<= [881][882][883][884][885][886][887][888][889][890] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
881) Arminius, 24.04.2016, 01:04, 01:42, 01:44, 01:47, 01:57, 02:03, 02:42, 02:43, 02:58, 02:59, 03:10, 03:10, 03:12, 03:18, 03:56, 04:51, 21:53, 21:59, 22:56. 23:18 (4515-4534)
Peitho wrote:
Dysgenics is negative eugenics, and eugenics is positive eugenics.Peitho wrote:
No poster of this thread said that man had stopped evolving. But I say that man can partly dissociate himself from evoluton and from environment - which means: man is capable of avoiding total adaptation.Just read the thread.Peitho wrote:
Have you ever herd of Dawkin's new after-shave lotion?Peitho wrote:
No.Peitho wrote:
There is that cost.Peitho wrote:
Partly yes.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, it is a circular definition.James S. Saint wrote:
Yup.James S. Saint wrote:
Exactly.In addition:Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well, because they died out.This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the terms fit and unfit and accept the right meaning of them.Here is another example:Phoneutria wrote:
That is a contradiction. An evolution theory that explains the present time is no evolution theory, because it has nothing to do with evolution.
According to you the Darwinism explains merely the present. But if it did, then it would be no evolution theory. So, yeah, then we would have to ask again: Is the Darwinism an evolution theory?Phoneutria wrote:
Sorry, but that is nonsense. It is like saying that there can be fat humans but never a fatter or even the fattest human before the fact, because the knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact (?). If there are fat humans, then there are a fatter and the fattest human too, regardless whether the knowledge of the fattest happens or not. Why should there not be a fatter and the fattest one? Because the knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact?Every living species on Earth can be fit ... right now, but the knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact (?). This statement can only be interpreted as nonsense, regardless whether it is also an attempt to recsue a dying modern (secular) religion or not. Darwinists, please, when are you going to finally leave the 19th century and arrive in the present century, the 21st century.Lets have a certain species as an evolutionary actor A, its environment E, and the Darwinist D as the modern religious interpreter. A is fit right now. Suddenly E changes, and A dies out. D says that A has not been fit. .... What? ... An undertaker would say now: D, you are fired! If it is possible to say that every actor of evolution is fit right now, then it is also possible to say that a certain actor of evolution is fitter (than ...) right now and that a certain actor of evolution is the fittest right now.Either one can say something about fit right now or not (tertium non datur => exclusi tertii principum); and if one can, then one can also use the comparative and say: fitter (than ...) right now, fittest right now.Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they destroy their environment, if they want to.If E (environment) of A (actor of evolution) changes, then it is possible but not necessary that A becomes extinct. If A has become extinct, then this fact does not change anything about As fitness or unfitness during As lifetime, because during As lifetime A has survived, because A has been alive, fit (perhaps fitter than many others or even the fittest), thus well adapted (perhaps better adapted than many others or even best adapted), thus successful, just fitted (perhaps more fitted than many others or even the most fitted). If we knew merely after the last fact, then we would be what we use to call Gods.If A is a human, then we have to judge a bit differently; because humans do not absolutely depend on their environment and can destroy it on purpose, thus willfully, consciously (other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way); so the humans environment has become a part of humans fitness or unfitness; and that means that the former A and E (see the example above) has become A (including E) and W (world) or H (homo sapiens as A + E) and W.Phoneutria wrote:
Thanks, my dear poisonous spider (**), but I hope you have nonetheless noticed that I am not always playing linguistic games.
Moreno wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately those deluded humans are not half humans.Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. The human ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted an fit living beings. Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).So we can rightly say that homo sapiens is a godwannabe. Human beings are naturally more like animals and culturally more like gods. But unfortunately they are not capable of being both or/and each of both in a complete way. Homo sapiens is naturally not capable of being a 100%-animal and is culturally not capable of being a 100%-god. That is the fateful dilemma of homo sapiens.
Feminism is the means that makes the control much easier.
Or do you (**) mean the human will. The human will is not free. It is merely relatively free.
Amorphos wrote:
I thought that you wanted to know more about the younger generation.Amorphos wrote:
Unfortunately, it is, yes.Amorphos wrote:
Whom are you referring to?
Hahaha wrote:
The root of the reproducers are both males and females. I guess you mean the current Occidental females (because most of the current Occidental males and females are told and thus falsely think that females are the only reproducers), not the others, especially not the black and islamic females, because black and islamic males and females reproduce themselves very much (because both still know that both are the reproducers) and are poorer than Occidental males and females.The black and islamic people can be found at the top on the left, whereas the occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right.
Profilers are as important as pimpels in the face of a pubertal girl.
How do you know that our consciousness is beyond lightspeed and that we exceed the c barrier, if we are in a coma
In order to really love philosophy?
Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an fit living beings.This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called (second) industrial revolution was a machine revolution and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?
Hahaha wrote:
The question here is what you exactly mean by oiriginal human. Do you mean the genus austalopithecus or the genus homo or a certain species of the genus homo, when you say original human? Probably you mean the species homo sapiens.However.The very first group of human beings had at least one moral law: being a member of the group. Leaving the group was only possible by becomig the foe / enemy of the group. This often meant the death of that foe / enemy. Each member of the group knew this moral law, its breach, the comsequences of this breach, thus the punishment. So the very first human group was already moral, although in a primitive sense.Moral has to do with knowlewdge of it or of something that is like moral or law and its consequences like punishment.The first moral is a means of surviving: ones surviving depends on the groups surviving. Leaving the group can lead to a new group and new morals, of course, but that does not change the meaning of the first moral law: means of surviving.By the way: The main problem that modern humans have with morality has not to do with this first moral law or other laws of the primitive morality. It has to do with the fact that modern humans are not capable of acting and reacting according to the consequences of the facts that humans created by inventing things, especially technological things. In other words: Humans have a problem with living on the same level that they have reached technologically - the human nature is always far behind the human spirit (including moral), because the human brain is made for surving, at least primarily. The first moral law has to do with surviving. But the modern humans have created moral systems that have not much or even nothing to with surving.Homo sapiens is a species that has reached a stage of development of a huge difference between nature and culture.
