[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marko

Well, I thought that we will understand other person almost completely, but never 100%. That is what I had in mind with deep empathy. That should come with the high levels of our "real existence", and the fact that we depend on our body, the physical, could be some kind of the restriction for the pure telepathy, or absolute empathy or 100% altruism. I think that best individuals can approach to 99%, but never 100%.

100% doesn't really exist. In anything. If I have 100% in an exam, it's actually wrong, I shoul have 99.xyz% because things are never perfect. That is the essence of my attack to god: everything is perfect because everything is imperfect, therefore god doesn't exist.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by <<>>

100% doesn't really exist. In anything. If I have 100% in an exam, it's actually wrong, I shoul have 99.xyz% because things are never perfect. That is the essence of my attack to god: everything is perfect because everything is imperfect, therefore god doesn't exist.

I agree that God doesnt exist.I also agree with this 100% thing. But I think that pure telepathy would be possible only in this 100% circumstances, and since it is always 99.99.% or lower, this makes pure telepathy impossible. What do you think?

What is your opinion about the 100% rule about the TOE?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marko

I agree that God doesnt exist.I also agree with this 100% thing. But I think that pure telepathy would be possible only in this 100% circumstances, and since it is always 99.99.% or lower, this makes pure telepathy impossible. What do you think?

What is your opinion about the 100% rule about the TOE?

Yes, but maybe you see it in the wrong way. For example, I can't post a completelly coherent reply because you wil lalways read it from your point o fview not from mine. But this doesnt' mean that there is no psot at all. Just thes ame, I will have telepathy with you and you will know how I feel etz, but alwuys from your point of view.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Yes, but maybe you see it in the wrong way. For example, I can't post a completelly coherent reply because you wil lalways read it from your point o fview not from mine. But this doesnt' mean that there is no psot at all. Just thes ame, I will have telepathy with you and you will know how I feel etz, but alwuys from your point of view.

I agree, it will always be from our point of view.
I had in mind this problem:
Imagine you and my are in the same room. I will imagine one number form 0 to 100000000000000000000. Any number. Lets imagine I have this particular number in my mind. By pure telepathy, you should be able to know this "my number". This kind of telepathy, "reading the mind" thing, is beyond our reach. At least with this particular example with the numbers. At least I think so.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marko

I agree, it will always be from our point of view.
I had in mind this problem:
Imagine you and my are in the same room. I will imagine one number form 0 to 100000000000000000000. Any number. Lets imagine I have this particular number in my mind. By pure telepathy, you should be able to know this "my number". This kind of telepathy, "reading the mind" thing, is beyond our reach. At least with this particular example with the numbers. At least I think so.

Why is it not achievable by us? I've never said that we will achieve telepathy at all. What I believe is that the ultimate scientific achievement would be telepathy, but not that we will achieve it. I doubt it a lot of time, specially because it's dificult to think of minds interacting... However, I think it like this: just like independent thoughts in 1 mind can interact, then independent minds can interact. But this is asuming there is a sort of vortex, a dimension for mind, independent of spacetime, a sort of supermind, where all rely. Some say this is god. I believe god doesn't exist so then there cannot be interaction between minds.

I like your example problem. The thing is that maybe telepathy comes out like a sort of msn network: I have to call your mind, a sort of note comes in to it that I want to communicate, and then you mentally open your mind. But this is all dificult to believe. Anyway I say telepathy woudl be the ultimate thing because it is what would make the most good things and the most bad things.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Why is it not achievable by us? I've never said that we will achieve telepathy at all. What I believe is that the ultimate scientific achievement would be telepathy, but not that we will achieve it. I doubt it a lot of time, specially because it's dificult to think of minds interacting... However, I think it like this: just like independent thoughts in 1 mind can interact, then independent minds can interact. But this is asuming there is a sort of vortex, a dimension for mind, independent of spacetime, a sort of supermind, where all rely. Some say this is god. I believe god doesn't exist so then there cannot be interaction between minds.

I like your example problem. The thing is that maybe telepathy comes out like a sort of msn network: I have to call your mind, a sort of note comes in to it that I want to communicate, and then you mentally open your mind. But this is all dificult to believe. Anyway I say telepathy woudl be the ultimate thing because it is what would make the most good things and the most bad things.

What is your vision about the scientific achievements?
For example, I think that within 20000 years, if humans dont destroy the Earth, some sort of the tarraforming on the Mars is achievable.Also I think that some sort of hibernation is possible,and a lot of things on the genetic field is also achievable.
However, I dont think that it will be possible to travel through black holes and escape into other universes (if there are some). I think that teleportation is also impossible,artificial self awareness...etc.
What do you think?
P.S. I also like Dostoyevski a lot, among the other great russians such as Lermontov, Turgenev,Gogol...

[harmonygirl]

I see we are all russian literature enthusiasts. Dostoyevsky was my favorite, followed by Gogol and then Tolstoy. Guille I understood nihilism to be belief in nothing (which would make sense, given its latin root "nihi"=nothing) What then is the difference between agnosticsm and your version of nihilism? I still don't understand why you think the Goddess doesn't depend on us (or why its not a possibility). Maybe we are here so that she can experience this reality directly? In any event, didn't we create her?

"Time stops and leaves us. We've lost it, and so we have decided to look back at the time we already have. It's like when one wants to have more money but can't, then you look at how much you have and start spending it. It's a law of nature. And this is all Baudrillard."

Time doesn't stop, we do. And we don't "want" anything.
Of course human rights are interepreted as species rights. That comes from the definition of "human". There is a great deal of work to be done in this area. That is not to say that the animals and the environment don't have rights. There are some societies which take this into consideration. Bioregionalism is growing here, which designates different people on the decision making body to represent for example, the ocean. Also societies like Greenpeace, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, different aboriginal societies ensure that some regard is given to non-human life forms.
I agree with you that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority (as Plato said "rule by the ignorant masses") but all the various alternatives which have been tried to date are infinitely worse. The solution, as I see it, is to make sure the masses aren't ignorant.
I really don't know what you mean by your next response to my post post-modern comment. I feel the earth move and the life that imbues everything. There is death, but it certainly is not universal or even profound. Maybe it's just a question of perspective.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I see we are all russian literature enthusiasts. Dostoyevsky was my favorite, followed by Gogol and then Tolstoy.

I've never read Gogol but will, Tolstoy I find him excelent. But the czech Kafka is at the top for me (of eastern european writters).

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Guille I understood nihilism to be belief in nothing (which would make sense, given its latin root "nihi"=nothing)

Nietzsche is the most self-contradictory philosopher of all. In fact, Tolstoy himself said "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." His philosophy meant both believing in nothing and believing in everything. It was about believing in no-thing as in no-thing which represents everything or a universal, such as god, human being, politics... But he did mean every-thing as in all things not-universal, to believe in everything but not as everythig. By the way, the meanings of words are not always it's root.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

What then is the difference between agnosticsm and your version of nihilism?

Agnosticism is believing that we can't tell if god exists or not. Nihilism--from Nietzsche's view, not the latin root--is believing that we should not believe in anything for there is no truth and so every-thing is truth. The only relationship is that agnositicism is uncertainty and so is nihilism, but they talk about different things completelly.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I still don't understand why you think the Goddess doesn't depend on us (or why its not a possibility). Maybe we are here so that she can experience this reality directly? In any event, didn't we create her?

Let's see if I can communicate intelligibly the message. Let's assume god exists. Let's assume, further, that the god that exists has the fundamentla properties of: absolute, infinite, eternal, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-of-nature, and other total-properties. By simpel analize, we can see that all the properties can be reduced to the property of Perfection. So if god is perfect, or perfection (in the case that you don't believe in god as an independent entity but as nature-as-whole), then it should not depend on anything, at least on anything imperfect. It doesn't matter how much you try you will always be a human and therefore imperfect. Therefore god's existence is independent of human beings, their beliefs, their language, their religion... And of this discussion we are having now. In fact, the god as such is described by christianism, judaism, islam, hinduism, budhism, couldn'y be less altered by us. It woudln't take us to heaven or hell, it would give us a choice to act well or wrong, it wouldn't help us in bad moments... For it would have nothing to do with us. And yet everything. Strange, god, in the wel-defined way, is very like nihilism, and just as wrong.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Time doesn't stop, we do.

Let's not get into terminology! I know that we are not mooving through time. Neither does time "go by". We do not travel through time; neither do events change through time. All these are just expressions used in language to refer to time. For god's sake it's obvious, we all know this, the thread "Time" has around 450 posts and we've concluded quite a lot of things, it mighte help reading some.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

And we don't "want" anything.

Your' speaking for yourself. I want. For example, I want to be a philosopher and/or physicist when I'm old. I want to learn, to discuss in the forums, I want to post. I want to eat, I'm hungry. I want, I want...

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Of course human rights are interepreted as species rights. That comes from the definition of "human". There is a great deal of work to be done in this area. That is not to say that the animals and the environment don't have rights. There are some societies which take this into consideration. Bioregionalism is growing here, which designates different people on the decision making body to represent for example, the ocean. Also societies like Greenpeace, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, different aboriginal societies ensure that some regard is given to non-human life forms.

Yes. But all I wanted to say is that it's wrong the foundation that human rights are base don us a species. They are absed on us as rational beings, as symbolic beings, I've said already, with a mind, a personality, an individual. This is what Roussau, Voltaire and all romanticism is about. But we must not forget that jsut as romanticism was based on individuation, it was also based on ideation. It had not real connection to reality, and many poets (like Lord Byron, Espronceda...) felt the confrontment of their ideals with reality. Here came Hegel. The state is everything, we can't be in charge of each individual, as the human rights want to make us believe. And if indeed we say that it's not about each individual but all individuals, then we're automatically leaving individuation and generalising.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I agree with you that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority (as Plato said "rule by the ignorant masses") but all the various alternatives which have been tried to date are infinitely worse. The solution, as I see it, is to make sure the masses aren't ignorant.

The ignorant doesn't want to be wisdom. The wisdom doesn't want to be ignorant. Here it's true what you said up there that we want nothing, in the sense that we want nothing else than what we are. You can't have intellectuals all around, I know it seems unfair but if we're all the same it's also unfair. There is such infairness for Capitalism just as well as in Communism. But I don't see these two as ways of living, but ways of dieing (maybe I got this by reading Hidegger's Sein Und Zeit): capitalism eliminates time by going so fast that each moment, each point in time is insignificant and stops existing, and on the other side communism elliminates time by going so slow that each moment is eternal, that there is no moment at all at the end. By the way, Spain's economy is not particularly the best, a few control a lot, too much, but it's the country in Europe with th ebiggest ration of total population under population in university. We will see in the future of this dis-ignorantation is as good as it's seen by most.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I really don't know what you mean by your next response to my post post-modern comment. I feel the earth move and the life that imbues everything. There is death, but it certainly is not universal or even profound. Maybe it's just a question of perspective.

What are you refering here to (by post postmodern comment)? I believe death to be very profound, in fact the most profound thing of all, it is the proof of the life, just as the number that comes oout of the dice is the proof of the throw, that is, the neccesity is the proof of the gamble. Everything is a question of perspective, but at the same time nothing is. I'm slowlly but strongly devleoping an attack to Hegel and Nietzsche which I will finally write and post as article. I hope to find a solution to this moment in time. Maybe time has gone and it's too late to do so, though.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

I venture to say that consciousness is emergent, dependant on the complexity of the organization. I see a presence in my dog. I see more awareness in apes and homo sapiens with society as his extension seems, at the present, to be the most ordered of all matter. I do not however discount the possibility of sentient machines, if and when quantum processors become a reality.

Hello Mr.Nobody!

I find the majority of your posts very interesting and profound.

I think that all this makes sense, but with the term intelligence instead of consciousness. Maybe because english is not my native language,because in Croatian we use term consciousness to describe something unique to humans.

So I think that intelligence, as an ability to organise is emergent, and we can see some level of intelligence in biological and non-biological structures.More in ape than in the flower,more in the flower than in the hydrogen atom.

But I dont think that there is any kind of self awareness, consciousness (or sentient consciousness,real existence..etc) apart from human self awareness or consciousness.

So, similar things I can apply on the "machines and computers". They can become more and more intelligent,more organized,better computers and machines, but never self aware.

Self awareness is unique for humans, reasons are the unique DNA structure, unique cerebral cortex....etc.Of course, all that by series of accidents.

So I think that we could make something more complex and intelligent than we are,some kind of hyper-super-computer- but I think it can never become self aware.High organization and high intelligence doesnt necessary mean self aware. It is like this in the humans example. Only in our example high intelligence and high organization resulted with self awareness. But apart from us...I dont see anything else.We are very lonely.



Regards!

Marko

[chazzysaw]

Originally Posted by Marko

I agree that God doesnt exist.

If you believe God does not exist then what is it you believe that make it possible for things to not only exist but to think. I just want to know what it is you don't believe?