk, liberal worldviews? **
Fuckin ridiculous. **
Arminius wrote:
»According to this facts there can only be an increasing number of unemployed humans.« ** **
Which facts? **
I mean, yeah, as the overall population rises, so will the population of unemployed, but by no means the overall percentage. **
Arminius wrote:
»The said machines, immigrants and women have never been a part of the employment-market before entereing it. So, for the Western societies, it is not possible anymore to add so many jobs that are needed to - at least - hold the number of enemployment on the same level. The politicians of this societies have no other choice than letting the number of unemployment increase more and more. Or do you believe in wizards and wonders? It seems that only a catastrophe can stop this insane politics.« ** **
Uh, the unemployment rate has fallen. Steadily and continuously for the last 7 to 8 years.. **
And the headline May 2016 ShadowStats unemployment estimate holding at 23.0%, up from 22.9% in April. **
Arminius wrote:
»The unemployment rate in the United States is currently about 23% (tending upwards - of course), I guess. So about every fourth US citizen has currently no job.
Uh, i call bullshit. **
4958 |
Arminius wrote:
»The mainstream physicists (not physicians) and probably also the most mainstream biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.
I understand you.The »small information« of universe was pregnant. Because was chaos we dont know who was here lover. But somehow the small information gave birth to »a great amount of information« ... which were adopted
by living beings. **
This is the reason why living beings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time. **
Question. Why the »great amount of information« cannot explain the » small information«? **
4959 |
4960 |
4961 |
It's been 3 years or so, so I guess I'd better re-introduce myself.
English-born expat living abroad for the last 20 years, married, 2 children. English teacher for far too long.
Part-time post-philosophic empiricist/pragmatist if you want a classification, and full time asshat. **
Fuse wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»
![]()
A brainteaser: Who knows these nice guys?« ** **
Ben, Tab, SIATD, Only Humean, Smears, Durden.
Smears' I saw at the top of the page, but the others were easily recognizable. **
4962 |
4963 |
I will not survive. **
4964 |
Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called meaning of life (which is a rationilzation in itself). **
4965 |
Love is the means. **
4966 |
Do you know your own self-interest? **
|
4967 |
Arminius wrote:
»Because the great amount of information is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the small Information. The small Information is possibly too small (simple) for explaining it. The example homo sapiens makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?« ** **
So, we can have only »the medium or average issues« of information. **
4968
Arminius wrote:
»Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.« ** **
We are capable of explain anything we want to explain (it just may not be true). **
4969
Arminius wrote:
Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.« ** **
You certain of that?. **
4970
4971 |
4972 |
|
4973 |
Like a flashlight. **
4974 |
Arminius wrote:
»Will the we?« ** **
Yes, and so the »we« is far more important than the »I« and not equally important. **
4975 |
They are all just common opinions that form definitions just like some would argue that this life is just a means (ontology, ontology, ontology, etc). **
4976 |
Wasn't one of the reasons for the Brexit an anti-refugee sentiment (doesn't seem like an indeed to me). **
4977 |
One Liner wrote:
»Wasn't one of the reasons for the Brexit an anti-refugee sentiment (doesn't seem like an indeed to me).« **
If we took on any more refugees (as a small clay-based island) we would sink quicker than we already are. **
4978 |
Most of them are not refugees. **
4979 |
4980 |
4981 |
4982 |
4983 |
4984 |
4985 |
4986 |
4987 |
Is there such a thing as an authentic »I«? **
4988 |
I think our culture perceives »I« as more important than others but that perception isn't necessarily an accurate representation of how the »I« is actually positioned in our culture. **
4989 |
4990 |
4991 |
4992 |
4993 |
Divine Realm --> Principles.
Mortal Realm --> Physical Universe. **
4994 |
So you are telling me that self preservation is meaningful and evolution is meaningful and life is meaningful and you are also telling me that this is not rationalizing as it is a fact that this meaningfulness is impregnated in this meaningful universe. **
|
4995 |
So, self preservation preserves meaningless things and this action is meaningful. **
4996 |
It does not matter much in our current culture either but we just think it matters which then results in a mismatch between what we perceive and what is. **
4997 |
What was this authentic »I« we talked about as I forgot (been hectic at work in the last couple of weeks). **
4998 |
The Divine Realm is »physical« too .... **
4999 |
Flatness as a spatial limit is connected with geometrical forms: triangle, square, ... circle, ....
