Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Portland Area Oregon Beaches – Portlandguide.com

 Beaches  Comments Off on Portland Area Oregon Beaches – Portlandguide.com
Apr 302016
 

The majority of north Oregon coast beaches are within two hours drive of Portland. The spectacular coastline has much to offer its visitors – breathtaking views of unspoiled beaches, sand dunes, and rocky cliffs and miles of nature and hiking trails. Although the north coast waters are too cold for most people to swim, wet-suit surfing is a popular sport on some beaches.

Seaside Beach Seaside is the favorite beach destination of many locals. This popular family-friendly town features a promenade and boardwalk along the beach. The downtown streets are lined with clothing shops, candy stores, arcades and the usual coastal trinket shops.

Cannon Beach Cannon Beach is a more upscale version of Seaside with boutiques, art galleries, coffee shops, and restaurants featuring fresh seafood lining both sides of the main street. Cannon Beach is also home to Haystack Rock – one of the largest monoliths in the world.

Lincoln City Lincoln City is known as one of the top kite-flying destinations in the world. Thousands of people come to this seaside town to watch the gray whales migrate in early spring and again in fall and early winter. Other favorite pastimes are beach-combing, deep-sea fishing, antiquing, and shopping at the Tanger Outlet Mall.

Read more here:
Portland Area Oregon Beaches – Portlandguide.com

 Posted by at 9:43 am  Tagged with:

Freedom Tower (1 World Trade Center) – The New York Times

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedom Tower (1 World Trade Center) – The New York Times
Apr 222016
 

Latest Articles

Cond Nast is to lease one million square feet in the lead tower at ground zero in a deal worth an estimated $2 billion over 25 years.

The Port Authority has struggled to create an elegant and secure skyscraper while also containing costs.

Larry A. Silverstein, the developer of 4 World Trade Center, is taking up New York City on its commitment to lease one-third of the building.

In 2010, so much progress was made at the World Trade Center that officials saw no need to cook up fabricated milestones, as they had in the past. But in December, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey showed that old habits die hard. It announced in a press release (accompanied by this picture) that 1 World Trade Center – the building formerly known as Freedom Tower – had reached “halfway to the top.” Meaning what? That the structural steel had reached the level of the 52nd floor in what will be a 104-story building.

Few people seem willing to question whether building 1 World Trade Center makes any sense.

The Timess David W. Dunlap describes how the new World Trade Center complex is taking shape.

Despite setbacks and public cynicism, the puzzle that is the new World Trade Center complex is being pieced together rapidly.

Photographs from the Timess Fred R. Conrad provide an intimate view of construction at the site of the World Trade Center.

The publishing giant has signed a tentative deal to anchor the skyscraper now under construction.

The Durst real estate family won a hotly contested bidding contest for a stake in 1 World Trade Center and is expected to invest at least $100 million in the tower.

A family that owns 10 Midtown Manhattan office towers is favored by some Port Authority officials, but a deal is not assured.

A Subway restaurant franchise is housed in cargo containers and raised by cranes that rise as the building goes up.

Having the publishing giant as a tenant would bring a particular cachet to 1 World Trade Center.

Mr. Libeskind is best known for his work as the master plan architect for the reconstruction of the World Trade Center.

Panoramic views of 1 World Trade Center show the progress of building.

The days when 1 World Trade Center was regarded as an unnecessary exercise in waste appear to be over.

The Port Authority, the city and Larry A. Silverstein have worked out a formula to finance the project.

The Port Authority hopes to raise money for 1 World Trade Center, still under construction, and hand off the job of marketing the space and negotiating leases.

Fresh bread will soon be baking high above ground zero.

The Port Authority says that 1 World Trade Center, the address of the fallen north tower, is the most practical way to market the building. It had been called the Freedom Tower.

Cond Nast is to lease one million square feet in the lead tower at ground zero in a deal worth an estimated $2 billion over 25 years.

The Port Authority has struggled to create an elegant and secure skyscraper while also containing costs.

Larry A. Silverstein, the developer of 4 World Trade Center, is taking up New York City on its commitment to lease one-third of the building.

In 2010, so much progress was made at the World Trade Center that officials saw no need to cook up fabricated milestones, as they had in the past. But in December, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey showed that old habits die hard. It announced in a press release (accompanied by this picture) that 1 World Trade Center – the building formerly known as Freedom Tower – had reached “halfway to the top.” Meaning what? That the structural steel had reached the level of the 52nd floor in what will be a 104-story building.

Few people seem willing to question whether building 1 World Trade Center makes any sense.

The Timess David W. Dunlap describes how the new World Trade Center complex is taking shape.

Despite setbacks and public cynicism, the puzzle that is the new World Trade Center complex is being pieced together rapidly.

Photographs from the Timess Fred R. Conrad provide an intimate view of construction at the site of the World Trade Center.

The publishing giant has signed a tentative deal to anchor the skyscraper now under construction.

The Durst real estate family won a hotly contested bidding contest for a stake in 1 World Trade Center and is expected to invest at least $100 million in the tower.

A family that owns 10 Midtown Manhattan office towers is favored by some Port Authority officials, but a deal is not assured.

A Subway restaurant franchise is housed in cargo containers and raised by cranes that rise as the building goes up.

Having the publishing giant as a tenant would bring a particular cachet to 1 World Trade Center.

Mr. Libeskind is best known for his work as the master plan architect for the reconstruction of the World Trade Center.

Panoramic views of 1 World Trade Center show the progress of building.

The days when 1 World Trade Center was regarded as an unnecessary exercise in waste appear to be over.

The Port Authority, the city and Larry A. Silverstein have worked out a formula to finance the project.

The Port Authority hopes to raise money for 1 World Trade Center, still under construction, and hand off the job of marketing the space and negotiating leases.

Fresh bread will soon be baking high above ground zero.

The Port Authority says that 1 World Trade Center, the address of the fallen north tower, is the most practical way to market the building. It had been called the Freedom Tower.

Read the original here:
Freedom Tower (1 World Trade Center) – The New York Times

What is atheism? | Define atheism | CARM

 Atheism  Comments Off on What is atheism? | Define atheism | CARM
Mar 292016
 

by Matt Slick

The word, atheism, comes from the negative a which means “no,” and theos which means “god.” Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means “no god.” Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable and that He is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists but simply non-theists.

I’ve encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system, while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you accept, atheism denies God.

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak with variations in between. Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God’s existence. They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.

Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God’s existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means “not knowing” or “no knowledge.” I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded there is no God, but they say they are open to further evidence for God’s existence.

Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon. It isn’t an issue. He doesn’t believe it or not believe it.

Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists and particularly Christians. Ive encountered a few of them, and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be held with them.

Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. The second is the category where the athiestbelieves that the idea of God’s existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one position says that there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that God exists, and the other position says that the evidence is contrary to God’s existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate. But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God’s existence.

A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all-powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good, He would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means He is not perfect and not God) or He is not all-powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. Of course, the problem is that the criticism is a false dichotomy. In other words, there are more than two possibilities, namely, God might have a reason for allowing evil and suffering, man’s freedom might require the allowance of evil and suffering, etc.

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists as a whole tend to adopt. I’ve tried to list some of them below. Please note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity–citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God and what they consider as logical evidences against God’s existence. But the atheists’ criticisms are not without very good answers as you will see in the coming papers.

Read the original here:

What is atheism? | Define atheism | CARM

Hedonism Resort II Jamaica adults-only all … – Call Now

 Hedonism  Comments Off on Hedonism Resort II Jamaica adults-only all … – Call Now
Mar 272016
 

Everything Youve Heard Is True

The rumors, the legends, the myths are all true. For more than 30 years, Hedonism clothing optional resorts have enjoyed a reputation for shattering inhibitions and provoking the kind of behavior people dont talk about in polite circles. Its what happens when you combine warm water, a white-sand beach, open bars, and open minds. Our lifestyle resort is about as far as you can get from your everyday life. And best of all, just about everything you can eat, drink, and do is included.

Sooner or later, its gonna happen.

The primal urge to just let go, unwind, and unplug. Hedonism II on world-famous Negril Beach of Negril, Jamaica was created as a reward for all those times youve had to deny your basic instincts. In these lush gardens of pure pleasure, the word no is seldom heard.

After a week at Hedonism II, youll view the world from a slightly different angle. Youll be tanned and relaxed, and at times youll find yourself smiling for no reason whatsoever. Hedonism II, unlike all other clothing optional resorts.

Hedonism II is the only resort of its kind in the world. Its the resort where you can do what you want, when you want, in a way that you only can at Hedonism. From the nude beach to piano bar to the disco, Hedonism II is the best resort for adult only, all inclusive clothing optional travel. If you dont have fun at Hedonism II, you probably wont have fun anywhere.

And the best place to book your Hedonism II vacation is right here at Dream Pleasure Tours. Why? Dream Pleasure Tours is you main source for the best prices and best service for Hedonism II reservation.

See the rest here:

Hedonism Resort II Jamaica adults-only all … – Call Now

 Posted by at 1:46 am  Tagged with:

Transhumanism: An Attempt To Use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods …

 Transhumanism  Comments Off on Transhumanism: An Attempt To Use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods …
Mar 252016
 

Did you know that the word transhuman literally means beyond human?

All over the world, scientists and intellectuals are joining the transhumanism movement. Those that adhere to this philosophy believe that the time has come for us to use technology to take control of our own evolution. By doing so, they believe that we can give ourselves superhuman powers and radically extend our lifespans. Right now, the most popular movie in America is Avengers: Age of Ultron, and in recent years we have watched films about mutants and superheroes become some of Hollywoods biggest moneymakers. But transhumanists believe that we will soon be able to literally turn ourselves into such superheroes as technology continues to increase at an exponential rate. And once we have superhuman powers and superhuman intelligence, they are convinced that we will eradicate all sickness, disease, poverty and war. Many of them actually believe that we will be able to achieve immortality and establish a utopia on Earth just a few decades from now. In other words, we wont need a God because we will have become our own gods.

At the core of the transhumanist movement is an unshakable faith in the inevitable technological progress of humanity. Yes, there are some transhumanists that have doubts, but for most transhumanists the solution to all of our problems is more technology. If you are not familiar with transhumanism, the following is a really good definitionthat I recently came across

Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement promoting the aim of transforming the human condition fundamentally by developing and making available technologies to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capabilities. Transhumanist thinking studies the potential benefits and hazards of emerging technologies that could overcome basic human limitations. It also addresses ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. Some transhumanists predict that human beings may eventually transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities that they justify a state of being known as posthuman.

Transhumanists want to help humans live much longer, and they also want to dramatically increase the quality of those lives. Ultimately, most transhumanists are fully convinced that they will be able to defeat death altogether. The following is a short excerptfrom an ExtremeTech article

One of the core concepts in transhumanist thinking is life extension: Through genetic engineering, nanotech, cloning, and other emerging technologies, eternal life may soon be possible. Likewise, transhumanists are interested in the ever-increasing number of technologies that can boost our physical, intellectual, and psychological capabilities beyond what humans are naturally capable of (thus the termtranshuman). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for example, which speeds up reaction times and learning speed byrunning a very weak electric current through your brain, has already been used by the US military to train snipers. On the more extreme side, transhumanism deals with the concepts of mind uploading (to a computer), and what happens when we finally craft a computer with greater-than-human intelligence (the technological singularity).

So would you like to live forever armed with superhuman powers?

The most famous transhumanist in the world, Ray Kurzweil, actually believes that he is going to be able to do that. But first he has to stay alive long enough for the technologies that he believes are coming to be developed. So Kurzweiltakes 150 supplements a day in an attempt to keep his body in peak condition

The youthful 65-year-old currently takes 150 supplements a day, which he argues is the first bridge.

The idea is to build enough bridges to ensure the body holds out long enough for life-lengthening technology to come into its own.

He has likened the biology of the body to computer software and believes we are all out of date.

Kurzweil is absolutely convinced that if he can just stretch his life out long enough that technologies that will enable him to achieve immortality are right around the corner. In fact,in a piece that he wrote for CNN he expressed his belief that our medical technologies will be a million times more powerful than they are today just two decades from now

Health and medicine is now an information technology and is therefore subject to what I call the law of accelerating returns, which is a doubling of capability (for the same cost) about each year that applies to any information technology.

As a result, technologies to reprogram the software that underlie human biology are already a thousand times more powerful than they were when the genome project was completed in 2003, and will again be a thousand times more powerful than they are today in a decade, and a million times more powerful in two decades.

So will he be right?

We will just have to wait and see.

For a long time, many in the transhumanist movement (including Kurzweil) have been pointing to a time period between 2030 and 2050 during which they believe something remarkable will happen. They believe that during that time period something known as the singularity will occur. As technology increases at an exponential rate, they believe that artificial intelligence will begin to greatly surpass human intelligence at some point, and that humanity will merge with this new super intelligence. Once that happens, they believe that the world will change in ways that we cannot even comprehend today

Kurzweil and his followers believe that a crucial turning point will be reached around the year 2030, when information technology achieves genuine intelligence, at the same time as biotechnology enables a seamless union between us and this super-smart new technological environment. Ultimately the human-machine mind will become free to roam a universe of its own creation, uploading itself at will on to a suitably powerful computational substrate. We will become essentially god-like in our powers.

Does that sound good to you, or does it sound frightening?

Other transhumanists are not quite as optimistic as Kurzweil and his followers. Just consider what Max Tegmark, the author of Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, had to say about what life will be like after the singularity

After this, life on Earth would never be the same. Whoever or whatever controls this technology would rapidly become the worlds wealthiest and most powerful, outsmarting allfinancial markets, out-inventing and out-patenting all human researchers, and out-manipulating all human leaders. Even if we humansnominally merge with such machines, we might have no guarantees whatsoever about the ultimate outcome, making it feel less like a mergerand more like a hostile corporate takeover.

Even some of the most prominent scientists in the world are skeptical of what an ultra-powerful artificial intelligence would mean for the future of humanity. The following is an excerpt from an article co-authored by Stephen Hawking

Looking further ahead, there are no fundamental limits to what can be achieved: there is no physical law precluding particles from being organized in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains. An explosive transition is possible, although it may play out differently than in the movie: as Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, triggering what Vernor Vinge called a singularity and Johnny Depps movie character calls transcendence. One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

But despite these reservations from many in the scientific community, many transhumanists are pushing ahead as hard as they can. Many of them are absolutely convinced that what they are doing will bring a new golden age to this planet. Just consider the words oftranshumanist Zoltan Istvan

Despite this, people continue to worry that technology and science that make our species more transhuman will be used to create a deeper divide in society for the haves and have-nots. Those worries are unfounded. A close examination of the issues show that transhumanist technology and science liberates us, brings us better health, and has improved the living standards of all people around the world. If you value liberty, equality and progress, it makes sense to embrace the coming age of transhumanism.

Doesnt that sound wonderful?

And there are even some transhumanists that couch their hopes and dreams for the future in religious terminology. For example, transhumanist Mark Pesce is fully convinced that transhumanism will allow ordinary humans to become as gods

Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something morea transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our imagefor our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman an apotheosis to reason, salvation attained by good works.

That is some pretty strong stuff.

So what do you think about all of this? Please feel free to join the discussion by leaving a comment below

The rest is here:

Transhumanism: An Attempt To Use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods …

Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org
Mar 232016
 

November 3, 2011 essays

A guide to books on the history of liberty and libertarianism.

The history of libertarianism is more than a series of scholarly statements on philosophy, economics, and the social sciences. It is the history of courageous men and women struggling to bring freedom to the lives of those living without it. The works on this list give important context to the ideas found on the others.

A History of Libertarianism by David Boaz

This essay, reprinted from Libertarianism: A Primer, covers the sweep of libertarian and pre-libertarian history, from Lao Tzu in the sixth century B.C. to the latest developments of the 21st century. Because its available for free on Libertarianism.org, the essay also includes numerous links to more information about major thinkers and their works. For a general sense of the rich history of the movement for liberty, this is easily the best place to start.

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn

Bernard Bailyns Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the ideas that influenced the American Revolution had a profound influence on our understanding of the republics origin by exposing its deeply libertarian foundations. Bailyn studied the many political pamphlets published between 1750 and 1776 and identified patterns of language, argument, and references to figures such as the radical Whigs and Cato the Younger. Because these were notions which men often saw little need to explain because they were so obvious, their understanding was assumed by the Founders and thus not immediately obvious to modern readers. When the Revolution is reexamined with Bailyns findings in mind, theres no way to escape the conclusion that America was always steeped in libertarian principles.

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty

The libertarian movement in America in the 20th century is the focus of this delightful history from Brian Dorhety. Radicals for Capitalism is more the story of the men and women who fought for freedom and limited government than it is an intellectual history of libertarian ideas. But it is an important story because it helps to place the contemporary debate about the place of libertarianism in American politics within the context of a major and long-lived social movement.

The Decline of American Liberalism by Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.

Ekirch traces the history of the liberal idea in the United States from the founding through World War II. He places the high point of true liberalism in the years immediately following the American Revolution, before the federal government began its long march of ever more centralized control over the country. And he shows how this shift has negatively impacted everything from global peace to the economy to individual autonomy.

Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade by Douglas A. Irwin

Ever since Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776, the case for free tradeboth its economic benefits and its moral footingseemed settled. Yet in the ensuing two centuries, many have attempted to restrict freedom of trade with claims about its deleterious effects. Irwins Against the Tide traces the intellectual history of free trade from the early mercantilists, through Smith and the neoclassical economists, and to the present. He shows how free trade has withstood theoretical assaults from protectionists of all stripesand how it remains the most effective means for bringing prosperity and peace to people throughout the world.

The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedoms Greatest Champions by Jim Powell

If Radicals for Capitalism is the tale of the men and women who fought for liberty in the 20th century, Jim Powells The Triumph of Liberty fills in the backstory. The book is an exhaustive collection of biographical articles on 65 major figures, from Marcus Tullius Cicero to Martin Luther King, Jr., summarizing their lives, thought, and impact. While not all of them were strictly libertarian, every one of the people Powell covers was instrumental in making the world a freer. For a grand sweep of libertys history through the lives of those who struggled in its name, theres no better source than The Triumph of Liberty.

How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World by Nathan Rosenberg and L. E. Birdzell Jr.

The central question that How the West Grew Rich addresses is precisely what its title implies. For thousands of years, human beings lived in unrelieved misery: hunger, famine, illiteracy, superstition, ignorance, pestilence and worse have been their lot. How did things change? How did a relatively few peoplethose in what we call the Westescape from grinding poverty into sustained economic growth and material well-being when most other societies remained trapped in an endless cycle of birth, hardship, and death? This fascinating book tells that story. The explanations that many historians have offeredclaiming that it was all due to science, or luck, or natural resources, or exploitations or imperialismare refuted at the outset, in the books opening chapter. Rosenberg and Birdzell are then free to provide an explanation that makes much more sense.

