WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [961][962][963][964][965][966][967][968][969][970] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 150
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
1140
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
15,15%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
0,1869
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
1101
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
6930
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
18,89%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
7,34
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
3,0164
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
6,079
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
1,1361
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 961) Arminius, 21.11.2016, 06:00, 18:00, 18:19 (5770-5772)

5770

Celyne Kayser wrote:

„What is the Hegelian dialectic again: problem, reaction, solution ..., create the problem, wait for the reaction, then present the solution already concocted? Yeah, Hegel was right. Another one that just helped the world go from bad to worse.“ **

@ All.

Is Jesus 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after him in his name?
Are Jesus’ apostles and evangelists 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after them in his name?

No.

Is Hegel 100% responsibe for everything certain people of politics, media, and economy have done after him in his name?
Are all Hegelians 100% responsible for everything certain people of politics, media, and economics have done after him in his name?

No.

5771

Jerkey wrote:

„What we must do ........
The word 'must' is a giveaway. It revives the Kantian controversy whereby hundreds of years of controversy should be revisited, so that history can teach us.
The hardware will overcome the software in any case, and if we do not learn from history, all the software will merely melt away.“ **

Are you sure? This would mean that human beings will have to culturally start again or to die out.

Jerkey wrote:

„For instance, what is good in a run away post apolaptic world, where technology's remains will be either tun amok artificially implanted beings, replicating and adapting humanity, enslaving them in a post Bachause nightmare?

Science would not be thought anymore, because humanity may be crossbreed with animals , reminiscent of the film »Dr. Moreau«, minus the happy Hollywood ending.

Scientists would also be incorporated into a world of mechanical intelligence, where they are no longer needed.

So a return, an Eternal return of diminishing functions of harmonic elements, based on sound rather then sight be incorporated in a new mass re evaluation of an alternate universe from the earliest get go, with the wrongly abandoned premises.

If, the programmers do this now, and not wait until they are made dispensable, then there is a chance the sheeple will follow the new line.

Other than that option, the future is bleak, and the run away brace new world will turn chicken.“ **

What do you recommend then?

5772

It is also possible that the Egyptians built the pyramids and tombs even without slaves. And the Nile was near. The Egyptian culture depended much on the Nile.

 

NACH OBEN 962) Arminius, 22.11.2016, 00:56, 10:20 (5773-5774)

5773

Why are you (**) so fatalistic? Although, realistically said, it is not a good beginning if human beings are not needed anymore.

5774

Through rain, yes (**), and a certain amount of air humidity.

 

NACH OBEN 963) Arminius, 23.11.2016, 17:01, 17:11, 17:21 (5775-5777)

5775

Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.

5776

Do you mean that Trump will fulfill the deconstruction of the „evils of capitalism“ (**) and the „New World Order“ (**)?

5777

And before I vote: What do you concretely mean by „circus as catharsis“ (**)?

 

NACH OBEN 964) Arminius, 24.11.2016, 11:47 (5778)

5778

Socratus wrote:

„Everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws.“ **

Not to those many humans who believe in God and his laws (regardless whether some others do not), also not to those who do not accept all physical laws and methods.

Note: We are talking about it in a philosophical (especially metaphysical) and a scientifical (especially physical) sense here.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word „physics“ shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word „metaphysics“ shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.

 

NACH OBEN 965) Arminius, 25.11.2016, 12:50, 12:56 (5779-5780)

5779

Jerkey wrote:

„Exactly, Arminius. The old Hermetic descriptions knew of no difference, they did not consider modern science. It is only modern science makes the break, as if that break had some function in the sense of differentiation. The a-priori integration of thousands of years, condensed to differential non functionally supposed conditionals, make no sense, oddly surprising to the Oxford group.

It really should have come as no surprise to them, that this break was the result of trying to find certainty, where only degrees sufficient to accommodate that end or function is required.

James (James S. Saint) has agreed with this in a previous forum, where critics objected, because of the perception that no accurately conceivable function could ever approach the absolute. But in future tech, it is only conjecture, but a credible one, where such ultra specification may become necessary.

If it could be allowed that such ends, may at one point define the earliest archaic means, then, and even then could an analogy be made between a Deity and a machine. However, even in the event that such a state is reached, it could be argued, that that as preempted by the argument for such a comparison between man and the machine.

That is no problem, for the anthropomorphic origin of God has been a source of discussion from the enlightenment on.“ **

The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines (**|**) whether science will be continued or not.

Maybe science will „die“ in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy „Faust“.

5780

Copied post in another thread.

 

NACH OBEN 966) Arminius, 26.11.2016, 02:08, 02:11 (5781-5782)

5781

Copied post in another thread.

5782

Copied post in another thread.

 

NACH OBEN 967) Arminius, 27.11.2016, 15:07 (5783)

5783

I am just offering some keyword arguments that could - but does not have to - speak for the meaning of life:

 1) Offspring.
 2) Harmony.
 3) God.
 4) Love.
 5) Soul.
 6) Spirit.
 7) Ego.
 8) Recognition / respect / acceptance/ appreciation (cf. Hegel).
 9) Will as the thing-in-itself (cf. Schopenhauer - referring to Kant’s „thing-in-itself“, „thing-as-such“).
10) Fitness (cf. Darwin).
11) Will to power (cf. Nietzsche).
12) Anentropy.
13) Fulfillment of what is set in the beginning of life (cf. Spengler).
14) Genetic program.
15) Being beautiful.
16) Being good (cf. Sloterdijk et al.).
17) Being intelligent.