Such an explanation would be like answering the question whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. So objectively the terms relatively free and relatively unfree mean the same. But subjectively they may be different, because from a relatively free point of view the human will is relatively free, from a relatively unfree point of view the human will is relatively unfree.If the will of the humans were free, then humans could and would for example live however they want to, as long as they want to, decide whatever they want to ... and so on and so forth. In reality humans sooner or later realize that they have to accept facts like illness and death or consequences like punishment (jail or other isolations), if they did not behave according to their environment, to the law, the moral system of their group.
No problem.
The question whether something has happened with or without a human's own free will is redundant, because the human's will is not free but relatively free. All rights that are based on a the false free will, especially the so-called human rights, have to be rewritten, because they are not right but nonetheless rights, because they are very profitable, very efficient, very repressive, very destructive (which means that they are even more profitable, even more efficient ... and so on and so forth).
Feminism is just one (but a very efficient one!) of the isms, and isms are ideologies. .... One should know the purpose(s) or goal(s) of ideologies.Feminism, sexism, genderism function like all other isms: a very few people ascend from the upper to the middle class, if there is one, but most people descend either from the middle class to the lower class or within the poorer becoming lower class to those who have nothing to eat, whereas the very few of the upper class become richer and richer, thus more powerful and more powerful. So feminism, sexism, genderism - like all other isms - serve the rulers and obey the orders of the rulers who want to become richer, thus more powerful than they already are.Maybe the following chart can illustrate the prospective ratio of the TFR and the GDP per capita:For comparison: ** **
Artimas wrote:
Yes.Artimas wrote:
Darwinists would answer: Knowledge is only a facet of fitness.
The poor people in Occidental countries and almost all people in Non-Occidental countries are obviously not much or even not at all influenced by feminism. So poorness and feminism seem to be mutually exclusive, whwereas relative richness (richness of the middle class) and feminism seem to not be mutually exclusive.
Did you mean that half of all animals are humans?Could you rephrase your post, please?
|
Country | Birthrates | Fertility rates | Year |
Bosnia | 9 | 1.2 | 2010 |
Burkina Faso | 44 | 6.0 | 2010 |
Burundi | 47 | 6.8 | 2010 |
China | 12 | 1.7 | 2010 |
Germany | 9 | 1.4 | 2010 |
Guinea-Bissau | 50 | 7.1 | 2010 |
Italy | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Japan | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Kenia | 39 | 5.0 | 2010 |
Mali | 48 | 6.5 | 2010 |
Mexico | 19 | 2.1 | 2010 |
Tsc´had | 45 | 6.2 | 2010 |
Uganda | 47 | 6.7 | 2010 |
World | 20 | 2,5 | 2010 |
.... ** ** ** ** ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an fit living beings.
This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called (second) industrial revolution was a machine revolution and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?« ** **
Yes, elaborate more on this political selection. That sounds very interesting.
How does political selection differ from natural selection? **
Arminius wrote:
»Feminism is just one (but a very efficient one!) of the isms, and isms are ideologies. .... One should know the purpose(s) or goal(s) of ideologies.
Feminism, sexism, genderism function like all other isms: a very few people ascend from the upper to the middle class, if there is one, but most people descend either from the middle class to the lower class or within the poorer becoming lower class to those who have nothing to eat, whereas the very few of the upper class become richer and richer, thus more powerful and more powerful. So feminism, sexism, genderism - like all other isms - serve the rulers and obey the orders of the rulers who want to become richer, thus more powerful than they already are.
Maybe the following chart can illustrate the prospective ratio of the TFR and the GDP per capita:
For comparison (**|**).« ** **
I find most of the isms of socialism exists to serve the interests of the top ratio of society even contrary to when supposedly it suggests to serve the interests of the lower classes. **
882) Arminius, 29.04.2016, 01:15, 01:17, 01:19, 01:20, 01:21, 01:23, 01:24, 01:27, 01:28, 01:30, 01:32, 01:34, 01:36, 01:37, 01:38, 02:16, 03:50, 04:58, 17:26, 18:20, 19:44, 20:45, 21:59, 23:00, 23:18 (4535-4559)
Who will win the battle according to your (**) opinion: AI or humans?
It is almost impossible to embrace your inner savage. If you want to embrace your inner savage, then your arms have to come into your body.So you rather embrace your outer savage. But be careful, because you are probably not the only one who embraces the own outer savage.
I think the perceptions and understandings of liberalism and socialism in the USA are different from them in Europe.
That is exactly what I have been saying about civilization for so very long.
Hey, artistically, this could also be an idylle, couldn't it?
Zoot Allures is Brian Lewis. Is that true? The more relevant question: Who is Hash Hagen?
Artimas wrote:
Yes. And that is almost exactly what I have been saying for so long.
Artimas wrote:
Yup,
James S. Saint wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, of course.
Artimas wrote:
Exactly. I call this safe zone isolation or island, an island in an ocean named »nature«. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).
The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.
Copied post in another thread.
Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.
Is it possible to use the internet in prison?
Unbelievable !No one of them (**) is a real woman, and no one of them is a real man.And it is also because of them that something like the following is possible. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Artimas wrote:
No. It is the most normal wanting when it comes to surviving of any group living being.Copied post in another thread.Artimas wrote:
Yes, of course, because our lives depend on them. Humans are a kind of group living beings - like wolves or lions.
Peitho wrote:
Is Helmuth Nyborg's new book already available?
James S. Saint wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, of course. In addition, the number of jobs does not increase (workers are replaced by workers and by machines, so the number of jobs decreases) but decreases very quickly, so that the number of the workless persons and welfare recipients (social benefit claimants) increases very quickly - let alone the higher cost of the repair of destroyment, vandalism, of more prisons, more police actions, more policemen, more social workers, more courts, more officers, more judges, more prosecutors, more lawyers (did Carleas mean this jobs? ) ... and so on.
Random Factor wrote:
Odd coreference! You would travel if I could, if life allows or enables me to do so?Are you sure that you have meant it the way you have written it?
Gib wrote:
Are you a feminist, Gib?
Gib wrote:
The one who supports recpect and dignity for woman is not necessarily a feminist yet. Every normal human would answer to that questioin with yes. So that question is a rhetorical question, if asked by a feminist. In other words: Answers to that question, if asked by a feminist, are not valid.Gib wrote:
And then? Do you respond then?
Gib wrote:
I believe you that you like to see the human being underneath the ist, but in a modern age a huge majority is influenced by "isms", so many modern people are ists.
For someone who knows the Mendels laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So mor lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.
Copied post in another thread.Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.
|
883) Arminius, 04.05.2016, 03:00, 03:09, 03:29, 03:31, 03:34, 03:46, 03:56, 03:59, 04:01, 18:44, 19:46, 21:16, 21:58, 23:49, 23:58 (4560-4574)
Gib wrote:
I mean that they are so much surrounded by isms that most of them become influenced by isms, so that they - more or less - identify themselves with isms, often without knowing it and sometimes with knowing it, and in the latter case relatively many call themselves ...ists (for example: feminists). How much they are ists depends on their personality, their character, and the intensity of the influence.
Autsider wrote:
I am thinking long-term. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:
As long as all these islands (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their ocean (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun goes down and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding position -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.Autsider wrote:
That is what I have been saying for many years.Autsider wrote:
My philosophy is mainly based on a cyclicality. So we are in agreement here again. According to my philosophy there are cycles from very short-dated to very long-dated. Precisely said this cycles are spiral cycles because of the physical time.To go into detail would derail this thread.Autsider wrote:
Yes, it may be possible, especially by catastrophes. Otherwise, if cycles become very old (and many of them do), they flatten, thus their amplitude becomes shorter and shorter.Autsider wrote:
Okay. But I think our short detour is not off-topic in this thread, because the tiger/pussycat-example shows not only that there are strength and weakness, people of strength and weakness, rhetorical misuse of the words strength and weakness, ... and so on and so forth, it also can show the fact that the higher (thus: more decadent, more nihilistic, closer to anarchy/chaos) so-called civilizations are the more their people have to be weak, have to be cynical, have to lie, and consequently have to invert values. So suddenly - for example - strength seems to be weakness, weakness seems to be strength, war seems to be peace, peace seems to be war, a tiger seems to be a pussycat, a pussycat seems to be a tiger, ... and so on and so forth. This is an answer to the question why the person B confuses the tiger with a pussycat: B is high civilized.
According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment, more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences. One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.Now, if a northern human correctly says I am more intelligent than the southern humans, then this northern human will immediately be called a racist or an IQ racist. But if a southern human correctly says I am more athletic and have a larger penis than the northern humans, then that southern human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody will call that southern human a racist or/and a sexist.One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate, thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence itself.Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect or even racists?If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others.Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically: Why is it forbidden to say this?There is a huge interest in forbidding all this.When liberalism and egalitarianism come together fraternally (), they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for example: racism, sexism versus politically correctness) in order to hide the real differences (such as intelligence differences or the difference betwenn eugenics and dygenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order to control all humans on this planet - according to the established method and ruling principle: divide et impera.
That's the question, yes (**). No one of the real powerful ones is capable of teaching in that way, and no one of those who are capable of teaching in that way is allowed to teach the real powerful ones. It seems to be a dilemma.
If there will be no battle, then there will be something like a perpetual peace, but that will merely be possible with enslaved humans (probably comparable with the Eloi in the science fiction novel Time Machine).
Hahaha wrote:
Yes.The slogan Gib AIDS keine Chance (give AIDS no chance) has been changed into Gib TTIP keine Chance (give TTIP no chance). But politically a condom does not help much.During the Victorian era (in the 19th century) in the UK it was forbidden to talk about sex. In the current UK (and in the whole Western world, by the way) it is a must to talk about sex, but it is forbidden to talk about politics.Two eagles (national symbols) are in love because of the stars (of US and EU), and the TTIP as a the ambivalent heartbreaker:TTIP as a Trojan Horse:
Dan wrote:
In socialism almost everyone is a mercenary.
|
4567 |
The age of Pericles, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The Romantic Rebellion all flourish with new ideas and new art. They are paradigm shifts what we see with new light. I agree. I actually did a large work that puts together the idea of the time with the art of the time and how they communicate together. **
It's rather beautiful if you think about it. **
Still, the ancient Greeks are unsurpassed I believe. There ability to strive toward universal, relational qualities about mankind are beautiful. In tragedy, in philosophy, in poetry, and in architecture. It's the utter integration of the thought, the known, the felt, and the seen. The balance of the affective, the cognitive, and the moral. **
4568 |
Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher. Did he say this because he had a big head? No, he had a romantic attachment to it. He couldn't live without it. I am the same way. No matter how tough it is, no matter how many hard heads I come across, or how many people don't believe in the enterprise, I too can't live without it. It's something that I engage with on a daily basis. It brings meaning to my life. I don't do it for consolation, all due respect to Boethius, but I do it for the free play of ideas, and as a way of life. Doubt plagues my most cherished beliefs, and no matter how centered my ideas are I still must follow the golden cord of reason wherever it may take me. I am a philosopher, not because I stand among the greatest, but because I'm genuinely in love with it. **
4569 |
4570 |
4571 |
4572 |
Arminius wrote:
»A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).
You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should be very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science.« ** **
The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival's sake. This is why Kant's failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability should be ascribed to the new differential logic which You ascribed to previously. **
4573 |
Philosophy is one of my greatest passions in life and it has been of great benefit for me in my personal life keeping myself mentally sharp during some of the most difficult portions of it. **
4574 |
884) Arminius, 09.05.2016, 01:12, 01:15, 01:17, 01:19, 01:20, 12:35, 14:59, 15:20, 22:12, 22:25, 22:36, 22:54, 23:38, 23:40, 23:54 (4575-4589)
Artimas wrote:
And why?
Artimas wrote:
Wild tribes have indeed less but very much stronger social constructs than city tribes.Artimas wrote:
Intelligence is mostly determined by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate (colder regions demand more intelligence than warmer refions), thus only little by sociology, but this little can sometimes have fulminant effects.
Jerkey wrote:
If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of mans body, then mans body has almost everything you can imagine.Jerkey wrote:
The missing link is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.
Amorphos wrote:
We will not get rid of the ghosts which we have called for. (Loosely based on Goethe.)
Copied post in another thread.
Topic: The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?The Meaning of Life.Does life make sense? If so: What sense does it make?Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it?Is there any goal of life? If so: What goal is it?Please explain how you interpret the meaning of life.
Only Humean wrote:
As you will. I mean whether life makes sense or not. You can and should interpret it as you like, but you should explain it.
Some notes from Hahahas thread Donald Trump's Wall:Artimas wrote:
Zinnat wrote:
Nothing is going to change much if he becomes the president. Though, neither he and his supporters admit this, nor his opponents are willing to admit this. All are busy in their armchair wars.But, that was precisely the purpose of putting Trump forth: to get people involved in such escalated hopes and fears which are not actally there. And, unfortunately, many US voters from the both sides are ready to fall in that trap too.With love,
|
4583 |
Arminius wrote:
»The Meaning of Life.
Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it?« ** **
Making it stable. Learning how to solve problems/conflicts of any kind, and how to avoid them.
I.e. finding the balance. **
4584 |
Intelligence is the basis of everything. **
4585 |
Arminius wrote:
»Does life make sense? If so: What sense does it make?
Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it?
Is there any goal of life? If so: What goal is it?
Please explain how you interpret the meaning of life.« ** **
Perfect sense.
To live.
To live.
If your purpose and meaning is to live, then to live you must experience; to experience is to live; death is a part of life, so live until you die. You can not live until after you die, that's impossible, unless you come back to life, in which case you live more and experience more. Everything else is everything else, but most of life comes down to living and experiencing. **
4586 |
»Arminius wrote:
»Along The Way wrote:
Intelligence is the basis of everything. **
Do you go so far and say that intelligence is the meaning of life?« ** **
What about when you become so intelligent that you can't enjoy life anymore? How do you dumb yourself up to enjoy it again? **
4587 |
Arminius.
I agree with the above, and the crux of the matter lies in the fundamental nature of intelligence it's self. Machines , if they are to approach a 'conscious' level of understanding, will need to re-connect with the 'sense' of that artificiality in order to gain understanding. They can push this approaching sense of artificiality into their sense of 'sub-conscious mind, and deny the genesis of how their consciousness came to be, or deny that, and pretend that their own understanding of the genesis of their understanding was never 'artificial' and Created in that sense.
But at that point, both denial of the cognitive construct and the sense within it was staged would become untestable, since both: sense and sensibility would become indistinguishable to the super intelligent artificial intelligent machine. **
4588 |
I'd say that it would be hard to determine the ultimate winner of such a conflict as it would inevitably boil down to equality of thought processes, of strategies and tactics, philosophies, reasoning, brutality, etc. At the very least, if machines were to 'win' they would lose and such loss would only be able to be felt over a long-term period of time as they came to understand what could have been if they had only been able to act differently, know more than they did at their start. **
4589 |
885) Arminius, 14.05.2016, 01:01, 01:02, 01:04, 01:07, 01:10, 01:13, 01:14, 01:19, 01:20, 01:22, 01:27, 01:28, 01:35, 02:20, 03:43, 03:57, 04:27, 19:59, 21:17, 21:23, 22:53 (4590-4610)
Do not derail this thread.
Arminius wrote:
What about POWER or the WILL TO POWER?
Only Humean wrote:
I agree.For me philosophy of life is the most important type of philosophy.
So it was posted here, on ILP?
It is not possible to stop at the exact point of evil. If you think you have found one, you will soon find another one. It is no accident that the word evil can be found in the word devil.
James S. Saint wrote
Yea.
James S. Saint wrote:
These they are only a few, and they are men. A few men have won that game.The winner have always been a few - a few men.Have the citizens won? No.
|
4597 |
I think you have this backwards. A female with a dick is still a female (regardless of social hodgepodge of gender designations), and a male who has no penis (yet?!) is one very sad instance of a male. Transplanting sex organs does not change one's sex - one is born with it. Once you start transplanting sex genes in early embryo stage (through procedures like germline engineering), then we'll have something substantial worth talking about. Otherwise, it's all just liberated idiocy. **
Who is supposed to adopt to what? Who is supposed to accommodate whom? In a society where everything is equal, it doesn't matter. All you need is a big enough lobby group, and a cause. Because we are all the same (which is the basis of the argument), we have an obligation to respect those minority groups that fell behind, even if it was due to their own stupidity, inadequacy, mental illness, or whatever. Places like Singapore are prospering and they owe it in large to enforcing a meritocracy system (**).
We should be ashamed of this, not proud. **
Apparently sex is the new »gender designation« because now you'll be able to legally change your sex - even without undergoing surgery. **
4598 |
4599 |
4600 |
4601 |
Nowadays, I am rather skeptical of a lot of things in Jung's ideas but he did point out the damaging effect that femininity can have on a man. I have witnessed it again and again in life, and I contribute a lot of it to the contaminating and overtaking effect of feminine on a man's psychology. This is why I am considering that some type of segregation of sexes would be beneficial to both.
From Jung's negative aspect of the anima on male psyche: **. **
Most women that I know would only be happy to »get rid« of the men for a while and have some girl time. **
4602 |
4603 |
Arminius wrote:
»Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so to say.« ** **
That doesn't answer any of the points made, specifically. Said nature has been replaced with something superior, more adaptive. Its kinda still there though, don't you think? **
Back to the premise that we are maladapted .... **
I maintain that rather we are more adapted. We can still make bows and hunt, as well as a ton of other stuff. **
Oh and btw our ancestors were also shit at looking after their environment, that's why most small islands have no trees. **
4604 |
Evolution from inter species bonds . Good or bad? Real or false? **
We have changed whole diets and behaviors of species. We have caused the unadaptable to become extinct while others seem to thrive or do thrive. **
Can we take our closest cousins and bring them to sentient status? Should we? This includes the ocean mammals. Could it be a duty or just ego?
Can or should we continue mixing and matching? **
We have even done this with plant life. Some will bring up God , others will say it can be a natural progression of intelligent life, still others will have other thoughts.
When we change animal's nature we learn more about ourselves and life. **
4605 |
4606 |
So what was it when we were Neanderthals? **
And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?
I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops? **
4607 |
4608 |
4609 |
4610 |
Man adapted to new tools in increasing numbers, and along with farming you get trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation. **
All of which are adaptation to our environment. **
By »kinda still there« I simply meant that the animal is still there ~ the same essential being as we were only a few thousand years ago. After all, it takes thousands of years for genes to change in all but the more superficial features, and that's all civilisation has been around for. **
I would not be so sure, if I were you. If a sudden catastrophe happened, not all but many humans would not be able to do that well enough.
That's a »what-if« scenario and pertains only to failure. I think we will have robotic exoskeletal armour long before that, and then it wont be about strength of the arm ~ of how natural we are. I take your point however, that many humans aren't adapted to a dog eat dog scenarios, but that's because they are like postmen or what have you.
