<= [961][962][963][964][965][966][967][968][969][970] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
961) Arminius, 21.11.2016, 06:00, 18:00, 18:19 (5770-5772)
Celyne Kayser wrote:
@ All.Is Jesus 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after
him in his name?
|
5771 |
What we must do ........
The word 'must' is a giveaway. It revives the Kantian controversy whereby hundreds of years of controversy should be revisited, so that history can teach us.
The hardware will overcome the software in any case, and if we do not learn from history, all the software will merely melt away. **
For instance, what is good in a run away post apolaptic world, where technology's remains will be either tun amok artificially implanted beings, replicating and adapting humanity, enslaving them in a post Bachause nightmare?
Science would not be thought anymore, because humanity may be crossbreed with animals , reminiscent of the film »Dr. Moreau«, minus the happy Hollywood ending.
Scientists would also be incorporated into a world of mechanical intelligence, where they are no longer needed.
So a return, an Eternal return of diminishing functions of harmonic elements, based on sound rather then sight be incorporated in a new mass re evaluation of an alternate universe from the earliest get go, with the wrongly abandoned premises.
If, the programmers do this now, and not wait until they are made dispensable, then there is a chance the sheeple will follow the new line.
Other than that option, the future is bleak, and the run away brace new world will turn chicken. **
5772 |
962) Arminius, 22.11.2016, 00:56, 10:20 (5773-5774)
Why are you (**) so fatalistic? Although, realistically said, it is not a good beginning if human beings are not needed anymore.
Through rain, yes (**), and a certain amount of air humidity. |
963) Arminius, 23.11.2016, 17:01, 17:11, 17:21 (5775-5777)
Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.
Do you mean that Trump will fulfill the deconstruction of the evils of capitalism (**) and the New World Order (**)?
And before I vote: What do you concretely mean by circus as catharsis (**)? |
964) Arminius, 24.11.2016, 11:47 (5778)
Socratus wrote:
Not to those many humans who believe in God and his laws (regardless whether some others do not), also not to those who do not accept all physical laws and methods.Note: We are talking about it in a philosophical (especially metaphysical) and a scientifical (especially physical) sense here.If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word physics shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word metaphysics shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are. |
965) Arminius, 25.11.2016, 12:50, 12:56 (5779-5780)
Jerkey wrote:
The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines (**|**) whether science will be continued or not.Maybe science will die in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethes tragedy Faust.
Copied post in another thread. |
966) Arminius, 26.11.2016, 02:08, 02:11 (5781-5782)
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread. |
967) Arminius, 27.11.2016, 15:07 (5783)
I am just offering some keyword arguments that could - but must not - speak for the meaning of life: 1) Offspring.
|
968) Arminius, 28.11.2016, 21:02 (5784)
Fent wrote:
Yes, that is a fact. As it is almost always the case: alleged oppositionists use other ists not because they like them but because they hate the same object. There is the same example with all alleged Greens who are political not because they like the green nature but because they hate people who drive cars or have factories ... and so on. .... The deepest reason for that is the fact that they hate themselves. |
969) Arminius, 29.11.2016, 14:31, 14:46, 15:04, 15:28, 16:36, 20:45 (5785-5790)
Well, it is also said that the ancient Egypt was the granary of the Mediterranean area and less dry than today.
Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.
You (**) are right. Unfortunately, intelligence has decreased and the whole education system with all its schools, high schools, colleges, universities has become a corruption system (like all other institutional systems).
The younger Marx was right, but the older Marx was not right because of his change from philosophy to political economy. Marx became wrong when he became more political / politico-economic than philosophical.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. As I said: It is a spiritual science, thus: a science. In German, there is the distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual science), and Sozialwissenschaft (social science) is something between them.Mathematics is the most exact science, and - interestingly - it is not a natural but a spiritual science.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes: .What they did is something like a declaration of bankruptcy. A science that has proven that logic does not work is no science. In other words: The current scientists are no scientists.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, and we both know why they did that.
Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science spiritual science (following the German Geisteswissenschaft - Geist means ghost, spirit -, although Geisteswissenschaft is often translated by humanities, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a subset of the set logic.Arminius wrote:
|
970) Arminius, 30.11.2016, 13:51, 14:34, 16:08, 23:25 (5791-5794)
Iambiguous wrote:
My thoughs are not English. So I have to translate each thinking element into the English language. In other words: I am aware of the fact that Geist and spirit are not the same. The words Geist and Ghost have the same root. They had the same meaning before this meaning split. So maybe it is not possible anymore to properly trannslate Geist into English, which means that it is also not possible to properly trannslate e.g. Geisteswissenschaft into English.Howsoever: The word incorporeal (cf. the definitions above) comes very close to the word I am talking about, because incorporeal means unphysical (non-physical), and that leads us to unnatural (non-natural).Iambiguous wrote:
We already observe that mathematics and the rest of all sciences, especially the social sciences, are in conflict with each other:James S. Saint wrote:
I think that this sociopolitical development is a very ugly one. At last there will be no practical science anymore (at least no one which is practiced by real humans), and "no practical science" means "no science in use, only false definitions of it".Mathematics should remain what it has always been: an unphysical (non-physical), thus an unnatural (non-natural) branch of science which is the most exact one, thus also the best one when it comes to help all other branches of science.If someone is badly talking about mathematics, then you can be sure that this someone is not a scientist.
Iambiguous wrote:
What is mathematics to you?
Kriswest wrote:
Is that addressed to me?I was talking about the decrease of intelligence in general:Arminius wrote:
Ad hominems do not help you. You can use as much ad hominems as you want to: it will never change anything. You have never given any argument. So stop trolling and stalking here. |
==>
|