Flatness as an infinite continuum is connected with negative Pseudo-Euclidian space (Minkowski - SRT). **
5000 |
5001 |
5002 |
5003 |
5004 |
When the Big Bank goes Bust, does that create a new universe/economy? **
5005 |
5006 |
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Divine Realm --> Principles.
Mortal Realm --> Physical Universe. **Are those principles inmortal like god(s) ore even like god(s), thus: divine realm = principles?« ** **
The »gods« are the principles. The »God« is the one underlying (or over-arching) Principle from which all others are formed. As Moses put it [paraphrased], »The only true God: It is what it is. Worship nothing else«.
And only false principles »die«. **
5007 |
Arminius: only 0.0000000000000000000000000000-000000000001 percent of reality is logical. Therefore existence can never be thought of even conceptually.
Reality cannot be captured. **
5008 |
We think it matters but our thinking is wrong. **
5009 |
Arminius, to put it simply, self preservation preserves self just like self propulsion propels self (they don't by default have an attribute of »meaningful«). **
5010 |
5011 |
5012 |
5013 |
Weak and strong molecular bonds also occurs with the first living being (along with countless other phenomena that collectively sustain life). **
5014 |
For it to be a revolution of the »I« itself then there cannot be a biological basis for »I« or, if there is a biological basis of »I«, the Lutheran reformation changed human biology by power of collective thought. **
5015 |
5016 |
5017 |
5018 |
So you are inferring that the words used in this context (»emphasising« and »meaningful«) are not deceptive rationalizations. **
5019 |
Arminius, I stuck to the OP and didn't change the OP .... **
The OP continues to be the current topic of discusion. **
5020 |
5021 |
5022 |
5023 |
I think your reactions have provided at least some evidence that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive. **
5024 |
I have Arminius and I don't dispute that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive and, in this way, I don't feel or think that I am superior to you. **
|
5025 |
5026 |
5027 |
5028 |
Arminius (spell-check autocorrected) .... **
At the moment you have not providided me with anything inspirational to suggest that you are correct on this matter and the self preservation is »meaningful« discussion only frustrated you (which implies deceptive rationilzations to me). **
5029 |
5030 |
5031 |
5032 |
5033 |
5034 |
5035 |
5036 |
5037 |
5038 |
5039 |
5040 |
5041 |
Arminius wrote:
»Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description ....« ** **
True, thus would make a poor definition. Get an exacting unambiguous, informative, meaningful definition.
As you know, I define it as:
Consciousness == The property of remote recognition. **
5042 |
As I said, it very gradually changes. The outer regions orbit a little slower because it is traveling in a field of affectance that is swirling around and inward toward the black hole center (or possibly spiraling gradually outward from center). **
The »dark energy« is the affectance throughout, and no doubt, more dense toward the center of the galaxy.
The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide. **
|
5043 |
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide.« **
Because they are too dense?« ** **
Because they are moving together at roughly the same speed and direction. **
5044 |
5045 |
Does that not move the discussion to the definition of recognition? **
Is a television conscious? A radio-controlled car? A heat-seeking missile? **
5046 |
5047 |
5048 |
5049 |
5050 |
5051 |
5052 |
5053 |
The next ... person to speak to me will die.
I'm splitting with my wife.
We're selling our house.
She's taken all her stuff away and left me to dispose of nearly 40 years .... **
5054 |
5055 |
5056 |
5057 |
Kill me? **
I am already dead .... **
For that has happened to me as well. As a matter of fact, it has become a continuous situation, therefore, I have been living on painkillers ever since. And it started a long long time ago.
Sorry for Your present situation .... **
But it will either resolve, or You will get accustomed to it, and treat it as business as usual. **
5058 |
Arminius wrote:
»A situation that is based on decadence ....« ** **
I can assure you I'm not feeling decadent at the moment. **
Now you can kill me, gentleman. **
5059 |
Arminius wrote:
»Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.« ** **
Correct.
Arminius wrote:
»And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?« ** **
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but how a conscious being responds is a different issue than whether it is conscious of what to respond to. If the being responds in the exact same manner, one wouldn't be able to tell from the outside whether the being was conscious or not. It would not be displaying any consciousness that it might have. **
5060 |
I for one cannot wait for an inferior machine to replace me! **
==>
|