I expect 90% of people would soon switch into survival mode if required. **
Surely with any negative scenario, we will in time either survive or not. If we survive how long would we be using bows and arrows for? **
Someone would find a lathe or whatever to bore out some guns and ammo. Really to get a catastrophic scenario et al, 'the event' would have to kill everyone who can read and all books on chemistry etc. again we would soon end up back where we were before but with fewer numbers [possibly not a bad thing]. **
Arminius wrote:
»Have you heard about the Olduvai Theory (**|**|**)?
You will be transfered back into the Stone Age within a very short time! Then you will probably not ask, whether such a theory is false or not, is a lie or not, is a cheating or not, is a artificially produced crisis or not, is only a profit for the winner of this artificially produced crisis or not, is the hell on earth or not? But already yesterday was the time, and especially now is the time for asking this.« ** **
If all books on biochemistry etc were destroyed, and everyone who knew stuff were killed yes. **
I don't think we are fighting nature so much as learning it, and mastering it. **
We will be onto a permanent society [beyond the limitedness of earth's resources] within a few decades imho. **
Why would anyone want such an end to occur? **
886) Arminius, 19.05.2016, 01:01, 01:08, 01:11, 01:14, 01:15, 01:16, 01:18, 01:26, 01:34, 01:37, 01:38, 01:40, 01:42, 01:48, 01:54, 01:59, 02:32, 08:56, 09:52, 15:13, 15:57, 16:16, 16:39, 17:20, 17:59, 23:43 (4611-4636)
Pandora wrote:
Yes, of course. I did not say that sex segregation was only a non-western value. I was referring to the present resp. to the last phase of the western modernity we are living in. The modernity of the western culture stands for the sex non-segregation.Pandora wrote:
The non-segregation began in education, first of all in schools, during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th century (depending on the regions) and became more and more normal in many other public institutions too - until it was seen everywhere in western societies. So what we currently experience are merely the consequences of this civilized modernity (although rests of the former segregation could also be seen, yes). But the egalitarian(istic) goal has not been reached yet, and it is difficult to foresee whether it will be reached in the future: 100% equality for 99% of all humans. What does 100% equality mean? I would say: Death!Pandora wrote:
That is an important question. When I analyze and interpret some certain current behaviors, I tend to answer: segregate them immediately!; but when I analyze and interpret some other current behaviors, I tend to answer: go on with the non-segregation. I think that we can't stop or change this development by keeping forms like liberalism, egalitarianism, fraternalism (or its female equivalent), or a form of governing like democracy, because, as far as they are all typical forms of western modernity, they are also reasons for this non-segregation. So if I value it as a historical fact resp. as a truth, then I deductively conclude that we shouldn't change it, because this process will change by itself, thus will end sometime anyway. Having said that, there are also arguments that cause me to think it would be better to stop this process or to go forewards by also going backwards (like a crab).I honestly think that most human's lives are better when men and women are more segregated than not segregated. My main argument for this thesis is a natural/evolutionary resp. cultural/historical one. Humans try to overcome nature/evolution by their culture/history, but at last they always fail, because they have to - due to their incapability of being gods. So this trial will end up just like an error - and probably cause a huge disaster. I do not see how this can be avoided or prevented - to delay it is at least no real solution (our offspring will have to pay the prize - namely the more the more we delay and will delay it). Our current rulers do not and will not change their behavior. They want and will want this huge disaster. 99% of all humans will not be needed anymore but considered as the global problem. Machines can and will replace them (and later possibly take over [**|**]).And be honest: Would you like to give up machines, for example: an automobile or a washing machine? We do not really need computers, cellphones and other high tech machines. So we could give them up. But we do not want to give up many other machines, namely those that are invented in the late 18th, the 19th, and the early 20th century. In other words: We will not get rid of the ghosts we have asked for (freely based on J. W. von Goethe).Pandora wrote:
This question should be connected with a second question: For whom?Considering the 99% of all humans, there are more minuses than pluses for both men and women. Considering the 1% of all humans, there are more pluses than minuses for both men and women, but more for men than for women.
Pandora wrote:
Unbelievable but typical.It reminds me of this:Arminius wrote
You know to which group the taxpayers belong.Pandora wrote:
Exactly. Again: Unbelievable!Pandora wrote:
But - unfortunately - all those who are really efficient for the society are really exploited by those who are really inefficient for the societies but really unexploited just because of the simple fact that they are the rulers.
If gravity force and spacetime warping are unproven and even unprovable, then they are arguments for unproven premises, thus examples of the petitio principii, possibly also of a proton pseudos or even of a proton kinun (lat.: primum movens), and this means that they are proof errors, thus: they are logically false.
Uccisore wrote:
They invent nonsensical reforms, and if it comes to the consequences of those nonsensical reforms they just say I don't care and hide themselves behind egalitarianism. Doom. In the long run, carelessness means death. Carelessness is just another word for equality resp. egalitarianism. Death is the deeper, the actual meaning of egalitarianism.
Kriswest wrote:
What if it is not recordable?
Hahaha wrote:
Its known. Take this: In order to take from someone this someone must be someone who has already taken.
Sex non-segregation is also a pure and typical occidental pheomenon.
Anomaleigh wrote:
Oh, your first post! So welcome!US Americans are overweight/obese. I know.Anomaleigh wrote:
Nutritionists are part of the problem!Anomaleigh wrote:
Psychologists are also part of the problem!And by the way: Food energy, nutrition, and instincts are primarily a subject of biologists. So we should refer to biology. Others are too much part of the problem.Anomaleigh wrote:
People are influenced. This influence is part of a program, so the problem you are talking about is largely a purpose, a part of a plan, of a program.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------By the way: Where is your thread with your first post, Anomaleigh?
Kriswest wrote:
The main aspect is whether a population is growing or not.
Kriswest wrote:
Is it not the real Trump anymore?Kriswest wrote:
Spending billions to fulfill a dream before dying is politically possible only for those who are powerful enough to do that. Otherwise they would be stopped somehow.
Zinnat wrote:
The flying humans idea is very old in the west too, older than in the middle east, and probably also older than in the east. And the first thought about flying humans is probably as old as the human species.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. Thats right. It is a typical and meanwhile old occidental wisdom.
Amorphos wrote:
Do you mean the consciousness in blue?So you are aying that the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception and therefore claiming that the consciousness grows and develops?
Copied post in another thread.
Hahaha wrote:
See also: ** **------------------------------By the way: Where is Anomaleigh's thread?
This thread (**|**) is not only about human life but life in general.One can say that the meaning of life is to fulfill what has been set since the beginning of each life (genetic program). If a life comes closer to human life, then more and more luxury and boredom appears. So this kind of life is not only determined by nature but also by culture, and the more human life is concerned the more life is also determined by culture.
I know that all energy can be recorded, but energy does not necessarily show us the way of consciousness or the death. That was what I meant by not recordable (**|**). There is no knowledge but only speculation about what consciousness and death physically are - not to mention what they non-physically are.
Random Factor wrote:
No. The meaning of not wanting to do anything is sloth, idleness, laziness.Again: Boredom, related to the meaning of life, is meant here (a) in a general sense (experiencing of boredom in general, regardless how often you are bored or whether you are a more boring human or not) and (b) in a relative sense (for example by comparison). Boredom is just one of many other examples that can show how different the meaning of life can be interpreted. If you can experience or/and have experienced boredom, so that you know what it means, then it is enough in order to be one of those living beings that are not always chained to natural behavior, forced to do what nature demands. In other words: Humans are living beings that know what, for example, boredom means, because they can experience or/and have experienced it.
Hahaha wrote:
They and their corrupted politicians would counter now: "Don't worry, economically, the globe is just the extension of the nation"; but that is not true. A nation has the same or roughly the same economical conditions, rules, structures, but the globe has the most different economical conditions, rules, structures we know so far.
Only Humean wrote:
Yes.Only Humean wrote:
No reasons, unless there would be a purely spiritual consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain.
Kriswest wrote:
But there is an issue that has nothing to do with science and any kind of technology or engineering. This issue is that a word like death and other words (for example also consciousnes) are still concepts and not things. So we have to define and possibly redefine these words in order to understand them better and better. And "death" is no word for a thing but a description for no thing (no-thing, nothing), and this makes it so difficult to be an object for science and technology or engineering. Imagine the said machine records that there is no thing (no-thing, nothing), which means that death is just what it the word death already means. This machine would approve our linguistic and philosophic definitions. And that would be good (too), wouldn't it?
Only Humean wrote:
Do you mean the belief in experiences of a completely inactive brain or the belief in a consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain?However. There are some spiritual reasons. Knowing and believing are supplementary, and that can be an epistemological advantage.
Hahaha wrote:
That's right. Having said that I would not call it pathological but erroneous or just old. Maybe the human culture in general is just too much erroneous and their cultures in particular are just too old, as Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) already pointed out. According to Spengler every culture becomes senile - and then it is called civilization (). Civilizations are the icy forms of cultures. When a culture is old it just wants peace - world peace - and does anything for it. It wants to die (note: not each person but the whole culture), and it wants it by enjoying peace. Also isms are invented by civilizations (old cultures) in order to live and rest in peace (R.I.P.).
Copied post in another thread.
Hahaha wrote:
Hey! Very good. Congratulations. I can say the same, because Oswald Spengler is one of my favorite writers.What and when did you read which and how many of his books?
Would you agree, if one said: »Death« is the word as a means to metaphysically answer a difficult question that can't be scientifically or technologically answered (yet)? |
887) Arminius, 24.05.2016, 01:01, 01:03, 01:17, 01:24, 01:27, 01:28, 01:31, 01:36, 01:38, 01:40, 01:42, 03:19, 07:56, 08:07, 08:34, 08:57, 11:27, 12:16, 21:52, 21:53, 22:24, 22:42, 22:41, 23:57 (4637-4660)
Artimas wrote:
To die later on refers to the future - so it can't be an experience for someone now (thus: in the present) who will die later on (thus: in the future).
Hahaha wrote:
Because psychiatry is also a system of religion and belief in god(s). The psychiatric god(s), the psychiatric religion, and the psychiatric belief in the psychiatric god(s) are like other god(s), religions and beliefs in god(s).The fact that the psychiatric system is a system of religion and belief in god(s) too would become too obvious, if it tried to obviously consider belief in god(s) mental illness. The following question would immediately come in almost everyones mind: What and who can be god(s)? And the answer would also come into almost everyones mind: Everything andghf everyone. Freud, Adler, Jung - as merely three but most famous of many other possible examples - would soon be debunked as psychiatric gods too.And what about deists and pantheists? What about believing in nature? If you believe in nature, then you believe in god (namely: as nature). And what about psychiatry? If you believe in psychiatry, then you believe in god (namely: as psychiatry).It is an strategic advantage for the psychiatric system too to just want humans to believe that belief in god does only mean belief in a man with a long white beard.These days, many western humans still believe in the following gods, although they are also merely humans, thus no gods:Also many ILP members believe in this four humans of the past as gods, although one of them is currently not as much in fashion as the other three are still.They should finally leave them alone and, because they are strong believers, look for new gods.So the short answer to your question is: Both systems are too similar - both are based on the belief in god(s).
Copied part of a post in another thread.Copied part of a post in another thread.Copied post in another thread.
Only Humean wrote:
Oh. I'm sorry.Only Humean wrote:
The word belief is not theologically meant here. Originally belief is not a religious or theologicalThe trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an epistemological crutch. If there will be more certainty, then you will not use it anymore and put it in your cellar.It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must always say I know nothing or I know that I know nothing. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers. So it is better to live with an epistemological crutch than with stupidity or/and lies.The epistemological crutch helps you to find a solution or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have been successful without help like what we call empirism (observation, experiment, extrapolation, and so on and so forth), deduction, induction, and other crutches.If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the crutch that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.Science and philosophy have always used such crutches. Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).How I use the word and concept belief:
Belief is needed.
Hahaha wrote:
Yes, of course.Hahaha wrote:
I also recommend: Preußentum und Sozialismus (translation: Prussiandom and Socialism), 1919. This book can be read as a the direct continuation of his most popular book.
Thinkdr wrote:
There is a correlation between them, yes, but I think that greed is more fundamental than corruption, which means: it oftener happens that greed leads to corruption than that corruption leads to greed. If a person or a society is corrupt then it is always greedy too, but if a person or a society is greedy then it is not always corrupt too.
The globalists (glozis) have been murdering millions of unborn and born children, of youngsters, of adults, and billions of other living beings; they have been destroying the whole planet by poisoning it, by exploiting it, by inflicting it with war, by putting species, races, and people in environments where they not belong to with the consequence of dying out; and this all will lead to a huge chaos.So, please, answer the following question:Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to rescue the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too?Now, this is an important question, and it is a philosophical question, because it is an ethical question.
You probably know that the EU has almost nothing to do with democracy. Someone who says that the EU uses a kind of parliamentary system just shows again nothing else than a huge ignorance, cluelessness. The president and the council of the EU are the only decision makers in the EU, and nobody has elected them. I hope that at least youzh know this ....- Nigel
Farage: The Eu is the enemy of Democracy.
|
4645 |
4646 |
4647 |
4648 |
4648 |
Perhaps a man needs to re-learn what it means to be a man again...and the rest will follow. **
4650 |
My mother died today which is why I am not very active on the internet.
She died at the age of sixty four. She was born in 1952. **
4651 |
4652 |
The purpose of feminism is merely global domination by a select small group of males. **
4653 |
Sure, I agree that both religion and psychiatry are extensions of authoritarian power.
Is that what you're saying? **
4654 |
4655 |
4656 |
Arminius wrote:
»More perhaps a woman needs to re-learn what it means to be a woman again ..., and the rest will follow.« ** **
And what exactly will follow from this? **
If a woman becomes nurturing/feminine before an immature/feminine man (boy) she will end up playing a guide/protector role in the relationship and essentially assume the caretaker/mother role. Which will bring us to next question, can a 'mother' make a man? **
4657 |
4658 |
4659 |
4660 |
888) Arminius, 29.05.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:09, 01:21, 01:23, 01:28, 01:31, 01:33, 01:36, 01:40, 01:44, 01:48, 01:49, 15:17, 15:25, 17:39, 18:15, 18:33, 18:45, 21:58, 22:32, 23:14, 23:23, 23:46, 23:53, 23:57 (4661-4680)
Amorphos wrote:
Yes. But it is not only an issue of choices - humans have always had more choices than other living beings - and the increasingly intrusive ads are also and especially, as I interpret it, an issue of total control.
Amorphos wrote
No. It has merely been replaced by the relativity theory.
Okay. That (**) possibly works too, although the smallest carrier of meaning is a morpheme and the largest a text.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yea.
The ISS is such an absolute island. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.There are more than this human-made islands, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric islands:
All of these islands are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.As long as all these islands will exist and will contradict their ocean nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.
Kriswest wrote:
Kriswest wrote:
Yea, but also upon thoughts. What was first?Artimas wrote:
Oh, yes, of course.
What is your exact statement of your last post (**) ?
Amorphos wrote:
Yes, the EU club is purposefully not democratic.
Hahaha wrote:
The book can be interpreted as a continuation of his most popular book, as I already said before, and about the comparision resp. the juxtaposition of Prussiandom and socialism. According to Spengler Prussiandom is just the opposite of socialism in a Marxistic sense. Spengler debunks Marx and says for example, that the Marxism betrays itself by any sentence that it stems from a theological and not political mindset, and that Marxism has internalized the Manchestertum (Manchesterdom) in spite of denying it. In another chapter of the book Spengler compares Prussians and Englishmen as well as Prussians and Spaniards by interpreting their history, comnig to the conclusion that they are the most socialistic (not meant in a Marxistic but in a Spenglerian or Goethean sense, namely in a morphological sense, as a way of life) peoples of the Occident, whereas Frenchmen and Italians are their antipodes. In order to understand Spengler rightly, one has to know that his method is a Goethean one, mostly based on contrastive pairs.The chapters:1) Einleitung (Introduction).
|
4671 |
If greed isn't a mental disorder, is it what makes squirrels bury their nuts? Is it largely hormonal - as Ultimate Philosophy has claimed?
What say you? **
Some further reflections....
George Gilder, in his role as an Economist, offered this analysis:
Wealth = Knowledge
Growth = Learning
Money = Time.
[Time is the one commodity that will always be scarce, when all else is abundant. Money buys you time, he claims. Perhaps he means the more money you have the earlier you can go into retirement, and thus have plenty of leisure time. Actually, it turns out that when responsible people, those of good character, go into retirement, they have less time than ever, because they are so busy helping people, or doing something to make the world a better place.]
.... Something to think about. **
4672 |
4673 |
4674 |
4675 |
Arminius wrote:
»Dont forget to mention the money. When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.
Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: I (Information) and E (Energy), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.
In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.« ** **
Interesting.
I had envisioned a system using 3 "colors" of money:
A - Blue - Awareness ("situational information") - What is happening (media).
U - Red - Understanding ("causal information") - Why/How things happen (science).
I - Green - Influence ("causal/military inspiration") - Doing something about it (business).Those are the 3 necessary constructs for life (not counting the bonding of them together - the person). Machines, money, and anything else should be used ONLY to enhance those abilities for individuals and in proper proportion. **
4676 |
I sometimes think »Why do women intend to their own beauty? Doesn't she know there is nothing she can do to intend to her own beauty? Does she not understand that I, as a man, taking objectification to its end, do not require her to do anything? Would she rather be recognized for her accomplishments (when it comes to beauty), rather than my judgements of something beyond her control?« **
4677 |
4678 |
4679 |
4680 |
4681 |
Arminius wrote:
»So, please, answer the following question:
Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to save the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too?« ** **
Depends on why you do it. If you do it regretfully, certain that there is no other way to save the human race but wishing it wasn't necessary, then it may be ethical. If on the other hand you do it primarily because you despise that 1% for your own reasons and let yourself be convinced that it was necessary, then no, of course it isn't ethical. **
Uccisore wrote:
Arminius wrote:
So, please, answer the following question:
Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to save the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too? ** **
Depends on why you do it. If you do it regretfully, certain that there is no other way to save the human race but wishing it wasn't necessary, then it may be ethical. If on the other hand you do it primarily because you despise that 1% for your own reasons and let yourself be convinced that it was necessary, then no, of course it isn't ethical.« **
It is necessary to get rid of them to save the human species. Rich always ruled and it's time to do something about it. **
4682 |
4683 |
4684 |
4685 |
4686 |
4687 |
4688 |
889) Arminius, 03.06.2016, 01:04, 01:09, 01:11, 01:18, 01:20, 01:21, 01:23, 01:25, 01:27, 01:29, 01:41, 01:44, 02:21, 02:44, 14:55, 15:02, 15:32, 17:59, 19:22, 20:35, 21:42 (4689-4709)
Excuse me, but freedom (in an absolute sense) can never equaly mean anything at all but merely freedom.
Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.Note: Competences means more thanfitness, it is more like capital, power, acceptance, appreceation.
Copied post in another thread.
The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, .... (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.
Copied post in another thread.
There are three possibilities why you (**) are reacting that way: (1) you are a leftists too, (2) you have misunderstood my statement, (3) you are a leftists and have misunderstood my statement (=> 1 and 2).Leftists have occupied the center and the right wing, but they would never admit this, they would never say that they are rightists, but they are. The new rightist will never say I am the rightist but will always say I am the anti-rightist. Leftists live on the hardship of the poor people, and the poor people are becoming more and more, which is what the leftists want, must want, because they live on them. Just because others do not want to bite the dust (to lose their competences), they become leftists too. If there were no poor people, the leftists would immediately invent them. Leftist need the poor people because they live on their hardship.This, what I just described, is the situation in Europe, at least in Old Europe, and I am pretty sure that it is not much different in the USA.
That (**) is right.
I believe you (**). But there is another interesting feedback: Many ILP members like trolls, and one of the feedbacks is that some of the moderators tend to like trolls too. So in the final analysis many ILP members and some moderators do sometimes not know who is a troll and who is not a troll.
You hopefully know that your so-called Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank, althought it is also called the national central bank, which is normally not private but statist, thus public. So your Federal Reserve Bank does not represent the interests of your nation.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
No. Not mommy but either daddy (if before 1970) or the taxpayers (if since 1970).Note: Since about 1970 there have been existing almost no children of the middle-class anymore but almost exclusively children of the under-class which are financially supported by the taxpyers, thus the middle-class.
Yes, the will is not free but relatively free.
Topic:
Is the law of energy of conservation right?
|
4701 |
4702 |
4703 |
.... He is referring to your »abilities« (»competencies«, »skills«, »talents«, »social prospects«). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. **
4704 |
4705 |
Lev Muishkin wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
He is referring to your 'abilities' ('competencies', 'skills', 'talents', 'social prospects'). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. Any can be taken away. **
Skills are not carried in the DNA nor are abilities or competencies.
Propensities are passed on. That is why a child born to a stockbroker can be raised and succeed in a hunter/gatherer society, and vice versa.
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities, the brain being almost completely empty at birth, and able to absorb culture and learning.It's for this reason that racism is complete bullshit.
And this is also why a person with the propensity to psychopathy can, in a poor family become a serial killer, whilst those born into a rich family become captains of industry and stockbrokers.« **
You would have to adopt a special definition for "skills" to try to make that true. **
Try swinging from one branch of a tree to another by using only one hand and your tail.
Perhaps try to catch a rattle snake using only your teeth.
Catch a mouse with one fingernail?
Get a job as a stripper?
How about the Iranian Prime Minister? President?
Chinese People's Party Leader?
How about ask someone with angelman disorder to work out the first few digits of the square root of Pi?
Ask a colorblind man to accurately describe the difference in your lawn and your neighbor's?
How about play basketball with a dwarf or midget? .. with Oscar Robertson?
President of the NAACP? ..Women's League of America?
Weight lifting or Karate competition with your girlfriend (dubiously assuming that she is a »she« in your case)?Your new-age mentality of "all people are equal until those white men program us to be different" is bullshit. **
But as you say:
»Lev Muishkin wrote:
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities. **
... Or at least new-age liberal globalists seem to be. But science disagrees with you. **
4706 |
I'm confused. **
Do you mean that we (some of us) like trolls in general, or specific trolls, or that we don't know who's trolling and like posters without realising them to be trolls? **
4707 |
Man you've got it backward. **
In the US, the right wing wants to let wall street do what they want and they want to cut any program that helps anyone.
The left want people to be able to go to the hospital and want wall street to have to chip in some tax money to make that happen. **
4708 |
Arminius wrote:
»Is the law of conservation of energy right?
----------------------------------------------------------
Is the universe an isolated system, thus something like a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass?« ** **
Those are two different questions. **
The first, »is energy conserved« is most certainly absolutely true. But the second, »is the universe enclosed«, is certainly absolutely false.
So which did you really want as the poll question? **
4709 |
890) Arminius, 09.06.2016, 01:02, 01:02, 01:14, 01:25, 01:35, 02:25, 13:41, 16:30, 16:58, 17:47, 18:26, 19:44, 19:56, 20:23, 21:04, 21:31, 21:32, 21:47, 23:20, 23:22, 23:41, 23:43 (4710-4731)
The second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, should also be considered.So do you think that the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is true or false?
If you consider this, especially the tendency of each organism (living being) and each super-organism to avoid the loss of competences, then many current problems, also and especially the feminism or the plunder and destruction of our planet, can be understood and explained in an easier way.It is a systemic evolution theory or philosophy.
The society as I understand it is not dead. Maybe it is dying but not already dead. If it was dead, then there would be no Tragedy of the Commons anymore. But there is a Tragedy of the Commons - the biggest ever.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, or a monopoly, namely the monopoly of one of the super-organisms (super-organisations / super-corporations).
Maybe.
The statement all people are equal is a juridical statement and means all people are or should be equal before the law, people have or should have the same rights. People are not really equal.
We alraedy had this subject in my Universe and Time thread:Arminius wrote:
More: ** ** ** ** ** **
Let's take this statement:
And maybe we can take this (**) in order to answer the question what entropy is.
Here is the exact example:Turd Ferguson is the exact troll example I mentioned. He has not a tiny clue of history, of philosophy, of science, and he does not know much about his first language - but he is the first one when it comes to use lies, fakes, and ad hominems. Every now and then he uses lying headlines (as if he were the popular press) in order to hide his stupidity and his trolling and pubescent behavior. Most of the time he is trolling, lying, and faking like a pubescent child. So why is he not banned? Obviously he has been trolling since 2011 when he joined ILP. Why is he implicitly protected by the moderation or, especially, the administration? Is he Carleas' little brother?
Did you notice that my quote was a Wiki quote?Thus Wiki wrote:
in German it is not called Gesetz (law) but merely Hauptsatz (main clause => main theorem).
Philosophy is dead?No. Philosophy is possibly dying but not dead. And the next one is science. Science has been becoming more and more religious. Maybe both will be dead in the near future. But is that what you would like to appreciate?
Copied post in another thread.Copied post in another thread.
- Markets are never really free.
|
4725 |
4726 |
4727 |
4728 |
4729 |
4730 |
4731 |
==>
|