Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
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

<= [981][982][983][984][985][986][987][988][989][990] =>

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 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 981) Arminius, 01.01.2017, 00:28, 00:36, 00:39 (5830-5832)


Topic: Subjectivity versus Objectivity.

Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.


Happy new year!


Topic: Philosophy versus Science.

This thread should complete the thread „Subjectivity versus Objectivity“ (**|**). Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?


Happy new year!


I am posting my 5000th post, folks.

Happy new year!


NACH OBEN 982) Arminius, 09.01.2017, 00:53, 13:44, 14:31, 14:34, 22:37 (5833-5837)



Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.


Tortis wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»And they will never be so creatively clever as to beat humans at chess either.

James, if you are going to continue to engage with this discussion I do wish you would say something just a little bit interesting.“ **

James’ contributions to this thread are excellent. Read the thread and „judge“ afterwards.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote


Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.« ** **

A truth that could not have been better stated.“ **



James S. Saint wrote:

„David Hilbert had already published what you now know as »General Relativity Theory«. And although using Newtonian physics didn't work to accurately predict Mercury's path, Einstein's general relativity field equations didn't work either. By considering Mercury, Einstein corrected his own theory, having to add a metric tensor (a »fudge factor«) in order to get the right result. It became common practice in Science to merely add in an unexplained, phenomenal »universal constant« into a relation in order to rectify equations with observations. To this day, it takes a philosopher, not a scientist, to give any semblance of competent justification for why those constants exist.

Science finds formulas with which to predict (often using inexplicable constants to rectify simpler ideas) and almost always for military purposes. They do not seek comprehension and answer to the deeper question, »Why«. And it is from that lack of understanding that Relativity Theory has been erroneously taught as an ontology rather than merely a useful formulaic perspective.

As an ontology, Relativity is broken.“ **


Arminius wrote:

„Einstein had even two scientifical fathers who were also German: Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) as the precursor of Einstein's relativity theory and David Hilbert (1862-1943) who submitted the theory of the general realativiy five days before Einstein did it.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck and the mathematician Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity theorie [GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!] Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert).“ ** **


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Can anyone really be truly Subjectivist or Objectivist?
As is everyone not actually a combination of the two?“ **

That is trivial. It depends on the degree. A subjectivist is not the one who is not capable of being objective, and an objectivist is not the one who is not capable of being subjective.

Subjectivity is the epitome of what belongs to a subject. More extremely said: Subjectivity means that everything depends on the subject. Subjectivism teaches the universal subjectivity of the intellectual truth as well as the moral and aesthetic values and denies the absolute validity.

Objectivity is just the opposite of subjectivity. More extremely said: Objectivity means the lack of a subject. Objectivism teaches the universal objectivity as well as the neutrality, the practicality, also the capability of observing or/and representing objectively.

So, for example, if someone denies the absolute validity, then it does not mean that this one is not capable of observing or/and representing objectively. But it means that this one does not believe in an objective world in the sense that the objective world determines everything, even all subjects. A subjectivist believes in the theory that the subject determines the objects, even the whole world.

Subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical, spiritual, intellectual attitudes towards the determination of the world and the hotly favored answer to the question of the determination of the world.

The extreme form of subjectivism leads to solipsism in a logical sense, to egoism in an ethical sense.


NACH OBEN 983) Arminius, 20.01.2017, 14:53, 15:01, 16:29 (5838-5840)


Merlin wrote:

„What's this Jokerism you speak of (**)? To be fair my philosophy is merely an elaboration of civilization's unsustainability and absurdism guided by entropy with an understanding of social nihilism thrown into the mix. My philosophy is nothing new of course where I follow in the footsteps of trailblazers like Oswald Spangler (er meint: Spengler; HB) where the only difference is that I speak for the entire world. At any rate there will be no global salvation for technological industrial society without some sort of new radical energy infrastructure in place and so far all ideas for one are theoretical or outright untenable.