If we argue aesthetically (see: 15) or ethically (see: 16) or logically (see: 17), then we ask whether is it because of the other arguments (see: 1-14) or the other way around.

 

NACH OBEN 968) Arminius, 28.11.2016, 21:02 (5784)

5784

Fent wrote:

„No, they aren't compatible, but they are useful to each other.
Feminists use Islam as an »object« or »tool« to criticize Western culture/history/civilization. In short, for the feminists, anything or anyone is better than the white, heterosexual male.“ **

Yes, that is a fact. As it is almost always the case: alleged „oppositionists“ use other „ists“ not because they like them but because they hate the same „object“. There is the same example with all alleged „Greens“ who are political not because they like the green nature but because they hate people who drive cars or have factories ... and so on. .... The deepest reason for that is the fact that they hate themselves.

 

NACH OBEN 969) Arminius, 29.11.2016, 14:31, 14:46, 15:04, 15:28, 16:36, 20:45 (5785-5790)

5785

Well, it is also said that the ancient Egypt was the granary of the Mediterranean area and less dry than today.

5786

Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

5787

You (**) are right. Unfortunately, intelligence has decreased and the whole education system with all its schools, high schools, colleges, universities has become a corruption system (like all other institutional systems).

5788

The younger Marx was right, but the older Marx was not right because of his change from philosophy to political economy. Marx became wrong when he became more political / politico-economic than philosophical.

5789

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.« ** **

Yes that is interesting. I had never thought of math as a »spiritual« thing, but technically it is.“ **

Yes. As I said: It is a spiritual science, thus: a science. In German, there is the distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual science), and Sozialwissenschaft (social science) is „something“ between them.

Mathematics is the most exact science, and - interestingly - it is not a natural but a spiritual science.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The word »spirit« has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a »science«. Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. **

Yes: .

What they did is something like a declaration of bankruptcy. A „science“ that has „proven that logic does not work“ is no science. In other words: The current „scientists“ are no scientists.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Of course if logic doesn't work, neither does math ... nor science. But they skipped over that issue.“ **

Yes, and we both know why they did that.

5790

Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science „spiritual science“ (following the German „Geisteswissenschaft“ - „Geist“ means „ghost“, „spirit“ -, although „Geisteswissenschaft“ is often translated by „humanities“, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a „subset“ of the „set“ logic.

Arminius wrote:

„All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

**

** **


 

NACH OBEN 970) Arminius, 30.11.2016, 13:51, 14:34, 16:08, 23:25 (5791-5794)

5791

Iambiguous wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.« ** **

Merriam-Webster, definition of spiritual:
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>.
2.a of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>.
3. concerned with religious values.
4. related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>.
5.a of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic.

So, how is your own understanding of mathematics as a »spiritual science« either relevant or not relevant to the definitions above.“ **

My thoughs are not English. So I have to translate each thinking element into the English language. In other words: I am aware of the fact that „Geist“ and „spirit“ are not the same. The words „Geist“ and „Ghost“ have the same root. They had the same meaning before this meaning split. So maybe it is not possible anymore to properly trannslate „Geist“ into English, which means that it is also not possible to properly trannslate e.g. „Geisteswissenschaft“ into English.

Howsoever: The word „incorporeal“ (cf. the definitions above) comes very close to the word I am talking about, because „incorporeal“ means „unphysical“ („non-physical“), and that leads us to „unnatural“ („non-natural“).

Iambiguous wrote:

„And, while I suspect this is futile, how would you relate this exact science to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. That which preoccupies me here.

Of what practical use can we make of this science?

Or is this just me hijacking another thread?“ **

We already observe that mathematics and the rest of all sciences, especially the social sciences, are in conflict with each other:

James S. Saint wrote:

„The word »spirit« has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a »science«. Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. **

I think that this sociopolitical development is a very ugly one. At last there will be no practical science anymore (at least no one which is practiced by real humans), and "no practical science" means "no science in use, only false definitions of it".

Mathematics should remain what it has always been: an „unphysical“ („non-physical“), thus an „unnatural“ („non-natural“) branch of science which is the most exact one, thus also the best one when it comes to help all other branches of science.

If someone is badly talking about mathematics, then you can be sure that this someone is not a scientist.

5792

Iambiguous wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science ›spiritual science‹ (following the German ›Geisteswissenschaft‹ - ›Geist‹ means ›ghost‹, ›spirit‹ -, although ›Geisteswissenschaft‹ is often translated by ›humanities‹, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a ›subset‹ of the ›set‹ logic.« ** **

I can only presume that this is not addressed to me.

As it in no way addresses the points that I raised with you.

Or so it seems to me.“ **

What is mathematics to you?

5793

Kriswest wrote:

„To answer Arm. (Arminius?), in a sexual encounter or potential sexual encounter young females will play dumb due to antiquated stereotypes. How many guys will be turned on by a chick that is more intelligent?? We all know this as older adults. The young do not see this.“ **

Is that addressed to me?

I was talking about the decrease of intelligence in general:

Arminius wrote:

„Unfortunately, intelligence has decreased and the whole education system with all its schools, high schools, colleges, universities has become a corruption system (like all other institutional systems). ** **

5794

Ad hominems do not help you. You can use as much ad hominems as you want to: it will never change anything. You have never given any argument. So stop trolling and stalking here.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN