Goldenages

What can be said pretty safely is that the average standard of living is rising. Have a look here: Freedom of economy report Countries are ranked by personal and economical freedom, and the correlation can bee seen on the first glance: The less state the the better for everyone, no matter what profession. regards Andi

Shure. So this problem can be solved if we say: mental properties equal physical properties/ neuronal correlat. There is no need to invent something beyond. Some combination of physical properties (firing neurons in a particular way) create consciousness. What we see when we watch brain waves or when we measure signals from the eye to the brain is consciousness from the outside. This particular arrangement of physical properties leads to consciousness and the ego. As said an conscious ego is superior to any automatic behaviour, since the range of possible actions is much greater. So it comes as no surprise that evolution prefers those physical porperties. Well we could discuss this for ages, but I am afraid we have to wait for scientific progress But since you mentioned the Kopenhagen interpretation and the "blind adherence to western materialism" I bet you have a different favourite. regards Andi

The new function of a wing "simply" is the result of trial and error over billions of years, preserving every even so small advantage for a species regarding survival. So how can we say that just mental properties can not be reduced to underlying, well known physics? How should we know? The fact that we do not know how it works tells us only that we do not know how it works. The rest is speculation and makes things even more mysterious and supernatural as they appear anyway. Now lets assume that some genius comes around the corner, he dedicated all his life in research of collecting data from conscious minds. Now he builds a machine that is able to emulate brainwaves, to emulate billions of arrays of neurons firing in consonance, creating new, well defined patterns of electricity and electrical fields in spacetime, connected to sensors who bring data from light and sound waves. Every time he hits the "on" button this machine claims: "High folks! I am!" He did not program something like "consciousness". He just tweaked some requirements, adopted from human brains. Likewise, if we want to understand why wood floats on water, we need not program "buoyancy". We just emulate 2 different densities, and every time we hit the "on" button we will assert that wood floats on water. Nothing mysterious here. Just the unknown. And while nobody would say that buoyancy is not relevant for evolution, I still do not understand how it can be claimed that consciousness is not relevant. I am shure you have heard of the project Blue Brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project regards Andi

Well, its easily possible that I did not dig deep enough into this topic and therefore can not see the problem. Yes for shure we can not measure our internal self - because it already is the measurement, formatted by our brains. What we indeed can measure are the basic informations who somehow merge for consciousness. We can measure brain waves. We can stimulate certain regions of the brain to create specific sensations. We can create the wavelength that everyboy will sense (or measure) as "red". We can make specific sounds that everbody will sense or measure correctly and therefore understands. Science works on artificial eyes to help people who are blind. Apple works on a system to "write" just with thoughts. So what we do not know is how the brain does that, and we can not proof that another brain is capable of doing that. But lets go back to the analogy with the 0´s and 1´s: Lets assume you sit in front of the screen and are the only one who can see it. (i.e. you are the only person who knows for shure that you are conscious). If I can write the program for a circle I do not have to watch the screen to be shure that a circle appears. Likewise, if I measure all information of a brain that I can get I have good reason to assume that this brain is conscious. The fact that we do not know how it works only tells us that we do not know how it works, and nothing more. Another analogy: There are billions of people on earth, compared to that only a few know how to produce a cell phone. Now lets assume some weird virus killed all those people. So nobody knows any more how a cell phone works. Now would we assume that cell phones and all the phenomenons they create are not relevant any longer? Would we assume, now that we do not know any longer how it works, that it is a kind of magic if I dial a number and can speak to somebody miles away? Of course not. We know this phenomena are there, and we would like to find out (again) how to reproduce them. So it does not make much sense to me to say, well, we can not measure consciousness, and we do not understand it, so lets say it is not relevant. The question wether consciousness is inevitable or just casually is vital for all evolutionary questions. Are legs inevitable? Eyes? Wings? Is an information center who stores information and steers actions inevitable? Is consciousness inevitable? All this (and who knows what else?) is possible, and if the environment demands for it, and there is enough time, I would say this all is inevitable. If we could only find out what is all possible regards Andi

I do not think so. Instinct driven animals behave like automats that react in a very predictable way to inputs. The concept of "ego" not only allows for an endless variety of behaviour, but also for the ultimate motivation: The fear of an individual being extinguished. So the qualia, the inner landscape, the self, the ego, the soul, whatever name we may use, is definitely an evolutionary advantage. To skip this and wonder why there is a strong emergence of mental properties is like doing research on the art of flying and exclude the wings. The instinctive (subconscious) knowledge of our (and an animals) brain is overwhelming. Every dog who jumps and catches a ball in midair has perfect - subconcious - knowledge of Newton´s laws of motion. We could not even walk if our brain did not have the - subconcious - knowledge of uncounted ancestors back to the first fish who crawled out of water. But it took several thousand years of human history til the conscious mind of Isaac Newton brought the laws of motion into consciousness and to paper. And since this ~350 years the world has accelerated and changed far more rapidly than it did for the last 20.000 years. A conscious ego is the mightiest tool on earth. regards Andi

Well, so you do have to know whats good and whats bad. This is a contradiction to what Buddha said, right? Obviously at least one statement (maybe both) is wrong. I wish you all the best Nevertheless, after all the esoteric stuff, I might suggest that you have a look into the UPB book that Stefan wrote. regards Andi

So what you (or Buddhism) say is that nobody knows what is good or bad. But nonetheless this does not allow me to do things that would be percieved as evil by others who do not share my understanding. From which understanding do we speak now, cause who am I that I should judge? How should I know what others understand as bad? How can others understand whats bad, cause - see above - nobody knows whats good or bad? How can I have true compassion if neither I nor anybody else knows whats good or bad? Thats all a shapeless and unlogic. It paralyzes mind and is no help for anything. People who are strictly taught that way fall back on their instincts, and one can only hope that those are not evil. Every honest man knows that nobody can consume more than he or she produces. Monks who spread queer so called wisdoms to breed slaves and live on the expense of other, rather poor, people, are one more cause for the evil in the world. regards Andi

And here we have the root of all evil. If there is no objective way to find out what is good and what is bad, and we leave this fundamental question to religion, or choose not to judge at all, man is a victim of his and his neighbours whims. Reminds me of the socialistic attitude: I am good. I care for poor and for the refugees. But I am too noble to get my hands dirty with work, so you pay for it. You earn money and are therefore greedy. regards Andi

So I bet Buddhists and their millenia old wisdom are on the cutting edge of modern technologie. Or at least in the top five ranking of nobel prizes. Or at least the Buddhist monks invented some kind of machinery to ease the lives of those who maltreated themselves to produce the food for them. None of all this? Yes, the world is cynical. Its cynical because the world is full of dangerous and wrong philosphies. While Buddhism is for shure not the most dangerous one ist makes its contribution. Nobody can seriously claim to search for the truth and speak about rebirth in the same sentence. Buddhism pretends to teach deep thoughts, instead it forces to think in loops with meaningless definitions. If you are taught not to know whats good or bad, you are taught to be a slave. And that what it is all about: The Buddhist monks were the aristocrats, and the farmes, who worked for them, were advised not to judge if they wanted to have a chance for Nirwana. And yes, you are right: The buddhist "philosophy" is cynical. regards Andi

If I had raised my children that way, I would have destroyed their personality. And only then there is some "truth" in the words of Buddha. regards Andi

Assuming that physical properties correspond to or create mental properties, our self exists as real as the 0´s and 1´s exists that encode a pic. (Our mind exists anyway. If our mind did not exist, we would not be able to talk about it. First, we would not have any means to talk. And second, there would be no topic to talk about). Just by the way: Many people find it offending or insulting that our mind, i.e. the essence of man, should "only" be some kind of fancy electricity. Many would prefer that there should be more to it, some divine spark or similar, in any case something mysterious and out of this world. I do hold the contrary conviction. Its the same - wrong - idea that prefers mystic, religion and superstition to reason and evidence. People fall on their knees when somebody talks about gods who send their sons so that we can crucify them, or are ecstatic when Buddha teaches complicated ways on how to escape the world (any jump from a skyscraper will do that). But the very same people take all the man-made wonders that surround us for granted. From the full fridge to cars and airplanes that bring us to any point on earth, from modern medicine to central heating and computers who make it possible to chat from continent to continent. They call it "materialism" and mean it in derogatory way. Everbody knows, and many worship the pope, whose ideas hinder and endanger civilisation for centuries. Nobody even knows the name of those geniuses who designed the first silicon chip. What this means, is, that people worship those who want to keep their minds in a cage, and despise those who use their minds in order to build a civilisation. So if the up to date science is correct, there is nothing divine, nothing supernatural in our minds. They are completely "materialistic". Therefore we should consider ourselves lucky, because our minds are not created by the whims of a god, but are a product of empiricism. regards Andi

Well, same argument in different words: Evolution is an empirical process. And there is a causality between reality and the experience of reality in form of mental properties - the latter formed by evolution. The causality is, the better reality is represented, the more success. regards Andi

Hm,I still do not understand this Mental properties do contain information about the real world. The brain ist designed to constantly make theories about the world, some are correct, some are wrong, some are helpful, some misleading, some are conscious, some subconscious. There is no way for any mind to watch the world without making theories, without interpretation. What should be the meaning of watching reality without interpreting it? That´s what a mirror does. I mean thats what it is all about: Watch reality, make theories (assumptions), and act. The fact that our eyes interpret a certain wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum as "red" is a theory about the world. It is helpful to distinguish between a ripe fruit with much sugar and an unripe fruit with less sugar. Despite the fact that there is no "red" outside our brains (our mental properties) this theory is helpful and dramatically pushed evolution of primates. It definitely contains information about the real world. Evolution selects our brains since millions of years, erasing those with wrong and not helpful theories, supporting those with correct and helpful ones. Why should we assume that our mental properties do not contain information about the real world? Or maybe I miss your point completely regards Andi

Yes, because the unity of the brain is destroyed. We do not need to measure mental properties in order to assume they contain information about the real world. We just had to measure mental properties in order to understand how the brain works. I do not need to understand the 0´s and 1´s in the cable just to view a pic on the monitor. Nevertheless I can know wether this pic shows an aspect of reality or not. In the second case, someone else knows how to build a monitor that translates the 0´s and 1´s into a pic. In the first case, evolution provided some fancy equipment that produces consciousness. And if this equipment fosters survival, it is a valid theory about the world. regards Andi

Genius or lunacy? Don´t know yet. regards Andi

Til today there is no way to distinguish between both. All we can do is to watch behavior, ask questions and so on, and then conclude wether there is a conscious mind behind or not. See Turing Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test The only person I can be shure to have a conscious mind is - myself. For the rest I have to assume there is, and there are good reasons to assume this, because they behave and react similar. We do not know how the data that are processed in the brain sum up to, or result in, or create, consciousness. To use a (bad) analogy: If I have no clue about programming, and I watch the flow of 0´s and 1´s through the cable that connect my PC with the display, I will never find out that this is, e.g., a word document, or a picture, or whatever. So what scientists do is to look for certain active areas in the brain, measure signals, and they measure brain waves. What they found is that most likely consciousness is achieved when there is a consonance of brain waves. That is the view onto consciousness we have - its the same view somebody has of Word or a pic who watches 0´s and 1´s flowing through a cable. Just because we do not know better, there is no need for dualism or ghosts. regards Andi

Shure. But this was not my argument My argument was, that evolution does not prefer qualities that have no evolutionary benefit. Having a conscious brain costs a lot of energy. If the same benefits a conscious brain provides could be achieved by an unconscious brain, there would be no consciousness on earth. Because every unconscious zombie, driven by instinct, would be more successful than us. (Politicians are not a counter-argument ) So there is a reason why evolution invested the energy in consciousness. Together with consciousness comes the "I". There is no special region in the brain where "I" is located. "I" is a concept. Its the logical follow up of raising consciousness, that becomes aware that there must be an originator of actions. A conscious mind without an ego is not possible. regards Andi

I doubt that evolution generates anything that is evolutionarily irrelevant. If evolution generated something evolutionarily irrelevant, that would proof evolution wrong. And there is nothing observed, neither on plants nor animals, that is evolutionary irrelevant, even strange things such as monstrous tail feathers or birds with inability of flying etc.etc. So if mental properties had no function, we would not have any. The basic advantage of mental functions is, that a theory can be killed instead of the being itself. We do not have to jump over the cliff to find out whats happening. We can simulate the jump in our mind, and, if we simulate correctly, we keep our genes in the pool. regards Andi

Shure, the Bible was the result of an evolving process. However not driven by reason and evidence, but by the interests of groups struggling for power. Many councils were held back then to evaluate what should be content of the bible. In the absence of any reasonable claim those "holy" councils were often violent, full of intrigues - monkhood has its origin there, the first monks were nothing more than the personal security of the Bishops, literally fighting for the point of view of their masters. Mohammed, some centuries later, wanted a more uniform and streamlined tool of power. So no ambigous stories. Just a "do this" and "do that". No questions allowed. regards Andi

I would suggest that you read the Koran. Do not get scared by those who claim that you need to be an expert to interpret or undestand it correctly. I mean its a book, written by man, with a certain intention. The Koran is the issue of orders for the Muslim. The Koran starts nice and ends bloody, so basically it reflects the vita of Mohammed, who started nice as a preacher, but nobody wanted to listen. So he became a criminal, chief of a gang of thieves, later a military leader, and pushed the religion of peace with violence. As said, you find nice and deadly instructions in the Koran. But all written is claimed to be the will of god, and there is no room for discussion wether some statements are still appropriate today or not, or can be interpreted in a more peaceful way. regards Andi

Just one word: Great

The history of science and philosophy is more or less the replacement of illusions, superstition and gods by knowledge. After reading UPB from Stefan, a book that I have read several years ago came to my mind again: The Physics of Immortality from Frank J. Tipler. https://www.amazon.de/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990 Tipler speculates (wildly) wether some kind of eternal life is possible without the help of a supernatural entity, however he speculates on the firm ground of today´s physical knowledge. Basic idea is that all life in universe share the same problem, namely mortality. Therefore all forms of life will, on the long run - and there are several billion years to go - try to overcome this problem. Tipler introduces the idea that intelligent life will transform all matter of the universe into a gigantic computer that is able to emulate all beings that ever lived. This supercomputer would be a machine that knows everything that can be known (so its not omniscient in the way a god is claimed to be) and is able to do anything that is physically possible to do (so not almighty). The book is fascinating to read, I personally like the bold approach to remove the last domain from religion. It is an upside-down view onto the world - "god", as Tipler describes, is not the origin of the world, but rather the end, and this "god" is the result of intelligent efforts. So if someone wants to read something really different - enjoy regards Andi

Hi, hi, I do not think that we will have one common emperor again, we have to get rid of the many emperors in Brussels Only the Freedom Party (FPÖ) wants to join the Visegrad Alliance. I do think thats a good idea - every measure against Merkel and the centralists in Brussels is a good idea. The last election for the Federal President still showed a majority for the reds. But many things have changed in the meantime - right now the secretary of the interior and the defense minister make statements that were impossible only months ago. However, the next interesting election will be in France. Been in Paris recently, what a beautiful city. You just have to know where not to leave the subway in the outer districts, its a shame. regards Andi

I am pretty convinced that sooner or later all parties who want to have more than just a few percent will take over most ideas from the right wing "populist" parties. Yes this progress is slow, and its different in all european countries (Germany is far behind), but there is progress. Right now foreign minister Sebastian Kurz, member of the Austrian People´s party, harshly critized NGO´s to be allies of the human traffickers. He was also the master mind behind the closure of the Balkan route, now more than a year ago. He pleads for refugee camps in Afrika according to the Australian example. He is eloquent, unagitated, and can not be called a Nazi so easily because he is a member (and most likely the next leader) of a big Austrian party. Best of all, this guy is only 30 years old. Time.come sees him as a next generation leader: http://time.com/collection-post/4684932/sebastion-kurz-next-generation-leaders/ He is the one than can be elected by all those who are afraid to be called Nazis, and therefore do not dare to vote for the right wing Austrian Freedom Party. So what has to be done, is to get rid of all the so-called refugees, which is the majority. Next thing is to cut all subsidies for all those "Islam cultural exchange clubs". Those are supported from the Austrian Socialist Party (who else?), recently many scandals became obvious. Ultimatively, Islam must be outlawed. There is more than enough evidence that this religion has absolutely no place within any civilization. regards Andi

Yes, that was a good one It works like this: The state needs money, either for infrastructure or war or welfare. So the state borrows money from the FED. The debt for this is sold in form of government bonds. Everybody can buy this government bonds, other governments and private people. All those expect interest, the more thrustworthy a country the less interest. Now taxes are used to pay back this government bonds+interest. Normally, at least in the EU, it is forbidden that the FED (or the EZB) buys back their own government bonds (instead of other governments or private people). This is done to let the market decide wether a country is still thrustworthy or not, and it is a brake to prevent (hyper)inflation. In the EU, this rule is already abandoned. Not officially, its bypassed crabwise. As far as I know the FED still sticks to this rule. California and Minnesota are nearly bankrupt, but the FED does not help out. Now the MMT recommends that the FED actually should buy their own bonds. And yes, then in a way it is true that this money does not need to be paid back. But what will occur is, that the tiny rest of connection from fiat money to a real market is cut, and in any case inflation will rob value of the money - which has the same effect as taxes. Furthermore, when there is no more connection from money to the market, sooner or later thrustworthyness of a currency will suffer. Its the old idea that central planning has the power to create value, the old idea that all economic problems, from corrupt states to lazy people, can be covered with money. And there is more than enough evidence that this is wrong. regards Andi