Collapse, chaos, and possibly total annihilation is the future.“ **

The fall - meant as the seasonal fall or as the setting of the sun (sundown, sunset). At least we as the westerners - but perhaps even all humans - are now at the beginning of the last phase of autumn (fall).





Is the aspect of agreement or disagreement the only aspect to you (**) when it comes to „excellence“?


By the way:

The realization of „the idea that the world will collapse from the inside out“ (**) is not only but also based on „the idea that the world will make faster and faster progress, and the progress will be good“ (**).

Dan wrote:

„I think both of these things will happen, but both not being absolute.
I'm guessing 40% of the human population will die out due to self caused problems.
Then the rest gets enough free energy going to fuel a revolution of technological solutions.“ **

What, if the percentage is at least 80%, probably 99% or even 100%?


NACH OBEN 984) Arminius, 30.01.2017, 17:53, 18:23, 18:53, 19:35, 19:59, 20:15, 21:00 (5841-5847)


A „religion of humanity“ (**), if it should be a „positivistic church“ (**) is absurd (typical French). It makes no sense, it is not logical, because humanity is not merely a „positivistic“ thing, and positivism is not merely a „humanitarian“ thing.

That definition (**) is false too. Securalism is not „the state of being seperate from religion“ (**). You can be secular and nonetheless be religious. No problem at all.


Mithus wrote:

„Tortis wrote:

»Phyllo wrote:

›James (James S. Saint ist gemeint; HB) makes up all sorts of weird etymologies.‹ **

Which is a waste of everybody's time and effort. That's what I'd like to see changed.« **

Right from the beginning of this thread, James posted a lot of interesting things concerning the abilities of machines. If you want evidence for the excellence of his posts, you just have to make an effort and read the thread.

You came in here recently, posted a few things about computer-»art« and since then, you do nothing else than ranting against James. The thread is not about him. It's about the question whether machines will replace all human beings. And it has been highly informative before you turned it into a personcentered battle.You are continuously derailing. That's what I would like to see changed.“ **


Only Humean wrote:

„Let's try and keep things related to the subject at hand, please.

On a related, lighthearted note:  ****


Do not miss the point, please.


Merlin wrote:

„Children living in poverty is mostly an economic issue and poverty is the very thing in which a variety of domestic issues stem from.“ **

Merlin wrote:

„Life begins in a uterus not in masturbatory ejaculation.“ **

Merlin wrote:

„Life only exists after the seed is planted not before hand. [It's called gestation]“ **

Yes. Of course. You are absolutely right.


I think we should consider the difference between subjectivism/objectivism on the one hand and subjectivity/objetivity on the other and relate more to cognition/knowledge than to sociologic/psychologic issues. My thread is meant as one of philosophical/scientifical issues. This is why I opened my thread in the philosophy subforum of a philosophy forum (if it is one). And I have chosen the title „Subjectivity versus Objectivity“ (**|**) also in order to avoid the isms.


What civility on ILP is? **
In the Occidental civilization as the nihilistic form of the Occidental culture?
Well (and unfortunately), to most ILP members, it is the invitation to dstroy ILP.


What is your (**) astrological sign and your ascendant and MC?



Celine Kayser wrote:



Yahoo Money’s »Daily Ticker“ is reporting that is has discovered a Reuters investigation that reveals $8.5 trillion – that’s trillion with a “T” – in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for. **

McCain's $5 Trillion Military Budget: Will It Make America Great Again?
Thursday January 19, 2017. **


That image (**) shows what debt really means, yes. It is the opposite of the intergenerational justice, thus the intergenerational injustice: the generations of the future pay for the generations of the present. And it is a process that proceeds exponentially.


NACH OBEN 985) Arminius, 27.02.2017, 00:04, 00:08, 01:03, 14:50, 15:14, 22:15, 22:33, 22:51, 22:55, 23:00 (5848-5857)


Mackerni wrote:

„I got those descriptions from Wikipedia. Take it up with them to modify it if it upsets you that much.