The State by Franz Oppenheimer

Much political philosophy begins with a social concept theory of the state. Mankind originally existed in a state of nature, and the state only arose when people came together and agreed to give up some of their liberties in exchange for protection of others. Oppenheimer rejects this rosy picture and replaces it with his much more realistic conquest theory, which finds the genesis of states in roving bands of marauders who eventually settled down and turned to taxation when they realized it was easier than perpetual raiding. The State also features Oppenheimers influential distinction between the two means by which man can set about fulfilling his needs: I propose in the following discussion to call ones own labor and the equivalent exchange of ones own labor for the labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political means.

Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Cant Explain the Modern World by Deirdre McCloskey

In Bourgeois Dignity, McCloskey offers a different story of economic growth from the common one of capitalism and markets. The West grew rich, she argues, not simply because it embraced trade, but because its cultural ideas shifted, specifically in granting a sense of dignity to the bourgeoisie. It is that dignityand the rhetoric surrounding itthat sparked the Industrial Revolution and, in turn, lead to the modern world. Bourgeois Dignity traces the influence of these changing ideasand uses them to explain not just the rise of the West but also the recent, monumental growth of India and China. The book is the second in a four-volume series, The Bourgeois Era.

Aaron Ross Powell is a Cato Institute research fellow and founder and editor of Libertarianism.org, which presents introductory material as well as new scholarship related to libertarian philosophy, theory, and history. He is also co-host of Libertarianism.orgs popular podcast, Free Thoughts. His writing has appeared in Liberty and The Cato Journal. He earned a JD from the University of Denver.

Read more:
Libertarian History: A Reading List | Libertarianism.org

 Posted by at 10:40 pm  Tagged with:

Nihilism | definition of nihilism by Medical dictionary

 Nihilism  Comments Off on Nihilism | definition of nihilism by Medical dictionary
Mar 122016
 

.

1. an attitude of skepticism regarding traditional values and beliefs or their frank rejection.

2. a delusion of nonexistence of part or all of the self or the world. adj., adj nihilistic.

1. In psychiatry, the delusion of the nonexistence of everything, especially of the self or part of the self.

2. Engagement in acts that are totally destructive to one’s own purposes and those of one’s group.

[L. nihil, nothing]

1. an attitude of skepticism regarding traditional values and beliefs or their frank rejection.

2. a delusion of nonexistence of part or all of the self or the world.nihilistic

1. Philosophy The doctrine that nothing actually exists or that existence or values are meaningless.

2. Relentless negativity or cynicism suggesting an absence of values or beliefs: nihilism in postwar art.

a. Political belief or action that advocates or commits violence or terrorism without discernible constructive goals.

b. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid-19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.

4. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

nihilist n.

nihilistic adj.

nihilistically adv.

1. psychiatry The delusion of the nonexistence of everything, especially of the self or part of the self.

2. Engagement in acts that are totally destructive to one’s own purposes and those of one’s group.

[L. nihil, nothing]

1. A psychotic delusion of one’s non-existence or of the non-existence of the world.

2. Extreme pessimism about the effectiveness of any form of medical treatment, especially of the use of drugs (therapeutic nihilism).

Read the original:

Nihilism | definition of nihilism by Medical dictionary

 Posted by at 5:44 am  Tagged with:

What Are Smart Contracts? Cryptocurrency’s Killer App …

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on What Are Smart Contracts? Cryptocurrency’s Killer App …
Mar 042016
 

This article contains interviews with Phil Raporport, drector of markets and trading at Ripple Labs, Stefan Thomas, CTO at Ripple Labs, and Chris Ellis, a cofounder of Feathercoin and show host with World Crypto Network.

What if you could cut your mortgage rate, make it easier to update your will, and ensure that your buddy was never able to weasel out of paying up on a bet? That and much more is the promise of smart contracts, a technology that is getting closer and closer to reality thanks to cryptocurrency.

Smart contracts are computer programs that can automatically execute the terms of a contract. Someday, these programs may replace lawyers and banks for handling certain common financial transactions.

And the potential for smart contracts goes way beyond simple transfers of funds. The door of a car or a house could be unlocked by connecting smart contracts to the Internet of everything. But as always with this cutting edge of financial technology, major questions abound: How will this all align with our current legal system? And, of course, will anyone actually use these things anyway?

The idea of smart contracts goes way back to 1994, nearly the dawn of the World Wide Web itself. That’s when Nick Szabo, a cryptographer widely credited with laying the groundwork for bitcoin, first coined the term “smart contract.” At core, these automated contracts work like any other computer program’s if-then statements. They just happen to be doing it in a way that interacts with real-world assets. When a pre-programmed condition is triggered, the smart contract executes the corresponding contractual clause.

Szabo’s original theories about how these contracts could work remained unrealized because there was no digitally native financial system that could support programmable transactions. (It defeats the purpose of smart contracts if a bank still has to manually authorize the release and transfer of money.) “One big hurdle to smart contracts is that computer programs can’t really trigger payments right now,” says Phil Rapoport, Ripple Labs’ director of markets and trading.

The advent and increasingly widespread adoption of bitcoin is changing that, and as a result Szabo’s idea has seen a revival. Smart contract technology is now being built on top of bitcoin and other virtual currencieswhat some have termed “Bitcoin 2.0” platforms. Because bitcoin is itself is a computer program, smart contracts can speak to it just like they would any other piece of code. The puzzle pieces are falling into place. A computer program can now trigger payments.

There are currently two major open source projects working on smart contracts, both of which have taken big leaps forward this year. One is called Codius and the other is Ethereum. Codius was developed by Ripple Labs, which also created its own digital currency called Ripple. Codius aims to be interoperable between a variety of cryptocurrency, such as Ripple and bitcoin, although it is managed by the private company.

“Codius can interact with other ledgers and web services. It can work on bitcoin and it can work on any other system,” says Stefan Thomas, Ripple’s CTO.

In contrast, Ethereum is an entirely new currency with smart contracts baked into its payment system. Originally developed by 20-year-old programmer Vitalik Buterin, it would replace other “coins” like bitcoin, but appears to be more of a community project.

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are poised to help smart contracts become reality. But the effect may also be reciprocal. Smart contracts can illustrate a unique benefit of virtual currencies that some advocates think could entice more users.

“Smart contracts are really the killer app of the cryptocurrency world,” says Chris Ellis, host of a show about cryptocurrencies on the World Crypto Network.

Let’s take a simple example, like a Super Bowl bet. Say you want to bet $500or roughly one bitcointhat the Patriots will win, while your friend is betting the same amount that the Packers will take the title. Step one is for you and your friend to place your bitcoin in a neutral account controlled by the smart contract. When the game is over and the smart contract is able to verify via ESPN, Reuters, or elsewhere that the Patriots beat the Packers, the smart contract would automatically deposit your bet and your winnings from your friend back into your account.

Because smart contracts are computer programs, it would be trivial to add more complex betting elements like odds and score differentials into the mix. While there are services out there today that might handle this sort of transaction, they all charge a fee. The key difference with smart contracts is that it is a decentralized system accessible to anyone, that doesn’t require any intermediary party.

A more everyday example would be online shopping. “If you order something online you might not want to pay a merchant immediately until they fulfill their end of the bargain,” says Rapoport. “So you could easily have a contract that looks for FedEx tracking data saying that the package you ordered has been delivered to your address before releasing payment to the sender.”

If you think about a lot of routine financial transactions, what lawyers and banks do boils down to repetitively processing mundane tasks. And yet we still have to shell out huge fees for lawyers to go through wills or for banks to process our mortgage payments.

Smart contracts could automate and demystify these processes, making it so that ordinary people can save time and money.

Although you got your mortgage through a bank, that bank won’t generally hold onto it for the entire 30-year loan; it will be sold to an investor. But you keep making payments to the bank, not the investor that owns your mortgage. The bank just becomes a processor for your monthly payments, sending a chunk to the investor, a slice to taxes, and a bit for homeowner’s insurance.

“That’s just a real simple operational task, but that bank will often take a quarter to a half percent per year to service that mortgage,” says Rapoport. “They’re just doing an operational headache of receiving payments and redirecting them. And they’re charging people for that. But it’s something that a smart contract could theoretically administer very easily.”

If mortgage payments were handled by smart contracts, mortgage processing fees could be eliminated and that savings passed on to consumers. The result would be a lowered cost of home ownership.

Although smart contracts are still in their nascent stage, the potential is clear. If a simple enough user interface were developed it could remove a host of legal headaches, like updating your will. Imagine if allocating your assets after your death was as simple as moving an adjustable slider that determines who gets how much. Just like with the bet or FedEx example, once the smart contract can verify the triggering conditionin this case, your deaththe contract goes into effect and your assets are divvied up.

With all this, it may sound like we won’t need lawyers anymore. But enthusiasts say that smart contracts should be seen as an evolution of the legal system, not its erasure.

“We don’t think that this will replace the legal system as much as provide an intermediate layer between transacting and going to court,” says Thomas.

Nonetheless, the role of lawyers might look very different in the future. Rather than having lawyers adjudicate individual contracts, the role of lawyers might shift to producing smart contract templates on a competitive market. Contract selling points would be their quality, how customizable they are, and their ease of use. It sounds a bit like the marketplace for WordPress themes.

“I imagine a lot of people will create contracts that do different things,” says Rapoport. “And they can essentially sell them for others to use. So if you make, for example, a really good equity agreement that has a bunch of different functionality a company can charge for access to their contract.”

It’s easy to think about a smart contract managing a will, up to a point. It all makes sense if you can imagine yourself keeping all of your assets in bitcoin. But what if you live in the real world and have physical possessions like, you know, most of us? The answer is something called smart property.

“This starts to get more sci-fi when we talk about smart property,” says Ellis.

