Goldenages

Hi Dad, I guess you are right with your points. Lets break it down to small scale to see the problem: Lets assume you work and deliver me goods such as food, electricity etc. I give you papers with numbers written on them, I can make an infinite quantity, and assure you that, at some point in the future, you can buy goods from me whenever you need some. So you hoard those papers for the time when you retire. Now you knock on my door and want to exchange some of those papers into food. Unfortunately, all I can give you is paper with numbers written on them. regards Andi

Yes, thats exactly what we would expect according to the evolutionary principle. A randomly acquired property, due to some variations in genes, offers advantages to animals without this property. And there is reason to assume that are certain levels of awareness among different species. Obviously I am not smart enough to see the problem here: What is the base to say that our awareness can not be reduced to a common source/explanation? Especially if there is no theory of cognition? Shure. As irrelevant as the method of storing or depict data, be it on paper or hard discs, be it drawings or numbers. Yes. But where is the problem? To expresse "green" I can write the word, or paint a green dot. There are people - I do not know the word in english - whose nerves are wired very special, e.g. if they see a special colour they taste, maybe, the flavour of pepper in their mouth. So a colour triggers a flavour and creates a very unique awareness. So what is the base to say that no theory of cognition can reduce our awareness to physical sources? regards Andi

Hi Richard, like your post and learn a lot. Is there no reason? Forgive me if my analogy is somewhat mechanistic, but: If I shape metal in a certain way and can cut through paper, I do have reason to assume that it has actual sharpness, does it? I only run into troubles if I insist that sharpness is independent from a certain shape. One subclause to AI: IMHO just pimping up processors to ever greater speeds and capacity will not cause awareness or intelligence. All you get is a faster computer. Likewise, even pimping up your car to whatever horsepower will never bring you into space. To make it into space you need different theories than for driving, likewise you need a theory of mind to build awareness. And as far as I know, there is none. I would like to understand that, but actually I do not. I would even say that an aware observer is irrelevant to the function of the universe, but I don´t think thats what you mean. Well, yes, if you differentiate between sharpness and the specific shape of a blade. Or between a hot wire and the light its emitting. regards Andi

No doubt about that. But actions based on awareness resp. not-awareness obviously result in different behaviour. If not, why did evolution select awareness, if the same result could be achieved with non-awareness? If an animal (or a robot) can catch a ball, it needs to predict the path. So it needs knowledge about reality, in this particular case a knowledge we call Newton´s laws. Neither an animal nor a robot has conscious knowledge, its stored in the spinal cord or software or whatever. And it makes a big difference wether one has aware knowledge, fully understanding a universal principle, or act on jerks. regards Andi

We do not know how awareness works, but this does in no way indicates that is has to be a special substrate, or is spiritual, or divine, or magic. We simply do not know how it works, thats all. I mean we do not know what dark matter is, and nobody claims that it is magic. Why should it be the case with awareness? We do know that awareness has something to do with the brain - if somebody looses his leg, he is still aware. If somebody looses his head, he is not. Shure, to explain awareness is a different problem than determinism. Nevertheless, those two are connected: Nothing that is unaware can even articulate the question about free will. And again: Determinists have to explain why there is such a thing like awareness. We know that many animals exist for many thousand years with little or no awareness. We know that our subconscious mind is powerful and knows a lot about reality. We are, e.g., able to throw or catch a ball, so our subconscious mind has perfect knowledge about Newtons laws. So there must be an advantage to be aware, otherwise evolution would never have selected it, would never have allowed to put that much energy in. There must be an advantage to be aware of Newton´s laws, instead of just using them instinctively. In other words, there must be an advantage from determined subconsciousness, from instinctively driven actions to awareness. regards Andi

Not necessarily. The indeterministic quantum substrate can as well be modeled by classical algorithms we normally would call "thinking". All determinists have to explain why there are such things as awareness, consciousness, etc., especially if regards Andi

Interesting: Catholicherald With such friends, who needs enemies? regards Andi

Shure Let alone to define what can be seen as human after so many years. However, as far as I know all findings concerning human family tree were made in Africa, and it was safe knowledge that Africa was the only playground for human evolution. regards Andi

Well, lefties always love to hear theories about how to squander other people´s money regards Andi

Interesting: Europe Birthplace of Mankind not Africa Scientists find regards Andi

Thats obvious. regards Andi

I just take your word. My business model can even be improved, if nobody pays taxes, and everybody can take as much money as he deems necessary. No more brakes, only gas. Alyways enough money in the system, no unemployment. The only requirement is, the money has to come directly from the FED. So we have to get rid of normal banks, but thats no problem, I can hire them all. regards Andi

I just had a great idea, I will start a new business. Taking money directly from the FED is no debt, right? So I start a new business, I can hire any number of employees. My business is to hire people. I just hire them, thats all, they have to do nothing. I take 10.000 dollars from the FED, giving each employee 5000 and keep the rest. Fifty - fifty is a fair share, I think. And there is no reason why this business should be confined within the borders of a country. Think of all the poor in Africa. I hire them, they will be rich, I will be rich, and everybody is happy. Should work if the MMT is correct. regards Andi

Situation for the Eastern European countries is not easy. First, they are still struggling for better economics, which, I would say, most do pretty well. Second, they do not want just to exchange Moscow for Brussels. If there is a sense for freedom in Europe, its not in Germany or France, its in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia or Czech Republik. I still remember when the iron curtain fell, and many of our Hungarian neighbors fled to Austria, cause situation was confuse in the beginning and it was not clear, wether some russian tanks would stop the party. Third, they still have the Russian Bear as neighbor, so they are oriented to the West. So the "West", represented by a more or less Germany-led Brussels, has nothing better to do than do blackmail all those countries with this unspeakable refugees welcome attitude. Fortunately, til now, they resist. Backed up by the latest elections in Czech Republic and Austria. regards Andi

Thank you, Barnsley, thats very good advice.

I know what you mean. Have some relatives in Germany, its fruitless and useless to discuss. All living from jobs sponsored by the state, by the way. But the number of people who dare to look behind the false front of village Potjemkin is growing. And sometimes, during discussions, its a pleasure to see how just some words hit bulls eye and articulate the feelings of one´s dialog partner. One more word to the EU: Sebastian Kurz will be the next cancelor of Austria. He is 31, from the ÖVP (people`s party, used to be conservative) and won the elections with the programm of the even more right FPÖ (freedom party). Kurz said the same as Mr. Strache from the FPÖ, but he said it it clearly, calm, convincingly. He was the one to chose for those who were afraid to elect the FPÖ, cause then you can be called a Nazi. Socialists shrunk, Green Party is not in the parliament any longer. Now these two partys, Mr. Kurz and Mr. Strache, will most likely form a coalition. Mr. Kurz is well networked into the EU, and there is reason to assume that conservative forces will get strenghtend. I do not consider this a turnaround, but I would say, at least in Austria, the train heading to a wrong direction has slowed down. So at least there are some good news. regards Andi

Well, I wish I could My view is pragmatic: I live only once. Certainly there have been much, much worser points in time an space to spend those decades given. This is not to justify or relativise whats going on, what I want to say is there is no need, and it is of no help, to become desperate or depressed, making your - truly - unique life a nightmare. Having said that, I state my point of view in every opportunity possible, and there are a lot of discussions going on here. But we have an old saying - you can bring the horse to the water. But it must drink by itself. Or more blunt: If the Germans still elect Merkel and this unspeakable green party, they will provoke civil war, a breakdown of society, a meltdown of economics. Well - so be it like that, they will earn what they deserved. Thats an iron law nobody can avoid. My responsibility is focused on my family. My children are well prepared and armed for whatever might come along. And my positive attitude is based on that. So lets see what the next years will bring. There is no certainty about the future, only one - future is never an extrapolation of presence. regards Andi

I do not think that this so called reform has a chance to pass. All former Eastern Europe countries are against it, here in Austria a new government is forming, consisting of a right and an even more right party. Further immigration will be zero, thats the official goal. The more the EU elite pushes, the earlier EU will be history. regards Andi

If there was no government, but the land (or the oceans or the rainforest) owned by private citizens, all it takes is everyone acting in their individual best interest. Someone wants to make big holes into the countryside, looking for oil? Sorry guys, thats my land. There are no fish any more in the seas? Well, a perfect example for the Tragedy of the Commons. A company wants to cut trees of the rainforest? No way, I am living there. All exploitation is a violation of property rights. Violation of property rights is the exclusive preserve of an entity called "the State". regards Andi

Negative Externalities exist, and they are always a consequence when property rights are violated. Overfishing, collapse of ecosystems like the rainforest or lake Baikal are the best examples. The oceans belong to nobody or to states. So who is responsible for overfishing? Capitalism? The government forces native people to leave their living einvironment, cutting trees and destroying the rainforest, using police and military forces. Who is responsible for this? Capitalism? Lake Baikal was destroyed by ideas and actions of an authoritarian government. Again - where do you see capitalism, in the complete absence of property rights and free trade in all above examples? Yes, working class works harder and longer for less money. Two main causes: Steady import of low qualified workers into the West, while demand for low skilled work is declining. Second cause is this junk money printed in central banks for the needs of those in power, i.e. government, while claiming they are running a caring welfare state. Capitalism? Where? Growth in Africa is a million people more in two weeks. Desertification? You bet, if we had that growth of population in Europe, Europe would be hell. The reasons why many countries in Africa are undeveloped are authoritarian, socialistic or religious governments. They do not grant property rights to their citizens, they take money from the West, deal with some big companies and exploit people and country. You blame capitalism? Are you kidding me? What you are using are the classic leftist "arguments". Every evil that is done by governments and states - and yes, it is a lot - is blamed to capitalism. regards Andi

It is not necessary to claim that aluminium penetrates steel. The outside of those buildings was mainly glass, and some steel beams every few meters. So I have no doubt that most of the mass of these planes penetrated the buildings and spread the kerosine. Furthermore, gear, the spar of the wings and the engine blades are made of steel, the best one available, designed to take tons of load. There is no doubt that all this will cause substantial damage to steel beams. To the last video: I would say what we see is not a steel column vaporizing, but a tumbling steel column that sinks into dust and therefore becomes invisible. regards Andi

Yes. But the money came from the FED, a central bank, with the monopoly for (this so called) money. This is not capitalism, its the opposite. regards Andi

Interesting question. I say it would help, no doubt. To house the world´s central would even help more. But I am afraid to house and protect a central bank is not compatible with the effort to create a free society. regards Andi

The Bank for International Settlement was a tool to keep in touch even during wartime. For example, this bank had the gold reserves of Tschechoslowakia. After Tschechoslowakia was conquered by the germans, the gold was handed over to them. There were also connections between Standard Oil (Rockefeller) and Germany, Standard Oil played a major role in restoring the chemical industries in Germany. So it made no sense to conquer Switzerland, at least til the time when the war was still no world war. And what other reasons could there be, given the third Reich attacked everybody else? regards Andi

Bankruptcy protection is not capitalism, it is state intervention, it is awarding privileges to certain groups with political influence. Just imagine the handaxe makers back then had the power to protect their profession - still no metal tools today. And what about the crisis 2008, when taxpayer money was used to prevent the banksters from going bankrupt? Not really innovative, rather theft. Shure. My car, my house. Don´t you exclude others from the use of yours? Ah, no. All I do is control who uses my car and enters my house. However you are not forced to make it that way. Its perfectly fine if you let anybody who stops by live in your house, or lend your car to whoever needs one. But remember, banruptcy protection is not capitalism. Interesting question. I would say, let reality decide: One anarcho group can set up laws that legally allow to own ideas, patents and so on. Another group does not. So everybody is free to join whatever he prefers. Then we will see what works better. I would assume, that in the long run the group who protects ideas will make the better movies. First, anarchy does in no way imply do depart from laws and a legal system. It only departs from state power. Second, in the west there is plenty of experience regarding what force is proportional, and what fine is appropriate. I think compensation is a good idea - if one pees in my forest, well, I would say thats for free. If one pees in my house, he would have to pay for a new carpet or work for it. regards Andi