1) »Positivism« has nothing to do with being »positive« it has to do with being positive that only real things are real. Hence its humanistic qualities. You can think very negative (like cynicism) and still be a postivist.“ **

Your misunderstanding is just too obvious. You have put words in my mouth I never used. I did not say that „postivism“ had to with „x“ or „y“. I merely said that „positivism is not merely a »humanitarian« thing“ (see above [**|**]) - in other words: I merely said what you can read in my post (see above [**|**]). So, please, try to read my post.

Mackerni wrote:

„2) You are right, since there are secular religions, such as (ironically enough), the Religion of Humanity. However, in the case of my quiz's nature - this definition still holds true.

3) Why don't you take the quiz and give us your results instead of complaining about it?“ **

I am not „complaining about it“, but you are complaining about something that does not fit in your „quiz“.

In fact, I decided to not „take the quiz“, because there are too many mistakes between the questions and the offered answers in that „quiz“.

You are asking:
How many God(s) do you believe exist right now?“ **
To that question, you are offering e.g. the following nine answers:
- „My beliefs transcendent God.“ **
- „Everything is God.“ **
- „God exists outside the universe and is unconscious.“ **
- „Technology is God.“ **
- „Gods are not important.“ **
- „The belief that all Gods exist.“ **
- „An infinite amount of higher beings.“ **
- „Nobody can know whether God exists or not.“ **
- „None of these options.“ **

These answers have nothing to do with the „how many?“ question. In addition, some of them have nothing to do with God(s).

So two-thirds of your offered answers have nothing to do with your question.

And by the way: What do you mean with your other question: „which religion are you?“( **)? A human being „is“ not a religion. I „am“ not a religion. You „are“ not a religion.

Please do not react by using personal attacks. I am just asking you.

Note: You have asked me „why“ I „don't ... take“ your „quiz“, and I have honestly answered that question.


Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»Your ideal laws?

I’ll start…
1. Anyone who says ›it means so much‹, it doesn’t. Or ›going forwards …‹ you’re not progressives you’re conservatives going backwards, so stop stealing our shit. I propose long prisons sentences for all involved, ideally on mars or something.« **

But seriously folks, if you could add one single law what would it be?

Not an addition ... yet ... perhaps a necessary reminder ... the unwritten law that has survived the ages ... »The Golden Rule«“ **



„Was du nicht willst, das man dir tu, // das füg auch keinem andern zu.“
That means something like: „Do as you would be done by.“

„Handle so, daß du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person als in der Person eines jeden andern jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchst!“ - Immanuel Kant.
My translation: „Act so that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in everyone else’s person as an end, never as a mere means.“
„Handle stets so, als ob die Maxime deines Handelns durch deinen Willen jederzeit zur Grundlage einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung dienen könnte.“ - Immanuel Kant.
My translation: „Act always as if the maxims of your action could, through your will, serve at any time as the basis of a general law.“

James S. Saint wrote:

„»No relative degree of burden or blessing should be placed upon any individual that isn't also placed upon his government.«
»No reach of authority should ever exceed its reach of awareness.«

(Aka: »Do unto others ...«)“ **


Venture wrote:

„My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender.“ **

To 1.) The realization could be too difficult in the case of a huge number of certain people.
To 2.) How many and, if at least 3, which languages did you fluently speak before you were 21 years old?
To 3.) Only if it is in fact a fair deal.

Amorphos wrote:

„Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language.“ **

Agreed only in the case of an interlanguage („lingua franca“) - not in the case of a highly intellctual/spiritual language, a language of science and philosophy.

So Venture could be right, if there were no other problems in the case of „learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21“. What about 7 languages (and 3 of them must be „dead“ languages)?