The so-called “Internet of Things” is constantly growing, with more and more interconnected devices out there every day. Some forward-thinking developers are already working on ways to combine the Internet of Things with bitcoin infrastructure so that something like a bitcoin can actually represent a physical object. That token is what these developers call smart property.

But more important than representing some object, these new smart property tokens would actually grant ownership and control to a networked object, whether that be a computer, a car, or even a house.

How does this all come together?

Ellis gives the example of renting out his house. “Let’s say all the locks are Internet-enabled and they’ve all got network connections. When you make a bitcoin transaction for the rent, the smart contract you and I agreed to automatically unlocks the house for you. You just go in using keys stored on your smartphone.”

A smart contract would also make it trivial to set up dates when those digital keys would automatically expire. It sounds a bit like Airbnb without the need for Airbnb.

And if you think about it, that’s the fundamental transformation smart contracts are after. A service like Airbnb is desirable because it obviates the need for the host and the guest to trust each otherthey both only need to trust Airbnb. If the guest doesn’t pay up, or the host doesn’t leave the keys, either of them can take it up with Airbnb.

Doing the same sublet with a smart contract would supplant a business model like Airbnb’s. The homeowner and renter still don’t need to trust each otherthey just need to trust the smart contract. Smart contracts would decentralize the model of who needs to be trusted. And in doing so, it would cut out hefty fees by brokering services like Airbnb.

But smart contracts don’t have to just disrupt existing business models. They can also complement them. Way back in his ’94 essay, Nick Szabo envisioned the idea of smart property writing that “smart property might be created by embedding smart contracts in physical objects.” His example of choice was a car loan, writing that if you miss a car payment, the smart contract could automatically revoke your digital keys to operate the car. No doubt car dealerships would find this appealing.

Admittedly, at some point it does start to sound like the makings of a dystopian sci-fi film. If you can’t make a payment all of a sudden your car could be digitally and remotely repossessed, all without any human interaction.

But in theory, the upside is that financial institutions should be more willing to take risks on people who might not otherwise get loans. Because, worst case scenario, if someone can’t pay up, it’s inconsequential for the bank to take back the asset in question.

In addition to expanding opportunities to get credit, smart contracts also have the potential to open up access to the legal system for disadvantaged people who might not otherwise be able to reap its benefits. Thomas believes that smart contracts “will make the legal system available to people who might not be able to afford it on their own.”

Although the law in theory treats everyone equally, you more often than not need money to take someone to court over a breach of contract.

“At present justice really only works if you can afford a lawyer to enforce that agreement. So once smart contracts have the ability to enforce agreements on their own it will be game-changing. ” says Ellis.

Of course it may not play out that cleanly in reality. While this all sounds good and noble in theory, it’s impossible to predict how a smart contract would hold up in court if it were ever challenged. Dethroning lawyers as the high priests of arbitrating contracts is certainly appealing. But do we run the risk of just replacing literacy in legalese with literacy in code?

Rapoport acknowledges that there may be drawbacks. “Everyone reads English, so in some ways it’s easier to read a traditional contract. But this is still very bleeding-edge technology, so who knows what kinds of user-facing improvements will be made eventually?”

Despite unforeseen pitfalls, the promise of smart contracts is clear. Right now we’re waiting to see if either Ethereum or Ripple’s Codius will be able to become usable and really take off.

“Right now there are lot of clever people working on this who are high on ideas because they can see the potential,” says Ellis “What we don’t know yet is who is going to win this raceRipple or Ethereum. It’s a bit like VHS vs. Betamax.”

Visit link:
What Are Smart Contracts? Cryptocurrency’s Killer App …

 Posted by at 11:45 am  Tagged with:

Nihilist | Define Nihilist at Dictionary.com

 Nihilism  Comments Off on Nihilist | Define Nihilist at Dictionary.com
Feb 122016
 

Historical Examples

A nihilist on a war footing would be considered Quaker-like in his symptoms.

I have already mentioned it as often given by a nihilist to one whom he believes may be one with him.

All the wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already raging in Russia in the forties.

Concerning the woman for whose sake he became a nihilist, he never spoke.

And by this I do not mean to compare the nihilist writers with licentious ones, nor to convey any stigma by my words.

This nihilist leader is a woman, and her name is Zara de Echeveria.

Mr. Smith has been arrested as a nihilist, and the morning papers will announce that he has started on his journey to Siberia.

“Saberevski knew me to be a nihilist, and warned me against it that day,” she said to me.

She knew how the nihilist societies all over the world were connected with each other.

British Dictionary definitions for nihilist Expand

a complete denial of all established authority and institutions

(philosophy) an extreme form of scepticism that systematically rejects all values, belief in existence, the possibility of communication, etc

a revolutionary doctrine of destruction for its own sake

the practice or promulgation of terrorism

Derived Forms

nihilist, noun, adjectivenihilistic, adjective

Word Origin

C19: from Latin nihil nothing + -ism, on the model of German Nihilismus

(in tsarist Russia) any of several revolutionary doctrines that upheld terrorism

Word Origin and History for nihilist Expand

1836 in the religious or philosophical sense, from French nihiliste, from Latin nihil (see nihilism). In the Russian political sense, it is recorded from 1871. Related: Nihilistic.

1817, “the doctrine of negation” (in reference to religion or morals), from German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil “nothing at all” (see nil), coined by German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819). In philosophy, an extreme form of skepticism (1836). The political sense was first used by German journalist Joseph von Grres (1776-1848). Turgenev used the Russian form of the word (nigilizm) in “Fathers and Children” (1862) and claimed to have invented it. With a capital N-, it refers to the Russian revolutionary anarchism of the period 1860-1917, supposedly so called because “nothing” that then existed found favor in their eyes.

nihilist in Medicine Expand

nihilism nihilism (n’-lz’m, n’-) n.

The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

nihilist in Culture Expand

An approach to philosophy that holds that human life is meaningless and that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are thoroughly empty and false. The term is from the Latin nihil, meaning nothing.

Read the original:

Nihilist | Define Nihilist at Dictionary.com

Nihilistic | definition of nihilistic by Medical dictionary

 Nihilism  Comments Off on Nihilistic | definition of nihilistic by Medical dictionary
Feb 122016
 

.

1. an attitude of skepticism regarding traditional values and beliefs or their frank rejection.

2. a delusion of nonexistence of part or all of the self or the world. adj., adj nihilistic.

1. In psychiatry, the delusion of the nonexistence of everything, especially of the self or part of the self.

2. Engagement in acts that are totally destructive to one’s own purposes and those of one’s group.

[L. nihil, nothing]

1. an attitude of skepticism regarding traditional values and beliefs or their frank rejection.

2. a delusion of nonexistence of part or all of the self or the world.nihilistic

1. Philosophy The doctrine that nothing actually exists or that existence or values are meaningless.

2. Relentless negativity or cynicism suggesting an absence of values or beliefs: nihilism in postwar art.

a. Political belief or action that advocates or commits violence or terrorism without discernible constructive goals.

b. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid-19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.

4. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

nihilist n.

nihilistic adj.

nihilistically adv.

1. psychiatry The delusion of the nonexistence of everything, especially of the self or part of the self.

2. Engagement in acts that are totally destructive to one’s own purposes and those of one’s group.

[L. nihil, nothing]

1. A psychotic delusion of one’s non-existence or of the non-existence of the world.

2. Extreme pessimism about the effectiveness of any form of medical treatment, especially of the use of drugs (therapeutic nihilism).

Link to this page: nihilism

Read more from the original source:

Nihilistic | definition of nihilistic by Medical dictionary

 Posted by at 6:44 am  Tagged with:

Rationalism – RationalWiki

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism – RationalWiki
Feb 022016
 

Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation.

From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most truth is deductive and a priori, deriving logically from a set of axioms gained by intuition or inherent knowledge (and not from studying the world around us empirically).[1] However, the term is not very often used so strictly, so this form of rationalism is generally known in English-speaking philosophy as continental rationalism, as its original proponents, such as Ren Descartes, were largely situated in continental Europe.[2]

The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one’s starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.

RationalWiki is devoted to this sort of rational analysis of empirical evidence to form conclusions; most RationalWiki editors are very skeptical of other ways of knowing.

The idea of being “rational” is distinct and broader than the philosophy of rationalism. To be “rational” is synonymous with a “sane” or “functional” way of thinking. If one is “rational,” then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

The opposite term, “irrational,” is used to signify someone who cannot or will not think clearly. If a thought or action is irrational, it signifies something that is not just incorrect, but perverse, insane, or beneath consideration.

Rationalism was first formulated in classical times by philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Many of the Socratic dialogues would use a conversational process to work out logical inconsistencies in ideas that were held by contemporaries to be “common sense,” such as the definition of “the good.” In this historical sense Rationalism was distinct and separate from Empiricism (see below), as these early Rationalists didn’t deem it necessary to use observation – in the modern use, Rationalists who would combine both the logical reasoning of Rationalism with the observational checks of Empiricism.

But at the time, virtually everyone even the great philosophers believed that various things were known by people inherently. Aside from a few schools of thought which suggested that nothing could ever be known as true (pyrrhonism), few thought to discard a priori beliefs and start from scratch with only that which was known to be true. Thus, at this point historical Rationalism closely resembled the way philosophers still define the philosophy.

The 16th century philosopher Descartes, however, attempted to create a whole philosophy through pure reason in his Discourse on Method and its succeeding works: he began with the only thing of which he thought he could be certain, that there was an “I” that was thinking – often rendered in the Latin of cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am.”). His process ushered in a new era in rationalism, concurrent with the greater Enlightenment. At that time the philosophy began to resemble modern empiricism more than its own ancient ancestor, especially during the era of Romanticism when Enlightenment ideas were challenged and sensory perception was given more of a hearing.

