Descartes doubted everything other then the fact that he was absolutely certain of, mind that is that he is a thinking being.
the sense that thought is absolutely certain, coincides with the ontological proof of God
Amorphos wrote:You mean this:
Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests.
Amorphos wrote:If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice.
That image suggests sadness but not angst.
This thread is about the value of money, and i.e. "too expensive" means that more money is needed for paying, whereby the value of money changes, if no other measures are taken.
Amorphos wrote:thanks for detailed reply.Descartes doubted everything other then the fact that he was absolutely certain of, mind that is that he is a thinking being.
Did he doubt if there was a time prior to the
existence of him as a thinking being? If sure of that
you must assume;
A, that the thinking being came into existence
without there being the property of
thought/thinking/being/consciousness/existence, prior to it.
B, or/ it came into being as a product or otherwise
result of a world prior to it.
‘A’ doesn’t make any sense, so ‘b’ should be the
natural outcome. In which case ‘Descartes the
thinking being’ is in a relationship with its preceding world [is mind, following something else which is mind].
Can we not call this reasonably a relationship come connection and correlation between the two parties?
If not we have to give an integer of cardinality
denoting what the specific duality is.the sense that thought is absolutely certain,
coincides with the ontological proof of God
Does he give any reasoning for such a leap? As my
above sentiment, does he mean that there is a
previous mental world to his/our existence? [ergo god] If so why did he draw the opposite conclusion to my reasoning; why did he think our thoughts don’t
connect with the external world? Which means the
world is certain and his original notion is false by his own account. This dude seems logically inconsistent or is it me.
If i may, in terms of mind/thought, i wonder how you
get singularity [God] rather than as where i always
end up with the [divine [pure balanced formless transparent thought]] infinite and non cardinal ~ i assume singularity is or has cardinality by its very
nature? This is fundamental problem needed to be
resolved prior to otherwise ‘believing’ there to be God as singularity of mind. For me is confused/ill-conceived?
When we see past this, then evil genius is not required. You just need infinity which manifests its
opposite [perhaps because it is unlimited] in the
cardinal, and when that occurs it goes boom with cardinality because its dualistic nature of dividing and continuing to divide thence forth exponentially. We
then simply have a world with an infinite basis, no
need for gods nor evil geniuses.
Angst [as to the latter part of your post] is a product
of ignorance, or an inability to do anything about our
situation [also ignorance]. Forming a belief system/philosophical-worldview from that is possibly also ignorance?
_
Amorphos wrote:That image suggests sadness but not angst.
The chap being dismissed by the robots appears anxious and shocked to me = impression of angst. It
could be subjective of course?This thread is about the value of money, and
i.e. "too expensive" means that more money is
needed for paying, whereby the value of money changes, if no other measures are taken.
What is expense when you can produce any product
with a 3D carbon printer and food printers of the near
future? I can foresee potential problems with limits, but i think humans should be paid for in perpetuity ~ namely because there needs to be a reason not to do
that? and one which humans agree on, given that
neither humans nor robots should have the upper hand/say over things.
Amorphos wrote:Those things which have ‘irreplaceable value’ are valued by humans, their value is what we think they have. Surely this means that to a robot/AI nothing has value, hence it would not see human survival as an ‘expense’.
A logical robot/AI would see this as reasonable as i see it. Things only have worth because we think they do, an AI only exists because we give them value, such to build them and use resources for that.
No, in fact most places don't, basically all countries at this point use Fiat money, in essence saying, it's worth something because we say so...Erik_ wrote:1.) Do we, really, need to have our dollars backed up by gold?
Dollars, yes and no. Gold, yes and no.Erik_ wrote: Could society function without it?
There is some mixed proof on this, while yes gold coins where used, they have found evidence of debt, which was only not represented by paper because of the time frame, for trade. Gold was an up step from that only because it was a representation of that dept, that could be broken up and passed around, then put back together without (much) loss... We now use paper because it is a step up, easier to carry, easier to understand, and it works in the same way.Erik_ wrote:2.) If yes, then how come primitive societies could function by merely exchanging coins?
The value projected on to gold is an illusion/delusion. Spain was destroyed by that illusion, driven out of one of the most powerful countries by it's own misunderstanding of economics. Seeing the only value as coming from Gold (and silver) is known as Bullionism, and it's like believing in the miasma theory of diseases, they where practiced at the same time, to the same results.Erik_ wrote:I'm not adept in economics, so forgive me if I come off benighted; but frankly I think the value projected unto money by gold is an illusion, better yet, a delusion!
Many.Erik_ wrote:Thoughts?
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:*It's called the dollar because of the Thollar family, which was a rich family that used paper as receipts for things... The receipts would be passed around as "Thollar receipts"... The crazy ability of English speaking people slowly turned it into dollar... Which is why other countries use the name Dollar...
Wikipedia wrote:On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called "Joachimsthaler," which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ታላሪ ("talari"), Italian tallero, Polish talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar.[1]
A later Dutch coin depicting a lion was called the leeuwendaler or leeuwendaalder, literally 'lion daler'. The Dutch Republic produced these coins to accommodate its booming international trade. The leeuwendaler circulated throughout the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. This coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies and in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New York). It was in circulation throughout the Thirteen Colonies during the 17th and early 18th centuries and was popularly known as lion (or lyon) dollar.[2][3] The currencies of Romania and Bulgaria are, to this day, 'lion' (leu/leva). The modern American-English pronunciation of dollar is still remarkably close to the 17th century Dutch pronunciation of daler.[4] Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies were known as "dog dollars".
Orb wrote:Is art dead and buried, that we have to visualize a period in visiting representations of it?
Orb wrote:Are there not people today who still live as if the period was still meaningful and alive within their own sense of being?
Orb wrote:I would say yes to that, and there need not a confusion arose as a consequence, although. It takes a lot of,art appreciation to change the way things are looked at.
Orb wrote:To me surrealism is the most meaningful way to gap the ages, a visual stream, and a method this develops, very painful at diets, and visually excruciating, but then, one must not fear the method of this madness. Lest it becomes lost for ever. (Not the madness, but the method).
Orb wrote:I know You will disagree, however, disagreement is the bedrock of constructing reality, and really I do agree, to disagree.
iambiguous wrote:This thread reminds me of that classic Twilight Zone episode: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2782635801
Think about it: What if we were able to manufacture gold such that it is indistinguishable from the real thing? Is it really all that far removed from paper money in that sense?
It would seem to be just one more consensus the human species has invented in order to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
And then that is put into one or another ideological contraption like capitalism or socialism. No getting around political economy, is there?
Art is as buried as God is - unfortunately.
Amorphos wrote:ArminiusArt is as buried as God is - unfortunately.
I think people in 20 years from now will have far more time on their hands, artists and artisans of all kinds will be much in demand. The machines of the future will be able to produce unique items as easily as standard ones. Put the two together, + that human creativity is what we have which the AI don’t have, = far greater interest in all arts.
or, why wouldn't it go like that?
iambiguous wrote:This thread reminds me of that classic Twilight Zone episode: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2782635801
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users