Venture wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Venture wrote:

„My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender.« **

To 1.) The realization could be too difficult in the case of a huge number of certain people.
To 2.) How many and, if at least 3, which languages did you fluently speak before you were 21 years old?
To 3.) Only if it is in fact a fair deal.“ ** **

1 is the most difficult out of the 3 proposed, almost an impossible ideal. I am not yet 21 and I speak English and French (cannot read French easily, still a beginner). I am in the process of learning Latin, Greek, German, and Mandarin. I can make a change to law 2, being that 1 of the 3 should be a dead language

Amorphos wrote:

»Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language.« **

That assertion implies a minimum of 2 languages. Add Latin or Ancient Greek as a third and now Arminius and yourself can sleep at night knowing I compensated.“ **

Ah, thank you, but: compensated what exactly?

By the way: I fullfilled your second „ideal law“ („learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21“) even before I was 11 years old!

May I ask you how old you are exactly?

And one more question please: Would you please say more about you third „ideal law“?


Abortion is a criminal offence.


Venture wrote:

„I compensated by requiring one ancient language and one should be English, or whatever the normative international language is of the time. The third law requires the public distribution of COCP and condoms/contraceptive barrier devices for STI protection (the first promotes menstrual health, the latter prevents STIs and pregnancy). The first and third ideal law mainly concern the general health of the female population and the advancement of family life. Most countries in desperate situations are absent of these notions. I am 18.“ **

Thank you, Venture.


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„One does not have to believe any thing scientists say for two reasons. Firstly belief is an article of faith and has zero place in science.
Secondly all scientific experiments can be replicated or explained. So it is not necessary to have to just accept the word of scientists.

Regarding faster than light travel : objects of mass cannot travel faster than light because time would stop and start going backwards. Which would
violate the law of cause and effect so it is not physically possible. For even photons cannot travel faster than light and they do not experience time.“ **

But your text here just indicates that you seem to „believe any thing scientists say“. I mean: You are told by scientists (namely by the current mainstream physicists), and obviously believe in their saying, that „time would stop amd start backwards“, if „objects of mass“ travelled „faster than light“.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Using a new theory producing method, dubbed “RM”, and a new ontology, Affectance Ontology, I hypothesize that if the inner surface of the double-slit screen was altered to a specific surface shape, particles would no longer create a significant interference pattern, but waves still would. Since a photon seems as a particlized wave, I suspect that photons would show little difference from their typical interference pattern, as their inherent wave properties would still have predominate effect. But if they also stopped showing the interference pattern, it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles.“ **

If the photons are particles and nothing else (thus also no waves), what are those indicated waves then? Do you think that they are merely a scientific mistake or a mistake of the observer?


Albanian is an Indo-European language too.


Is it right that light photons are „virtual particles“, whereas photons are „particles“? I mean: Photons (thus: all photons) have always to do with light.


NACH OBEN 986) Arminius, 28.02.2017, 02:11, 19:06, 21:02, 21:08, 21:44, 21:57, 02:00 (5858-5863)


The current mainstream physicists say that the photon is an exchange particle too, namely an exchange particle of the electromagnetic „force“ (interaction).


Wendy Darling wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Abortion is a criminal offence.« ** **

Neglect and mental/physical abuse are criminal offences too which would place 1/3 of parents in jail/prison if the police did a child welfare sweep worldwide.“ **

That is derailing - like: „Theft is a criminal offence too“. Again: Abortion is a criminal offence, a criminal act, regardless whether there are orther criminal offences, criminal acts, too.

Leyla wrote:

„Reasons which were cited for an abortion:

»A baby would change my life« 76%
»I can't afford a baby right now« 68%
»I don't want to be a single mother« 51%
»I'm not ready for such a responsibility« 31%
»I don't want other people to know of my pregnancy« 31%
»I don't feel mature enough for a child« 30%
»The fetus has a health problem« 7%
»I was a rape-victim« 1%
(Source: Family Planning Perspectives, 1988)

Killing for reasons of convenience?
How about teaching responsibility instead of promoting abortion?
And note that the number of child abuses did not decrease since the legalization of abortion.

Since the Supreme Court of Judicature legalized abortion in the USA in 1973, each year around 1.5 Million babies were aborted, that makes until now 64,5 Million killed children.
Sounds like a modern Holocaust.“ **


Leyla wrote:

„Of course the whole subject is ambivalent. I'm not for »banning« abortion completely, but I'm against promoting it as the first and most reasonable option. Instead of teaching people how to solve problems and giving them psychological and/or financial support, they are told to »cut off« their problems, and it's sold to us as the »freedom of choice«. But it all fits into the same system, for a reason: When you are currently discontended with your husband, divorce him. When a baby doesn't fit into your current plans, abort it. When life doesn't turn out as you would currently like it, kill yourself. Don't change your life, just take a pill.
Destroy the family and annihilate yourself, so »we« don't have to do it. And there are enough stupid people in the world who believe it.“ **

Nobody of them really knows what „responsibility“ means and what „criminality“ means. No wonder, because they are like their rulers (want them to be: weak, helpless, depressed, suicidal, dead).

Where are the posts of other male ILP members here? Are they again too weak to post here? Or do they just not exist?


Kriswest wrote:

„I see that abuse and neglect are tied very closely to the abortion subject.“ **

I do not see that, at least not in the sense of justifying abortion. Nothing can justify abortion. There are enough forms of birth control (contraceptive, prophylactic means). Abortion is not necessary.

According to your argument, the most abused and neglected children must be found in Black Africa, because the Black Africans have - by far - the most children. There is almost no abortion in Black Africa. So, according to your argument, the Black Africans have - by far - the most abused and neglected children.

Kriswest wrote:

„What is worse a broken child that spends years in family hell or the quick death of a fetus that has no memories, no knowledge, nothing. Banning abortion will bring millions into a system not designed to cope.“ **

No, because this would mean that you or Mr. X and Mrs. Y already know who aborts and who does not abort, who abuses and neglects and who does not abuse and neglect.

What about birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender?


Wendy Darling wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That is derailing - like: „Theft is a criminal offence too“. Again: Abortion is a criminal offence, a criminal act, regardless whether there are orther criminal offences, criminal acts, too.« ** **

No, theft doesn't have to do with parenting practices.“ **

That is not true. Or: That is as much true as the statement that „abuse and neglect have to do with abortion“.


Wendy Darling wrote:

„Did you even read the OP?“ **

I think you did not.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Are you pro birth, pro life, or both Arminius?“ **

What do you think?

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Contraceptives have to be used and used properly without fail. Men do not like to wear condoms. Women do not take their pills as prescribed. If tubes are tied in both males and females at a young age, problem solved.“ **

But they all do like to abort, Darling, don’t they?


Wendy Darling wrote:

„Did you even read the OP?“ **

If you have no arguments, then you use personal attacks. That is typical for the most ILP members, and you are obviously one of those most ILP members.

Good bye.

NACH OBEN 987) Arminius, 08.03.2017, 00:56, 03:58, 04:05, 18:33, 19:29, 22:02, 22:51 (5864-5870)


James S. Saint wrote:

„Mithus wrote:

»Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might regard as »whorish«. If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a ›must‹ for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So my perception of something ›bad‹ changes to a perception of something ›good‹ (or from negative to positive). I've learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?« **

Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of which is the philosophical issue of Theseus’ Ship - at what point of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?

To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate it .. not currently possible. But even with that technology provided, an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more simply just moved into the former electron’s position. Then you could say that you "converted" the electron to a positron. But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is Theseus' Ship.

But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds of things we have been discussing.

When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a »subatomic particle«. The word »particle« merely refers to anything very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a »subatomic particle« is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly, the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.

The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4 meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about 10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn't end there. An electron is roughly 1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.

That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size. And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible, »particles« of PHT.

A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.

The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the »subconscious« and even »unconscious« mind and are usually referred to a »an intuitive sense«. So whether the »subatomic« form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things can become alluring attractive things ... or vsvrsa. It is all a matter of proper programming.

Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers are pumped away. Such is referred to as a »catharsis«, flooding the mind with a particular »charge«.“ **

Maybe Mithus wants to compare that „change of PHT-values“ with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron (neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge), an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).


Would you (**) agree, if someone obejectively said that you were a subjectivist?


And what do you mean by „accomodate people“ (**) ...?


James S. Saint wrote:

„The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge that, when very stable, can be thought of as a »particle that is charged«, like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles.“ **

I agree, because I also think that „perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particle“, that it is not possible or at least quite difficult and also quite useless to compare the „perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle“. But the point Mithus made could be the change from „positive“ to „negative“ and vice versa, from „neutral“ to „positive“ or „neagtive“ and vice versa, regardless whether subatomic particles behave in the same way or not, and if they do, then the comparison is useful, and if they do not do, then the comparison is useless.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology. The word »particle« in quantum physics is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number - purely imaginary.

A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void of charge. But an »anti-neutrino« is not an actual particle at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of »anti-neutrino« refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything except as a »particle«, a quanta (in their mathematics).

A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron »decays« into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated into the universe from the change, an »electron«. And to call out the amount of missing mass, a »negative-mass« particle, an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred to as »particles« so as to account for the amount of missing charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure that in all things, there is a zero-sum.

It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise), especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity.“ **

Quantum Physics and Relativity are not complete, yes.


Mithus wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true ›Unified Field Theory‹, UFT, and ›Grand Unified Theory‹, GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics ....« **

Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology. In your ontology you wrote that »there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - ›Inertia‹.«

I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, »the mass particle of the spirit«. What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all.“ **

What could or should the analogy of the sensory be?

S. S. ?

It is very plausible to have an hierarchical structure of several realms, so that it is not always possible to compare them with each other. An example is the brain: this biological (neurological) organ has no analogy in physics, because physics as such (as well as chemistry as such) does not belong to that organic realm. The level of the organic realm is higher than the inorganic realm, although the inorganic realm determines the organic realm. This means in the case of the brain example that the brain does not only exist of parts of the organic realm, cells for example, but also of parts of the inorganic realm, molecules and atoms for example.

So when it comes to the inorganic realm, it is difficult to find an analogy to the brain as a part of the organic realm. If you said that „the sun is the »brain« of the solar system (or the planetary system)“, then this would be „true“ only in a metaphorical sense. But if you said that „the brain (or the heart) is the »sun« of the organism“, then this would be „true“ not only in a metaphorical but also in a more ontological, a more real sense.

And if it is difficult to find an analogy to the organic realm in the inorganic realm, then it is even more difficult to find an analogy to the psycho-/sociological realm, not only because of the fact that you have to find an analogy to the psycho-/sociological realm in both the inorganic realm and the organic realm.


Back to the topic (**|**):

My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.


I am celebrating my third „ILP-birthday“.



NACH OBEN 988) Alf, 09.03.2017, 00:35, 00:36, 01:12, 02:18, 02:50, 03:09, 03:17, 03:38; Kathrina, 09.03.2017, 08:11 (5871-5879)


That’s no analogy!


Tattoos are ugly.


Hi. I hope that I will enjoy ILP.



Communism isn't dead.


Religion has to do with faith on the one hand and with control on the other. A new religion originates before you can take away the old one.


Man wants to become god.


Topic: What is your favorite religion?

„Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called »an order of existence«. Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the »divine«, »sacred things«, »faith«, a »supernatural being or supernatural beings« or »some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life«.“ **

So which one is it?


Topic: Where does art come from?

What do you think about the origin of art?


Are all these songs philosophical?


NACH OBEN 989) Alf, 10.03.2017, 16:06, 16:08 (5880-5881)


Where are my posts?


Ecmandu wrote:

„Suicide should be available to everyone.“ **

Suicide is murder!


NACH OBEN 990) Alf, 11.03.2017, 20:56 (5882)


Jerkey wrote:

„Alf wrote:


Communism isn't dead.« ** **

Hi, too! I would say it is, except maybe in the so called »Hermit Kingdom«, everywhelse where there still is an aftertaste for it, it presents a hybrid quality.“ **

What's „communism“ to you?