Loose use in the time since has led to the fuzzy state of the term today, particularly when combined with the similar but much broader notion of being rational.

Rationalism is a term of art in psychology referring to the school of thought that sees certain elements of cognition as innate. (For this reason, it is sometimes used synonymously with the terms “innatism” or “nativism.”) Rationalism in psychology is identified with the philosophical tradition of the same name. During the 20th century, Noam Chomsky became associated with rationalism due to his positing the concept of an innate “language acquisition device.”[3]

Rationalism, or “economic rationalism,” is also a term of art in economics. It is generally used today in Australia to refer to the local brand of neoliberal economic and political policy, though it was also used by scholars such as Max Weber in reference to the Protestant work ethic.[4]

Another straightforward conception of rationality is that an individual acts rationally if they act in the way that, on reflection, they believe best suits achievement of their aims. This conception, naturally, gives rise to the common conception when on reflection it is believed that the aim of truth can best be achieved through factual analysis and the scientific method.

This approach, however, is problematic, as it denies the existence of any sort of objective logic independent of human perception. Many, on reflection, believe that astrology, Scientology, homeopathy and other ridiculous nonsense best suits achievement of their aims. If these people are to be held to be irrational, a new criterion must be put in the place of on reflection. Usually the criterion is modified such that the rational person must reasonably believe they have a methodology to achieve their aims, leaving question of what it means to reasonably believe that a methodology will achieve certain aims.[5]

[6] Alvin Plantinga’s concept of rationalism neatly distinguishes reason from “raving madness” by conceiving of reason as “not raving mad”. Of course Plantinga has to give us a good idea of what is not “raving mad”, which he does with his concept of “proper function”. Just as a clock, functioning properly, is a reliable indicator of the time, human senses, functioning properly, are reliable indicators of the world. Acting in accordance with the proper function of our faculties is rational.

The problem of what constitutes function, and proper function at that, is more than a question of what our faculties do (a fast clock tells the incorrect time, but this is not its function). Both function and proper function have an element of what things should be doing. As should is a difficult concept to introduce in a mechanistic description of how things happen to be, Plantinga sources the “should”, the “purpose” of our faculties in a concept of God.

Critical rationalism ( Karl Popper) differentiates from the above conceptions of rationality by rejecting any positive content in reason. Reason, critical rationalism holds, does not provide ‘reasons’: it does not give positive recommendations about what beliefs should be held. Reason operates negatively, restricting the beliefs that can be held. It does this through criticism, subjecting pre-adopted beliefs to tests in an effort to refute them.

Read more here:

Rationalism – RationalWiki

 Posted by at 4:49 pm  Tagged with:

rationalism | Britannica.com

 Rationalism  Comments Off on rationalism | Britannica.com
Jan 202016
 

Rationalism,in Western philosophy, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to the rationalists, certain rational principlesespecially in logic and mathematics, and even in ethics and metaphysicsthat are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into contradiction. The rationalists confidence in reason and proof tends, therefore, to detract from their respect for other ways of knowing.

Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense experience. As against this doctrine, rationalism holds reason to be a faculty that can lay hold of truths beyond the reach of sense perception, both in certainty and generality. In stressing the existence of a natural light, rationalism has also been the rival of systems claiming esoteric knowledge, whether from mystical experience, revelation, or intuition, and has been opposed to various irrationalisms that tend to stress the biological, the emotional or volitional, the unconscious, or the existential at the expense of the rational.

Rationalism has somewhat different meanings in different fields, depending upon the kind of theory to which it is opposed.

In the psychology of perception, for example, rationalism is in a sense opposed to the genetic psychology of the Swiss scholar Jean Piaget (18961980), who, exploring the development of thought and behaviour in the infant, argued that the categories of the mind develop only through the infants experience in concourse with the world. Similarly, rationalism is opposed to transactionalism, a point of view in psychology according to which human perceptual skills are achievements, accomplished through actions performed in response to an active environment. On this view, the experimental claim is made that perception is conditioned by probability judgments formed on the basis of earlier actions performed in similar situations. As a corrective to these sweeping claims, the rationalist defends a nativism, which holds that certain perceptual and conceptual capacities are innateas suggested in the case of depth perception by experiments with the visual cliff, which, though platformed over with firm glass, the infant perceives as hazardousthough these native capacities may at times lie dormant until the appropriate conditions for their emergence arise.

Chomsky, NoamAPIn the comparative study of languages, a similar nativism was developed in the 1950s by the innovating syntactician Noam Chomsky, who, acknowledging a debt to Ren Descartes (15961650), explicitly accepted the rationalistic doctrine of innate ideas. Though the thousands of languages spoken in the world differ greatly in sounds and symbols, they sufficiently resemble each other in syntax to suggest that there is a schema of universal grammar determined by innate presettings in the human mind itself. These presettings, which have their basis in the brain, set the pattern for all experience, fix the rules for the formation of meaningful sentences, and explain why languages are readily translatable into one another. It should be added that what rationalists have held about innate ideas is not that some ideas are full-fledged at birth but only that the grasp of certain connections and self-evident principles, when it comes, is due to inborn powers of insight rather than to learning by experience.

Common to all forms of speculative rationalism is the belief that the world is a rationally ordered whole, the parts of which are linked by logical necessity and the structure of which is therefore intelligible. Thus, in metaphysics it is opposed to the view that reality is a disjointed aggregate of incoherent bits and is thus opaque to reason. In particular, it is opposed to the logical atomisms of such thinkers as David Hume (171176) and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein (18891951), who held that facts are so disconnected that any fact might well have been different from what it is without entailing a change in any other fact. Rationalists have differed, however, with regard to the closeness and completeness with which the facts are bound together. At the lowest level, they have all believed that the law of contradiction A and not-A cannot coexist holds for the real world, which means that every truth is consistent with every other; at the highest level, they have held that all facts go beyond consistency to a positive coherence; i.e., they are so bound up with each other that none could be different without all being different.

In the field where its claims are clearestin epistemology, or theory of knowledgerationalism holds that at least some human knowledge is gained through a priori (prior to experience), or rational, insight as distinct from sense experience, which too often provides a confused and merely tentative approach. In the debate between empiricism and rationalism, empiricists hold the simpler and more sweeping position, the Humean claim that all knowledge of fact stems from perception. Rationalists, on the contrary, urge that some, though not all, knowledge arises through direct apprehension by the intellect. What the intellectual faculty apprehends is objects that transcend sense experienceuniversals and their relations. A universal is an abstraction, a characteristic that may reappear in various instances: the number three, for example, or the triangularity that all triangles have in common. Though these cannot be seen, heard, or felt, rationalists point out that humans can plainly think about them and about their relations. This kind of knowledge, which includes the whole of logic and mathematics as well as fragmentary insights in many other fields, is, in the rationalist view, the most important and certain knowledge that the mind can achieve. Such a priori knowledge is both necessary (i.e., it cannot be conceived as otherwise) and universal, in the sense that it admits of no exceptions. In the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (17241804), epistemological rationalism finds expression in the claim that the mind imposes its own inherent categories or forms upon incipient experience (see below Epistemological rationalism in modern philosophies).

In ethics, rationalism holds the position that reason, rather than feeling, custom, or authority, is the ultimate court of appeal in judging good and bad, right and wrong. Among major thinkers, the most notable representative of rational ethics is Kant, who held that the way to judge an act is to check its self-consistency as apprehended by the intellect: to note, first, what it is essentially, or in principlea lie, for example, or a theftand then to ask if one can consistently will that the principle be made universal. Is theft, then, right? The answer must be No, because, if theft were generally approved, peoples property would not be their own as opposed to anyone elses, and theft would then become meaningless; the notion, if universalized, would thus destroy itself, as reason by itself is sufficient to show.

In religion, rationalism commonly means that all human knowledge comes through the use of natural faculties, without the aid of supernatural revelation. Reason is here used in a broader sense, referring to human cognitive powers generally, as opposed to supernatural grace or faiththough it is also in sharp contrast to so-called existential approaches to truth. Reason, for the rationalist, thus stands opposed to many of the religions of the world, including Christianity, which have held that the divine has revealed itself through inspired persons or writings and which have required, at times, that its claims be accepted as infallible, even when they do not accord with natural knowledge. Religious rationalists hold, on the other hand, that if the clear insights of human reason must be set aside in favour of alleged revelation, then human thought is everywhere rendered suspecteven in the reasonings of the theologians themselves. There cannot be two ultimately different ways of warranting truth, they assert; hence rationalism urges that reason, with its standard of consistency, must be the final court of appeal. Religious rationalism can reflect either a traditional piety, when endeavouring to display the alleged sweet reasonableness of religion, or an antiauthoritarian temper, when aiming to supplant religion with the goddess of reason.

Read more here:

rationalism | Britannica.com

 Posted by at 10:44 am  Tagged with:

Rationalism – New World Encyclopedia

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism – New World Encyclopedia
Jan 202016
 

Rationalism is a broad family of positions in epistemology. Perhaps the best general description of rationalism is the view that there are some distinctive aspects or faculties of the mind that (1) are distinct from passive aspects of the mind such as sense-perceptions and (2) someway or other constitute a special source (perhaps only a partial source) of knowledge. These distinctive aspects are typically associated or identified with human abilities to engage in mathematics and abstract reasoning, and the knowledge they provide is often seen as of a type that could not have come from other sources. Philosophers who resist rationalism are usually grouped under the heading of empiricists, who are often allied under the claim that all human knowledge comes from experience.

The debate around which the rationalism/empiricism distinction revolves is one of the oldest and most continuous in philosophy. Some of Plato’s most explicit arguments address the topic and it was arguably the central concern of many of the Modern thinkers. Indeed, Kant’s principal works were concerned with “pure” faculties of reason. Contemporary philosophers have advanced and refined the issue, though there are current thinkers who align themselves with either side of the tradition.

It is difficult to identify a major figure in the history to whom some rationalist doctrine has not been attributed at some point. One reason for this is that there is no question that humans possess some sort of reasoning ability that allows them to come to know some facts they otherwise wouldn’t (for instance, mathematical facts), and every philosopher has had to acknowledge this fact. Another reason is that the very business of philosophy is to achieve knowledge by using the rational faculties, in contrast to, for instance, mystical approaches to knowledge. Nevertheless, some philosophical figures stand out as attributing even greater significance to reasoning abilities. Three are discussed here: Plato, Descartes, and Kant.

The most famous metaphysical doctrine of the great Greek philosopher Plato is his doctrine of “Forms,” as espoused in The Republic and other dialogues. The Forms are described as being outside of the world as experience by the senses, but as somehow constituting the metaphysical basis of the world. Exactly how they fulfill this function is generally only gestured at through analogies, though the Timaeus describes the Forms as operating as blueprints for the craftsman of the universe.

The distinctiveness of Plato’s rationalism lies in another aspect of his theory of Forms. Though the common sense position is that the senses are one’s best means of getting in touch with reality, Plato held that human reasoning ability was the one thing that allowed people to approach the Forms, the most fundamental aspects of reality. It is worth pausing to reflect on how radical this idea is: On such a view, philosophical attempts to understand the nature of “good” or “just” are not mere analyses of concepts formed, but rather explorations of eternal things that are responsible for shaping the reality of the sensory world.

The French philosopher Ren Descartes, whose Meditations on First Philosophy defined the course of much philosophy from then up till the present day, stood near the beginning of the Western European Enlightenment. Impressed by the power of mathematics and the development of the new science, Descartes was confronted with two questions: How was it that people were coming to attain such deep knowledge of the workings of the universe, and how was it that they had spent so long not doing so?

Regarding the latter question, Descartes concluded that people had been mislead by putting too much faith in the testimony of their senses. In particular, he thought such a mistake was behind the then-dominant physics of Aristotle. Aristotle and the later Scholastics, in Descartes’ mind, had used their reasoning abilities well enough on the basis of what their senses told them. The problem was that they had chosen the wrong starting point for their inquiries.

By contrast, the advancements in the new science (some of which Descartes could claim for himself) were based in a very different starting point: The “pure light of reason.” In Descartes’ view, God had equipped humans with a faculty that was able to understand the fundamental essence of the two types of substance that made up the world: Intellectual substance (of which minds are instances) and physical substance (matter). Not only did God give people such a faculty, Descartes claimed, but he made them such that, when using the faculty, they are unable to question its deliverances. Not only that, but God left humanity the means to conclude that the faculty was a gift from a non-deceptive omnipotent creator.

In some respects, the German philosophy Immanuel Kant is the paradigm of an anti-rationalist philosopher. A major portion of his central work, the 1781 Critique of Pure Reason, is specifically devoted to attacking rationalist claims to have insight through reason alone into the nature of the soul, the spatiotemporal/causal structure of the universe, and the existence of God. Plato and Descartes are among his most obvious targets.

For instance, in his evaluation of rationalist claims concerning the nature of the soul (the chapter of the Critique entitled “The Paralogisms of Pure Reason”), Kant attempts to diagnose how a philosopher like Descartes could have been tempted into thinking that he could accomplish deep insight into his own nature by thought alone. One of Descartes’ conclusions was that his mind, unlike his body, was utterly simple and so lacked parts. Kant claimed that Descartes mistook a simple experience (the thought, “I think”) for an experience of simplicity. In other words, he saw Descartes as introspecting, being unable to find any divisions within himself, and thereby concluding that he lacked any such divisions and so was simple. But the reason he was unable to find divisions, in Kant’s view, was that by mere thought alone we are unable to find anything.

At the same time, however, Kant was an uncompromising advocate of some key rationalist intuitions. Confronted with the Scottish philosopher David Hume’s claim that the concept of “cause” was merely one of the constant conjunction of resembling entities, Kant insisted that all Hume really accomplished was in proving that the concept of causation could not possibly have its origin in human senses. What the senses cannot provide, Kant claimed, is any notion of necessity, yet a crucial part of our concept of causation is that it is the necessary connection of two entities or events. Kant’s conclusion was that this concept, and others like it, must be a precondition of sensory experience itself.

In his moral philosophy (most famously expounded in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals), Kant made an even more original claim on behalf of reason. The sensory world, in his view, was merely ideal, in that the spatiotemporal/sensory features of the objects people experience have their being only in humanity’s representations, and so are not features of the objects in themselves. But this means that most everyday concepts are simply inadequate for forming any notion whatsoever of what the world is like apart from our subjective features. By contrast, Kant claimed that there was no parallel reason for thinking that objects in themselves (which include our soul) do not conform to the most basic concepts of our higher faculties. So while those faculties are unable to provide any sort of direct, reliable access to the basic features of reality as envisioned by Plato and Descartes, they and they alone give one the means to at least contemplate what true reality might be like.

In the early part of the twentieth century, a philosophical movement known as Logical Positivism set the ground for a new debate over rationalism. The positivists (whose ranks included Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap) claimed that the only meaningful claims were those that could potentially be verified by some set of experiential observations. Their aim was to do away with intellectual traditions that they saw as simply vacuous, including theology and the majority of philosophy, in contrast with science.

As it turned out, the Positivists were unable to explain how all scientific claims were verifiable by experience, thus losing their key motivation (for instance, no set of experiences could verify that all stars are hot, since no set of experiential observations could itself confirm that one had observed all the stars). Nevertheless, their vision retained enough force that later philosophers felt hard-pressed to explain what, if anything, was epistemically distinctive about the non-sensory faculties. One recent defense of rationalism can be found in the work of contemporary philosophers such as Laurence Bonjour (the recent developments of the position are, in general, too subtle to be adequately addressed here). Yet the charge was also met by a number of thinkers working in areas as closely related to psychology as to philosophy.

A number of thinkers have argued for something like Kant’s view that people have concepts independently of experience. Indeed, the groundbreaking work of the linguist Noam Chomsky (which he occasionally tied to Descartes) is largely based on the assumption that there is a “universal grammar”that is, some basic set of linguistic categories and abilities that necessarily underlie all human languages. One task of linguistics, in Chomsky’s view, is to look at a diversity of languages in order to determine what the innate linguistic categories and capacities are.

A similar proposal concerning human beliefs about mentality itself has been advanced by Peter Carruthers. One intuitive view is that each of us comes to attribute mental states to other people only after a long developmental process where people learn to associate observable phenomena with their own mental states, and thereby with others. Yet, Carruthers argues, this view simply cannot account for the speed and complexity of humans’ understanding of others’ psychology at very early ages. The only explanation is that some understanding of mentality is “hard-wired” in the human brain.

All links retrieved June 25, 2015.

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

See more here:

Rationalism – New World Encyclopedia

Theory of Knowledge Rationalism

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Theory of Knowledge Rationalism
Jan 182016
 

Rationalism holds, in contrast to empiricism, that it is reason, not experience, that is most important for our acquisition of knowledge. There are three distinct types of knowledge that the rationalist might put forward as supporting his view and undermining that of the empiricist.

First, the rationalist might argue that we possess at least some innate knowledge. We are not born, as the empiricist John Locke thought, with minds like blanks slates onto which experience writes items of knowledge. Rather, even before we experience the world there are some things that we know. We at least possess some basic instincts; arguably, we also possess some innate concepts, such as a faculty for language.

Second, the rationalist might argue that there are some truths that, though not known innately, can be worked out independent of experience of the world. These might be truths of logic or mathematics, or ethical truths. We can know the law of the excluded middle, answers to sums, and the difference between right and wrong, without having to base that knowledge in experience.

Third, the rationalist might argue that there are some truths that, though grounded in part in experience, cannot be derived from experience alone. Aesthetic truths, and truths about causation, for instance, seem to many to be of this kind. Two people may observe the same object, yet reach contradictory views as to its beauty or ugliness. This shows that aesthetic qualities are not presented to us by our senses, but rather are overlaid onto experience by reason. Similarly, we do not observe causation, we merely see one event followed by another; it is the mind, not the world, that provides us with the idea that the former event causes the latter.

Go here to read the rest:

Theory of Knowledge Rationalism

Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …
Jan 182016
 

Rationalism in politics is often seen as the midpoint in the three major political viewpoints of realism, rationalism, and internationalism. Whereas Realism and Internationalism are both on ends of the scale, rationalism tends to occupy the middle ground on most issues, and finds compromise between these two conflicting points of view.

Believers of Rationalism believe that multinational and multilateral organizations have their place in the world order, but not that a world government would be feasible. They point to current international organizations, most notably the United Nations, and point out that these organizations leave a lot to be desired and, in some cases, do more harm than good. They believe that this can be achieved through greater international law making procedures and that the use of force can be avoided in resolving disputes.[1]

Rationalists tend to see the rule of law and order as being equally important to states as it helps reduce conflicts. This in turn helps states become more willing to negotiate treaties and agreements where it best suits their interests. However, they see it as wrong for a nation to promote its own national interests, reminiscent of Internationalism, but that there is already a high level of order in the international system without a world government.[1]

Rationalists believe that states have a right to sovereignty, particularly over territory, but that this sovereignty can be violated in exceptional circumstances, such as human rights violations.

In situations such as that of Burma after Cyclone Nargis, rationalists find it acceptable for other states to violate that country’s sovereignty in order to help its people. This would be where an organisation such as the United Nations would come in and decide whether the situation is exceptional enough to warrant a violation of that state’s sovereignty.[1]

Realists believe that states act independently of each other and that states’ sovereignty is effectively sacred. Rationalists agree to a certain extent. However, as stated previously, rationalism includes sovereignty as a vital factor, but not as untouchable and ‘sacred’.

Realists also hold the Treaty of Westphalia and the international system that arose from this as the international system that prevails to this day. Rationalists acknowledge that the treaty has played an important part in shaping international relations and the world order and that certain aspects, such as sovereignty, still exist and play a vital role, but not that it has survived in its entirety. They believe that through the existence of international organisations, such as the European Union and the United Nations, the international system is less anarchic than Realists claim.[2]

Internationalists believe in a world order where an effective world government would govern the world, that sovereignty is an outdated concept and barrier to creating peace, the need for a common humanity and the need for cooperative solutions. Rationalists adhere to these beliefs to some extent. For example, with regards to the need for a common humanity and cooperative solutions, rationalists see this as being achieved without the need to abolish sovereignty and the Westphalian concept of the nation-state. The current system is seen as the example of this, as nation-states still hold their sovereignty and yet international organisations exist that potentially have the power to violate it, for the need to create peace, law and order.[1]

It is believed that the proposals for reform of the United Nations come from rationalist thoughts and points of view. This belief is held because most members of the UN agree that the UN requires reform, in the way of expanding or abolishing the Security Council and granting it more powers to violate sovereignty if necessary.[1]

Some figures who consider themselves as ‘rationalist’ include:

Read more:

Rationalism (international relations) – Wikipedia, the …

What is the Illuminati conspiracy? – GotQuestions.org

 Illuminati  Comments Off on What is the Illuminati conspiracy? – GotQuestions.org
Oct 272015
 

Question: “What is the Illuminati conspiracy?”

Answer:

If one were to attempt to summarize the Illuminati conspiracy, it would go something like this: The Illuminati began as a secret society under the direction of Jesuit priests. Later, a council of five men, one for each of the points on the pentagram, formed what was called The Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria. They were high order Luciferian Freemasons, thoroughly immersed in mysticism and Eastern mental disciplines, seeking to develop the super powers of the mind. Their alleged plan and purpose is world domination for their lord (who precisely this lord is varies widely). The Illuminati are alleged to be the primary motivational forces encouraging global governance, a one-world religious ethic, and centralized control of the worlds economic systems. Organizations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Criminal Court are seen as tentacles of the Illuminati. According to the Illuminati conspiracy, the Illuminati are the driving force behind efforts to brainwash the gullible masses through thought control and manipulation of beliefs, through the press, the educational curriculum, and the political leadership of the nations.

The Illuminati supposedly have a private board of elite, interlocking delegates who control the worlds major banks. They create inflations, recessions, and depressions and manipulate the world markets, supporting certain leaders and coups and undermining others to achieve their overall goals. The supposed goal behind the Illuminati conspiracy is to create and then manage crises that will eventually convince the masses that globalism, with its centralized economic control and one-world religious ethic, is the necessary solution to the worlds woes. This structure, usually known as the New World Order, will, of course, be ruled by the Illuminati.

Does the Illuminati conspiracy have any basis from a Christian/biblical perspective? Perhaps. There are many end-times prophecies in the Bible that are interpreted by most to point to an end times one-world government, a one-world monetary system, and a one-world religion. Many Bible prophecy interpreters see this New World Order as being controlled by the Antichrist, the end-times false messiah. If the Illuminati conspiracy and the New World Order has any validity and is indeed occurring, for the Christian, there is one fact that must be remembered: God has sovereignly allowed all these developments, and they are not outside of His overall plan. God is in control, not the Illuminati. No plan or scheme the Illuminati develop could in any way prevent, or even hinder, God’s sovereign plan for the world.

If there is indeed some truth to the Illuminati conspiracy, the Illuminati are nothing but pawns in the hands of Satan, tools to be manipulated in his conflict with God. The fate of the Illuminati will be the same as the fate of their lord, Satan/Lucifer, who will be cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented day and night, forever and ever (Revelation 20:10). In John 16:33 Jesus declared, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” For Christians, all we need to understand about the Illuminati conspiracy is summarized in the words of 1 John 4:4, “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”

.

Go here to see the original:
What is the Illuminati conspiracy? – GotQuestions.org

Transhuman Singularity

 Transhuman  Comments Off on Transhuman Singularity
Oct 262015
 

A list of links to my science fiction short stories:

I am a Hummingbird After my body died the surgeons put me in a hummingbird. It took a while to get use to having my perspective darting around so quickly, but my mind had finally adapted to it.

Sneeze! A few days Mr. Anderson. Don’t worry, it’s a positive virus, I’m origin zero. Then you’ll be one of us, welcome to the new global hivemind, we-I always choose well. It will be unlike anything you have ever experienced or imagined. Expect a mental call, anything will be possible, said Kay, a future echo … Kay Noble replied, then collected the documents, velvet and all, and left the room without a further word.

Muffy the Time Traveling Chihuahua Muffy was a loyal pack dog on the locally collapsed time-day of his death, which varied in fractal quantum probability across a multitude of bifurcated futures or space-time universes.

Lunch 2032 Her IQ was probably skyrocket norm. It seems the gene engineers had given her both great brains and beauty. She wanted to be a Terraforming Research Scientist, but on Earth she would have to settle for other work. Her parents had lost most of their money in a wild Marsearth start-up investment, so she had to work her way through the university, no one would give a genmod scholarship. It was just plain and simple prejudice.

Virtuality Zane Pax hid behind a large bolder as the black alien warship flew overhead. NaHan had swarmed the cities of the world laying waste to human civilization. Humanity was on the endangered species list, on our way out for good.

The Alien Time-Traveler Historian Mathew answers, Variations of me exist in most all future branches. Thats really rare, and thats why Im allowed to speak to you. To help you understand. You see, those that are still basically human in the future have great compassion. They want to help reduce the suffering. Im here on their behalf to try and influence things.

The Galactic Culture Finally, in order to survive the approaching technological singularity and remove their aggressive and self-destructive evolved behaviors, pre-type 1 species sometimes begin an extensive program of self-initiated genetic re-engineering and intelligence amplification (usually proceeded by development of a global computing system -Internet). Sometimes this is successful, other times not.

Lunar CityOutward space exploration and expansion grew at a rapid pace, due to the privatization of all space exploration and its subsequent exploitation. Corporations headed by forward thinking executives now controlled access to space. Spaceports have sprouted up all over the world, giving average citizens access to affordable space travel. Now space stations, moon bases and asteroid factories, which provided most of the raw materials, have become independent space communities. Distant science outposts have been constructed on the outer planets and moons. The solar system has become the playground of humanity.

VR Prototype Jason Chen bent over in his subway seat to pick up a rarely seen plastic penny he spotted face-up on the train floor. A penny existed today only to make exact change for those who still stubbornly used physical money. He didnt understand why, but somehow its continued existence was comforting for some. Angling the lucky coin in his fingers to see the three-dimensional head of Abraham Lincoln, he noted the year on the coin was 2053, the year of his birth.

Dr. Xanoplatu Dr. Xanoplatu, an alien anthropologist, historian, and time traveler, materialized on stage wearing the body of his ancestors, a giant green Praying Mantis with large yellow eyes and small black pupils. He was speaking at a galactic cultural lecture, inside a de-localized spherical space station, somewhere and some when in a multi-versed space-time reality.

Virtuality Mind Marcus replies, Yes, you can assume Im crazy. But, Im just communicating to you through this mans body. For a short period of time, I can do this, without his knowing it. When I leave and his consciousness re-awakens, this memory will seem like a daydream to him.

Resurrection Birth Jason awoke to a static humming sound.It was so annoying, grating on his nerves more than a badly tuned alarm clock.He lifted his heavy eyelids to blinding light, and out of focus images.His vision slowly cleared and he realized he was inside a plastic coffin thing.

See more here:
Transhuman Singularity

 Posted by at 1:41 am  Tagged with:

Illuminati Exposed!

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati Exposed!
Oct 032015
 

illuminati order exposed

See the illuminati order and symbols exposed. See videos that expose the illuminati. These videos expose the Illuminati Order and Illuminati Freemasonry. Listen to audios that expose the illuminati. Read books that expose the illuminati. Listen to MP3s that expose the illuminati. Other items for sale Items for sale that expose the Illuminati Conspiracy.

Please click here to see more on the illuminati on our new website: http://www.vaticancatholic.com

We have many DVDs that expose the evils of the illuminati order and Freemasonry. Some of the titles that will expose the illuminati order and Freemasonry are:

illuminati order exposed DVD#1) Abortion, Rock Music, and Freemasonry Exposed

illuminati order exposed DVD#2) The Communist and Freemasonic Infiltration of America and the World

illuminati order exposed DVD#3) Freemasonrys Vast Influence Over America

illuminati order exposed DVD#4) Current Freemasonic Enemies of America and the World

See these DVDs and the Illuminati Order and different symbols exposed: WATCH OUR DVDS THAT EXPOSE THE ILLUMINATI ONLINE FOR FREE

In these videos which expose the illuminati order and illuminati freemasonry, you will see the best videos available exposing the Illuminati order and illuminati Freemasonry.

WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE (the most important videos online about what happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, the illuminati order exposed, striking exorcisms, exposs of illuminati freemasonry exposed, the illuminati conspiracy exposed, etc.)

Sitemap

http://www.vaticancatholic.com

Read this article:
Illuminati Exposed!

 Posted by at 10:43 pm  Tagged with:

A Comprehensive Guide to the Illuminati, the Conspiracy …

 Illuminati  Comments Off on A Comprehensive Guide to the Illuminati, the Conspiracy …
Aug 262015
 

Why did Jay-Z and Beyonc name their kid “Blue Ivy”? What was the deal with Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show? Why did Whitney Houston die? Some people might say that “famous people are weird and sad” is the answer to all three questions. But no, the answer is: The Illuminati. Who? Allow us to explain.

Note: to best service our readers, we’ve divided this guide into two sections first, the believer’s guide; second, the skeptic’s guide.

What is the Illuminati? The Illuminati is an ancient and shadowy group of elites who control nearly every aspect of life on this planet from finance and government to religion and culture.

Who is in the Illuminati? The Illuminati is made up of the world’s political and financial elite, and also, rappers. Theoretically, membership rolls are kept secret, but most YouTube intellectuals agree that the following people are members:

What do the Illuminati do? Oh, you know, conspiracy stuff. Assassinations, currency manipulation, Super Bowl halftime shows. All executed through puppet institutions and groups like the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Freemasons, and Def Jam Recordings. And all carefully controlled and hidden to ensure that their meddling in world affairs will remain secret.

This is sounding more plausible by the minute. What’s the end goal of the Illuminati? The end goal of the Illuminati is to establish a one-world authoritarian government known as the New World Order.

…and then? Here, theories differ. Some of the internet’s finest minds, writing on scholarly websites like Yahoo Answers, believe that forced conversion to homosexuality will be a top agenda item in the New World Order. Others claim the first order of business will be to round all non-Illuminati up into FEMA camps, possibly as part of a deal struck with aliens in Roswell. Many, if not most, experts believe that the New World Order will be a front for the rise of the Antichrist.

The Antichrist? Yes. The Illuminati is made up of Satanists.

Even the Pope? I can see how it’s confusing. The Pope is actually a Satanist, just like Jay-Z and the Queen of England. (He might even be the Antichrist.) In fact, the whole Catholic church is just a continuation of Babylonian paganism, didn’t you know? They keep demons trapped inside the Pentagon, which is why it’s, you know, pentagonal.

Okay. How can I tell who’s in the Illuminati? I know this sounds counterintuitive, but prominent Illuminati members frequently flag their Illuminati connections. Like how in Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” video, there’s that goat head-shaped star formation? Or have you ever seen Jay-Z’s video for “On to the Next One”? It has a goat skull in it. Goats, bro.

Goat heads are an Illuminati symbol? Goat heads represents Baphomet, the goat-headed god beloved by 19th-century occultists. It’s not the only weird occult reference in “On to the Next One.” The creepy guy with the crow, Jay throwing devil horns, the, uh, actual Masonic symbol all of Hov’s (that’s right: Hov) videos are filled with Illuminati and occult symbolism. So are Lady Gaga’s: that pink triangle and unicorn that you thought was some campy gay reference? Actually symbols of the immaculate conception of a new order of humanity. So are Kanye’s videos, especially “Power.”

But how will the Illuminati possibly pull off their plan for secret world domination if they’re constantly advertising their own existence? Hey! Did I tell you about Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show?

Ooh, no, tell me. It was obviously a Satantic ritual. The color scheme was red and black. She had horns on her helmet. The show happened within 48 hours of the full moon. Her male dancers formed a pyramid, a Masonic symbol. It ended with the phrase “World Peace” as in, “New World Order Peace.” And LMFAO was there.

LMFAO is Illuminati? Can you think of any other reason for their success?

But why would the Illuminati hold a Satanic ritual during the biggest television even of the year? To celebrate the upcoming assassination of Whitney Houston.

The Illuminati killed Whitney Houston? But… why? For two reasons: one, to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth, and two, to make room in the Illuminati for Blue Ivy Carter.

Who else have the Illuminati killed? Oh, you name it J.F.K., 2Pac, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson. Heath Ledger’s death was a ritualistic sacrifice. Aaliyah was killed by Dame Dash so he could become famous.

Wow. That makes sense. I know. And there’s stuff we haven’t even covered!

There’s stuff we haven’t covered? Just a couple, things, like the Bilderberg Group, reptoids, clockwork elves, the Greys, the Rosicrucians, the Knights Templar, and Planet X.

I really feel like I’ve learned a lot from this guide. Where can I learn more about the Illuminati? I highly recommend reading the very factual Behold a Pale Horse and The Biggest Secret but you can also find a lot of information on such rigorous and learned websites as Godlike Productions, Vigilant Citizen, Above Top Secret and Prison Planet, the website of Austin radio host Alex Jones. Finally, of course, a great deal of important information is distributed on Twitter, YouTube, and Yahoo Answers.

What is the Illuminati? A defunct German secret society of freethinkers, humanists and Enlightenment academics, founded in 1776 and infiltrated and shut down by Bavarian authorities about a decade later.

There hasn’t been an Illuminati in 200 years? Well, it’s been in use as a conspiracy theory ever since it was first founded, mostly by monarchists, right-wingers, and religious Christians looking for explanations as to why things aren’t going their way.

So who believes in the Illuminati? Generally speaking, Ron Paul voters, people who are in militias, washed-up rappers, teenage R&B fans on Twitter, and that one guy from high school who is always posting links to Erowid “experiences” to Facebook.

That’s kind of a broad range of people, isn’t it? Yeah. Weird, huh?

I don’t get it. If it’s this right-wing Christian conspiracy, how do rappers start believing in it? That’s kind of the million-dollar question. Columbia professor Marc Lamont Hill says that conspiracy theories are a natural response by African-Americans to their disenfranchisement: “There have always been questions and conspiracies about the structure and nature of power by African-Americans, and naturally those questions have made their way into hip-hop,” he told the Philadelphia Weekly in 2010. “[In the 1990s] people were going to black book stores… and buying books like Behold a Pale Horse… They were talking about the Illuminati and the Rothschilds and Bilderbergs.”

So Alex Jones and Prodigy were reading the same fucked-up conspiracy books? That’s wild, man. Dude, Prodigy is going to to vote for Ron Paul.

This is pretty nuts. Can I read more about it somewhere? Yeah here’s a good Philadelphia Weekly story about the rap Illuminati phenomenon. Here’s a Slate column about pop music and Illuminati. Here’s an XXL timeline of Illuminati references in rap music. The New Yorker has a really awesome long article about conspiracy theories in America from 1995, but it’s subscriber only. Animal has been tracking the Illuminati for years. And this was my favorite book when I was in high school, though it’s unfortunately out of print. Oh, and dude, you have to read Foucault’s Pendulum. And the Illuminatus! trilogy!

Yo, while we’re here, can we talk about reptoids? No.

[illustration by Jim Cooke; secret Masonic handshake to Animal’s Bucky Turco.]

Read this article:
A Comprehensive Guide to the Illuminati, the Conspiracy …

 Posted by at 12:42 am  Tagged with:

Urban Dictionary: Illuminati

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Urban Dictionary: Illuminati
Aug 232015
 

the Illuminati is a secret orginazation of the most powerful and influential elite in the world.They go back for centuries and maintain the same bloodlines.They set up the council on forign relations,the bilderberg group and the tri-laterial commission.those 3 groups all meet to plan the fate of the world.They consists of international bankers,top government officials,leaders in the energy cartel and media monopoly owners and have control over the U.N. and unesco.their subdivisions reach into everyones daily life without most sheeple even being aware of it. They also have ties to the freemasons,skull and bones, and the knights templar.their ultimate goal is for a one world government which they will control,also a one world currency,and they want control and ownership of all land,property,resources and people.Also they manipulate political parties,and the legal and illigal drug trade and federal agencies related to all matters listed above.

rockefeller foundation,ford foundation, carlysle group,J.P.Morgan,oppenhiemer,kuhn leub,federal reserve system and many others involved. check out bloodlines of the illuminati and new world order

The Bastards who killed Michael Jackson to prevent him from Revealing the truth about the New World Order on July 8th,2009 during his concerts.

The Illuminati has also killed Tupac, Bob Marley, and John Lennon.

Elite masters of deception who want to control your mind, soul, and your body, and rule the entire world.

“Illuminati want my mind, soul, and my body. Secret society, tryin to keep they eye on me.” – LL Cool J

Something ignorant people deny exists.

conspiracyarchive.com is a great website where you can find out more about the illuminati.

If you don’t have a girlfriend, don’t have a real job, spend at least 90% of your waking life in front of a monitor at least one hundred times your dick length, and run a blog.

Man 1: “The first black President in history has just entered the White House.” Man 2: “”HE’S NOT BLACK! THAT’S WHAT THE ILLUMINATI _WANT_ YOU TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!”

a product of human fear based dellusion. A theory for those that need somthing to blame for the state of the world rather than admit it be the simple result of centuries of human stupidity.

“oh no, it cant can’t possibly be that human habits force us to blame anyone but ourselves for everything that is bad in the world,.. there must be a big, bad, mean organisation conspiring to fuck things up for us. Lets call it ‘the illuminati'”

The rulers of this realm and many others like it. They are completely unseen, highly influential and possibly dangerous. Their ultimate prime directive: To reduce the surface population as much as possible so that control of the entire world can be easily administered and consolidated into one government. All this will be done through fear, over consumption, death from unnatural causes, man made (Hurricane Katrina) natural disasters, famine, Economic Disorder,Civil and Domestic Disorder, International Disorder,and ceaseless war.

War On Terrorism- 6,000,000,000.00

Hurricane Katrina- 100,000,000,000.00

Milk- $5.65

Getting Drafted For World War 3 because of Illuminati Prime Directive- Priceless

Continue reading here:
Urban Dictionary: Illuminati




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution