|
| Thread: Utopia and the End of History |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 25, 2009 11:10 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:13, 25 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
Angelito, is it okay when I call that NONSENSE?
Yeah, and AI is nonsense as well. What do YOU know about this? How can you call it nonsense when you don't even know what I was talking about. In fact, of course i was using my definition of utopia, and a 'server farm' of computers is very close to that. They just need to process an AI algorithm instead of a database service like most do (this can be done and IS done for neural-network services available online (cost money though), which use those server farm).
Stop saying "that is nonsense" on things you have absolutely no idea about.
Of course, you may have a different definition of Utopia, but i was talking about it, so I used my definition (which I explained in this thread before, I think). Therefore you can't say what I say is nonsense just because I use a different definition of something that's not even in the dictionary detailed.
This is the dictionary definition if you're interested (from dictionary.com):
an ideal place or state
any visionary system of political or social perfection
doesn't seem to be a road.
Quote:
I knew you would eventually come around to my point of view: Remember what I said? Utopia IS when ALL people strive for one or more goals whatever those goals may be. Utopia is NOT the goal - utopia is the road to it.
See above. Of course you may use a different definition, but you cannot possibly dare to call my definition flawed or nonsensical when it is closer to the dictionary definition than yours.
Quote:
Here's a somewhat related question: what, in your opinion, is the end goal of efficiency? I mean, we become more and more efficient, don't eat, don't have sex, don't sleep... What, then, do we do?
Stuff with higher purpose. Develop insights, more knowledge, art, even play games (but not worthless games, but those which do something: improve your dexterity, your knowledge (yes indeed many games/movies teach you A LOT of things, even if just "cliches", they are considered art, culture sometimes, or just mental challenge (like e.g: chess) which improves yourself, puzzles, etc... all games entertainment is a mental effect anyway).
Yes these things are a lot higher and if we want to climb the ladder of evolution it's what we'll need to do. After all, it's something we have over animals -- this means that it is something that evolution gave us and considered it 'more evolved'. So I say we encourage it until the other ones fade away. (of course again, it's also the right-hemisphere so we'll also be loving and responsible creatures, not just rational without any backup).
There is always room for "improvement". While it is undeniable that we already are far higher than animals (mentally speaking), it doesn't mean that we can't go further. For example, a guy who drinks a bottle of beer per week is a lot more 'improved' than someone who drinks everyday. But it doesn't mean it can't be better -- aka no drinking at all.
In fact, since I cannot predict as we are not there yet, I have no idea what will "follow" that stage (i.e what's the next 'step'), but how can we find out if we don't even get into THAT stage? That's like trying to climb a ladder and trying to skip steps -- you'll fall. I don't know what will be next after that, but I do know that we'll never find out unless we take one step at a time and not stagnate.
On the other hand, what do you suggest? That we stagnate with the things nature has given us? That we never evolve past this point?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Stuff with higher purpose. Develop insights, more knowledge, art, even play games (but not worthless games, but those which do something: improve your dexterity, your knowledge (yes indeed many games/movies teach you A LOT of things, even if just "cliches", they are considered art, culture sometimes, or just mental challenge (like e.g: chess) which improves yourself, puzzles, etc... all games entertainment is a mental effect anyway).
But doesn't all of this just increase efficiency?
Quote:
On the other hand, what do you suggest?
Similar to what you suggest, but with a different goal in mind - pleasure. As consumerism and stoners show, pleasure is fleeting if obtained directly. This is why it has to be produced in a roundabout manner - in the ways that you are suggesting.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But doesn't all of this just increase efficiency?
Efficiency for what? Of course, if there are alternative more efficient methods of doing it, then I would choose it (i.e wasting less energy), why not?
Quote:
Similar to what you suggest, but with a different goal in mind - pleasure. As consumerism and stoners show, pleasure is fleeting if obtained directly. This is why it has to be produced in a roundabout manner - in the ways that you are suggesting.
Let me put this again. Evolution gave us the ability to pursue different goals than animals (and not less 'efficient' at that, in fact MORE efficient because we don't waste it on pleasure). It means that evolution thinks that such ability is "the next step". Therefore, whatever we do, choosing the same old goals (or as animals) we'll stagnate at best, and not even be above on the ladder at worst.
Now, not WANTING to pursue that 'different' thing which evolution gave only us, is like choosing to stagnate.
By the way, if you want pleasure, go with The Matrix. You'll have your perfect world, since you aren't interested in enlightenment but just want to feel good (therefore, it doesn't matter that it's not "the truth" does it? why the hell would if you only want pleasure?).
Now, if you say that we should have half-pleasure and half-other-goals, then I say to you again, a person who drinks beer half a week is better compared to one who drinks the whole week, but IS NOT better than someone who doesn't drink at all. Simple logic.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Efficiency for what?
Many of the things you mentioned increase the efficiency of the production of pleasure - but no more than that.
As for humans vs. animals - our goals are the same (1. survive, 2. get pleasure), but our tools are better. And enlightenment is just one name for the roundabout production of pleasure. What if I prefer to get pleasure from enlightenment than from the Matrix?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 09:19 AM |
|
|
Am I the only one who has the impression that Death's posts are hysterical ramblings more than enything else? In any case I don't see much sense in them, so it doesn't make much sense to answer them either.
I don't know what it is, that you want to prove, Death, and who it is to whom you want to prove it, but I don't think it's healthy.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 10:20 AM |
|
|
He just likes arguing. 
Anyway.. does human need guidance in his pleasures?
If he's free to do whatever he wants, we already know how it ends (chasing a dream without being able to catch it, ending for example with buying diamond toilets and so on)
If the pleasures are controlled or suggested.. It's Brave New World. Or Deus Ex with Helios mind reading people and deciding what is best for them. It's even worse 
Is there a non-invasive way that does not limit liberty?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 11:00 AM |
|
|
But that's all back to debating sex and drugs topic and related all over again.
Bertrand Russell has proven with the Russell paradox that you cannot build an axiomatic system based solely on logic that is free of contradictions as well.
We simply have to accept that human existance and everything pertaining to it is not free of contradictions. We just have to find a way to live with it.
Every sentient being that is rational and has a free will can deliberately throw rationality out of the window. That's an integral consequence of the prerequisites and that's why there is no solution to it. There is just no perfection since "perfection" (we are going back to the Russell paradox) has to involve and include at least the possibility to be imperfect, since if it would NOT involve that possibility it would be missing something - a society of blindly following brainwashed would therefore not be perfect, since they COULDN'T behave differently.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is there a non-invasive way that does not limit liberty?
Yes. It's called social pressure against deviance. There is no compulsion, but nevertheless most people don't try to violate it. For example, because of such social pressure, I would not go outside naked even if it would be legal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 02:59 PM |
|
|
If that would work you wouldn't need penalties, would you?
Lying, for example is massively pressured, socially, but still people are lying all the time.
Going out naked is not a good example, mind you, since there are lots of practical reasons not to - but lots of people are doing it when the circumstances are right (and it's not forbidden).
You have to do better than that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 03:12 PM |
|
|
Social pressure is not a substitute for laws, but sometimes there should be social pressure but no law (in situations as varied as consumerism, abortion, and people painting their houses ugly colors). Lying does happen, but it would happen much more often if there would be no social pressure.
And there are practical reasons not to be a consumerist too, but people still do it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2009 03:19 PM |
|
|
helios has spoken
Do you think it can be called an utopia?  With an AI connected to all people's brains, supervising, humanity acting as one organ. Indeed, no wars, no injustice.. but it still feels damn scary
here's the plan explained
in detail
Check it out and tell me what you think of a utopia of that kind.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 03:18 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 03:44, 27 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
Am I the only one who has the impression that Death's posts are hysterical ramblings more than enything else? In any case I don't see much sense in them, so it doesn't make much sense to answer them either.
I don't know what it is, that you want to prove, Death, and who it is to whom you want to prove it, but I don't think it's healthy.
You know what? I'm tired of this bull****. You think you are bringing something "healthy" to the table by NOT analyzing human behaviors and NOT being influenced by them? Do you have any idea of how social scientific experiments are being made, or how double-blind experiments (which you act like you've never heard of one, though I can't just assume that) are performed?
For pleasure, what about a double-blind experiment between sex and an EEE, obviously you without knowing which one is which, that's the entire beauty of objectivity. The reason I'm stating this in this thread is because you called it 'hysterical rambling'. I guess Galileo was hysterically rambling about the movement of the Earth around the Sun as well, or so the majority claimed anyway. None took the challenge though. I guess it speaks for itself.
Not always though. The primary part here is people like you start off on something they can easily argue with -- such as dogma (or religious dogma). Because you know that you don't have to be convincing there to bring something to the table, as dogmas by themselves aren't more 'meaningful' than your opinions, in this respect. But I also noticed, it is precisely when someone points links to something that 'agrees' (in a way, in this subject obviously) to some dogma that they consider it idiotic, stupid, etc... without giving any OBJECTIVE rational analysis, just saying "OMG that's so stupid" or "that's not even worth discussing". In fact if I remember from what I read, some people used to say this in all areas of psychology.
And not to mention the fact that you said we don't know **** about the subconscious brain, when an advanced AI made by some dude in his spare time is dated 2003 (the site I linked then)... it seems you are really lacking some (proper, unbiased) research
I mean, computer software is so easy to test, you don't even need biased people as 'subjects', just see for yourself that it works!
I've seen this stuff in action. I've seen it working. Just because it is not commercially viable right now or not popular due to the market trend doesn't mean it isn't true. If anything, academia was always the light that sparked all consumering crap. (people prefer more 'classical AI' which has specific-purpose as it is a lot easier to "train" (yes, train, not "program", it's how you make it "learn", by showing it examples and telling it what to do) and more practical for today's computers).
What's my point? Simple. I draw conclusions from these FACTS. Sure, some are speculation, but at least they are an effort and BASED off something. Yes they are not 100% accurate, well in fact NOTHING is ever 100% accurate, at least not in science (or else say hello to religion). But it's still something, better than someone who doesn't want to do anything regarding this subject. From my experience, BOTH on science and on computer programming, NO ONE has EVER got far with attitudes like "hell, I'd like to draw a conclusion from all of this, but this isn't 100% accurate, so I'll better not." It lacks any progress whatsoever. Even a scientist who wants to make his theory viable goes through a lot of stages in what he BELIEVES is to be right. But don't think that all of them succeeded, even though they may have been RIGHT. You probably didn't even hear of them in the media if they failed.
I know in some parts of the discussion you were pretty reasonable and pointed out some flaws in my 'conclusions', which made me go for more alternative conclusions (as there are a lot more), or possibly made me dig a little deeper. That was a nice part of it. But it wasn't much until you started the attitude "stop with those conclusions, they'll never reach 100% accuracy". No one ever improves or refines his theories from the start. But then again who said I am interested in 100% accuracy? I'm not talking religion here, you may check it out if you're so keen on that
If the only thing you can add is stuff like above, remember that to bring the level of discussion as any childish discussion, I could respond in kind. And it wouldn't even be my fault, it would apply to ANY subject (not just this). In fact it's not very different than religious extremists: when they are challenged, their answer is usually "you are out of your mind!" or "how dare you?" or stuff like that.
So to answer what Doom said, yes I like to ARGUE. I like to TALK ABOUT THINGS people prefer to not admit, because uh... i dunno, maybe because they are 'attached' to these things the same way as some people are attached to religion and don't wish to talk about, let's say, inconsistencies in the Bible? If that means I'm going to be a considered a wacko, fine I am just like Galileo in the front of authority majority anyway, I don't care.
Quote:
Every sentient being that is rational and has a free will can deliberately throw rationality out of the window. That's an integral consequence of the prerequisites and that's why there is no solution to it. There is just no perfection since "perfection" (we are going back to the Russell paradox) has to involve and include at least the possibility to be imperfect, since if it would NOT involve that possibility it would be missing something - a society of blindly following brainwashed would therefore not be perfect, since they COULDN'T behave differently.
Well, I do hope (and honestly, not just for this) you'll live another 20-30 years probably until simple AIs (due to processing POWER, not because of limitations in theory!) get shaped up, and you'll see sentient beings who can always be rational, in this sense, defined as not WILLING irrational (of course, if they are 'uneducated' they may make what appears to US irrational, but try putting yourself in their position).
You are partly right with perfection. In fact you ARE right, but what you said about perfection isn't only about what I'd call perfection, so that's where it slips. Some things can be just put analogously to maths. And 'perfection' by this logic would be choosing the 'extreme' that we find that way, i.e the bound (whether upper bound or lower bound, depending on the analogy in question). Once that has been reached, mathematically it makes no sense to get out of the bound.
Example: sine wave has an upper bound of 1. It makes no sense to say "there can't be a maximum/perfection" (if 'perfection' is defined as the highest value sin can attain), because there IS an upper bound that it can reach. The only way to reach it best would be to find a way to maximize it -- of course a sine wave is periodic, so you can't "maximize" it without changing the formula. Real-life 'analogies' don't work with simple functions, but this was a simple example to make you get it.
As to what I mean by 'efficiency' or 'goal', see below answer to mvass.
@mvass:Quote:
Quote:
Efficiency for what?
Many of the things you mentioned increase the efficiency of the production of pleasure - but no more than that.
As for humans vs. animals - our goals are the same (1. survive, 2. get pleasure), but our tools are better. And enlightenment is just one name for the roundabout production of pleasure. What if I prefer to get pleasure from enlightenment than from the Matrix?
Mvass you have a totally different definition of pleasure. How many times must I stress it out that any product of the MIND itself is NOT PLEASURE? Pleasure happens from "outside" sources (outside the conscious mind that is), that alter that portion of the mind, such as drug. Yes the mind CAN trigger those substances, but the mind doesn't make itself feel pleasure -- it only acts as guidance to the external substances/whatever.
This is what I mean by pleasure. This is what my posts talk about. Why do you even argue with them then or say nonsense like "pleasure from enlightenment" when I clearly say that my definition of pleasure does absolutely not include it?
Use your own definition, but not by responding to mine by using a different language. If I use a language where 'horse' means human, and I say horses are intelligent, are you going to argue that they are not? (after I clearly state what I mean by horse).
Further, our goals may or may not be the same. You see, an average dumb animal cannot alter its goals. Evolution granted this to US. It wouldn't have granted it if it found it devolved. Thus we have to use it. It doesn't give us things we don't use, and even if it does those are going to be scrapped.
Therefore, the mere reason alone that we CAN do that and animals can't means that we should choose different goals, and in that regard even goals who affect our rationality better, since it is clear that it's what evolution considers "the next step" because we have it over previous species. Since it's what we have over animals. And we are their next step. Just like THEY decided to use their capacities over the previous 'inferior' animals, so should we, instead of stagnating like you suggest. (sorry mvass, but tools don't produce a better species, unless you mean by engineering, in which case sorry again mvass, but a creature that does not feel pleasure is a LOT more efficient in survival --> look at machines how much they survive hours of work without complaining like humans or without stress or without suiciding or without WASTING time on pointless pleasure, etc... so biological engineers would probably find a way to eliminate our pleasures and make us not NEED them at all (please note above what I mean by pleasure!))
RANDOM NOTE: imagine reconstructive nano-bots who can repair themselves and multiply as long as they are supplied with energy and materials! (I even read IBM already made few but were unstable back in 2005 or so). Now draw the analogy with cells (=nanobots) and figure out why "a big cell" would be incredibly more efficient than a pleasure-oriented 'human'. If your body was made of tiny humans, you would be dead and your organs would kill and hurt themselves (maybe drop a nuke or two as well), while pursuing "their own interests". Fortunately, the body tries to get rid of useless cells that only "care about themselves" (well not really, but let's just say they are 'off the track' for the specific body in that stage), so it forcefully gets them out. Fortunately, again, they don't fight back but 'accept' that. Not so with humans where wars are started. Sometimes even just because of two selfish interests!
What's the next step in your opinion? Pure stagnation! For example, let's start from sponges: they can not even think or have conscious mind. Then evolution gave some more to the "advanced" animals, like a monkey for example (of course after a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time). Anyway the point is that YOU wouldn't even have intelligence if monkeys DID NOT use that MENTAL capacity (over sponges) which evolution gave them. Logically, we are "the next step" from monkeys.
But what YOU suggest is to scrap "the next step" altogether. Fortunately monkeys didn't "think" like you because if they did, you wouldn't exist. Or you would exist, incarnated in a monkey instead of a human
I repeat, I have NO idea what is the step after this next step. Maybe a new species altogether, a much better one. No idea, but UNLESS we go in it by steps we'll NEVER find out. You will only know you reached enlightenment when you reach it, so to speak. But by doing that, you have to take one step at a time through that ladder.
And at the same time while we gain "the next thing" we'll also likely DROP some things. We dropped fur from apes, the next step may drop genitalia if artificial reproduction becomes efficient, for example (while, of course, gaining "the next big thing", which I don't know what it is, just as monkeys had no idea what 'human reason' is, but they found out (if you consider yourself a 'monkey') because they CLIMBED the STEP; the only way we can find out is by climbing it ourselves).
EDIT: just like monkeys have NO interest in stuff that only humans have (mostly passions for advanced hobbies for example), the same we DO NOT have any idea about the "X-species" which is the next-step after humans. You seem to have established already what the interests are, and only the methods would improve, not the interests. This is stagnation of the species. (specie =/= tool; ESPECIALLY not in mentality).
The path of evolution goes in mentality. You suggest to keep our species/mentality forever, but make it easier for us to pursue it, which is simply stagnation -- WORSE than stagnation as it ENCOURAGES it (by making it easier attainable) so it'll be STUCK FOREVER. Again, too bad monkeys didn't think like you, humans wouldn't exist if so, and maybe it would have been better for the entire world.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 04:05 AM |
|
|
TheDeath, the problem with your definition of pleasure is that it is self-contradictory. Suppose I come up with the word "zaxlebax", which has the definition "a metal sphere like the Washington Monument". Well, the Washington Monument isn't much like a metal sphere, so the definition is invalid. The contradiction in your definition is that there is no difference between pleasure and happiness except that of intensity and duration. Happiness and pleasure both come from outside stimuli and inside chemicals.
Quote:
Evolution granted this to US. It wouldn't have granted it if it found it devolved. Thus we have to use it.
I don't follow. Why do we HAVE to use it, and why in that particular way? After all, there's more than one way to use it. And if someone gives you a gun, that doesn't mean you have to use it, and it certainly doesn't mean that you have to go outside and shoot everyone.
Quote:
Pure stagnation! For example, let's start from sponges: they can not even think or have conscious mind. Then evolution gave some more to the "advanced" animals, like a monkey for example (of course after a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time). Anyway the point is that YOU wouldn't even have intelligence if monkeys DID NOT use that MENTAL capacity (over sponges) which evolution gave them. Logically, we are "the next step" from monkeys.
Except that if you look at them, they all do the same thing - try to stay alive and reproduce - while pursuing pleasure in some form.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 08:29 AM |
|
|
*Sigh* I hate redundant posts, but in this case it looks like I just have to quote mayself here.
Quote:
But that's all back to debating sex and drugs topic and related all over again.
I've read a couple of posts about feedback and stuff, and there's one point in them (actually there may be more, mind you, but that's not relevant here, so cool down  ) there's absolutely no debating about: straying off-topic tends to ruin a thread.
So even though, I'm rather tempted to answer to this I'm not going to do this, since, as far as I'm concerned, all of this has got nothing to do with this thread here.
But it's even worse: Mvass explicitely invited people to share their personal utopias - a discussion like, your utopia sucks because... is pretty uncalled for, Death, as uncalled for as the same discussion about why someone prefers blonde to black or something like that. You may talk about a couple of whys, but it makes no sense to argue about right or wrong. In fact, that is as absurd as arguing about how heaven will look like when you enter it.
Now, if *I* am getting pissed about how, even in a thread like this where personal opinions are wanted, every little stone will be turned, how will other participants with a thinner skin will see that?
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 10:01 AM |
|
|
I do read the OSM frequently even if I rarely post, and The Death, I challenge you to make a lengthy post without using parentheses. I tried to read through that whole mass of text and my eyes began to sting. You could have cut it down to half that size by getting rid of what was in brackets, almost losing nothing important.
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
the definition "a metal sphere like the Washington Monument".
Actually that wouldn't be a valid definition even if the Washington Monument was a metal sphere. Technically speaking, I mean. See, there are certain rules of defining - the rule of conciseness, the rule of equality of perimeters and the rule of avoiding going in circles (circulus vitiosus). Your example definition breaks all three.
A definition is meant to be concise and precise, so it could be "a metal sphere six feet wide", but not "a metal sphere like the one over there" because that'd be comparing, and not defining. Also, the perimeter (by "perimeter", I mean "things that a term includes". I'm translating from Serbian, I apologize if the English language uses different terminology) of the term you're defining has to be equal to the perimeter of terms you're using to define it. Thirdly, your definition goes in circles because if you define A as "a thing like B", you can define B as "a thing like A" and achieve nothing.
I know that this "definition" you mentioned was just an ironic example, but it was a good opportunity to show one of the greatest problems of 99% of quote wars. You guys can't expect to have any sort of sensible argument when you
1) define at least 80% of words differently from each other
2) ignore official definitions
3) don't know how definitions work.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 02:25 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 02:29, 28 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
TheDeath, the problem with your definition of pleasure is that it is self-contradictory. Suppose I come up with the word "zaxlebax", which has the definition "a metal sphere like the Washington Monument". Well, the Washington Monument isn't much like a metal sphere, so the definition is invalid. The contradiction in your definition is that there is no difference between pleasure and happiness except that of intensity and duration. Happiness and pleasure both come from outside stimuli and inside chemicals.
Again, that depends on what you mean by happiness. Which I certainly don't think that it comes from "outside", at least not in my definition. (by the way, sense of accomplishment or of "ease" is not happiness, but not pleasure either).
So it's only contradictory if I use your definition of happiness with my definition of pleasure -- of course it will be, what do you expect?
Quote:
I don't follow. Why do we HAVE to use it, and why in that particular way? After all, there's more than one way to use it. And if someone gives you a gun, that doesn't mean you have to use it, and it certainly doesn't mean that you have to go outside and shoot everyone.
Mvass, if we gain by evolution something specifically done for us (not like, let's say, inheriting stuff like limbs from previous 'generations'/species), then it is obvious that something must be used for the next step. And if that something is called reason, and we CAN maximize it (i.e knowledge for the sake of it, or art for the sake of it, instead of for pleasure/whatever), then it is the better way. Think of a variable. Monkeys have 1% on the scale.
How do you 'evolve' your muscles? By stretching/using them constantly and putting them to work. Now, obviously, doing so every day instead of once a week is better, even if "once a week" is better than "none at all". It's called maximization of abilities.
By contrast, we might just 'scrap off' a few things we just 'inherited' from previous species (generations), like we already did with fur. These things aren't meant specifically for us, so they're not in the spot to be 'maximized' necessarily.
Now we have been given this reason and we CAN act completely different than animals (and mind you, rationally, not psychotically), we can be more 'noble' or whatever, and it is CLEAR that it's what is required for the next step.
I have no idea what follows. Maybe something we can't even comprehend, something infinitely more advanced (like our reason is infinitely more advanced than a simple bacteria), and those "10 later species/generations" may even scrap our reason because they developed something else entirely!!! (and for THEM, reason would be something 'inherited' and not 'specifically' made for them so to speak).
But until then, we have to keep with OUR stuff, and take one step at a time. No point in thinking so long into the future, but it's important to keep in mind that we must not stagnate.
Quote:
Except that if you look at them, they all do the same thing - try to stay alive and reproduce - while pursuing pleasure in some form.
Your cells don't "pursue pleasure" and they are the backbone of what you are and why you are even here. They are living in much the same way as you as a whole (or other single-cellular organisms). Ants don't either (not in your sense anyway), and they are a thousand time more efficient than humans, given their conditions (compared to ours); simulated experiments have been used on this -- and by the way, obviously, nothing beats "the machine". Machines never complain and work a LOT. You think they are weak because of maintenance? Imagine nano-bots-based machines (there was a presentation I saw some time ago about it) which can mimic the cells, but without stuff impeding development, like in humans (such as pointless pleasure -- read MY definition, that's what I mean when I say it).
They can even 'repair' themselves ("advanced" nano-bots only need energy to replicate, just like DNA, not sure if they are commercially viable yet), duplicate, and are a thousand if not million times more efficient than a human being, except in consciousness. (NOTE: this has all been done only in simulators, I mean in that presentation, because in the real world, we have to consider commercial viability first  ). But nevertheless, AI is software anyway, and the most important component.
(I also read about nano-bots used in medicine, swallowing a 'pill' with nano-bots that do "magic" stuff inside your body no medication can -- i.e manipulate stuff inside molecule by molecule!! of course that's still in "highly experimental" area because of our lack of proper understanding of the human body).
But that's not even the point! I'm not talking about what we do, from an outside perspective. I'm talking about what we should follow, and evolution has clear 'tendencies' if I may add. I mean pretty clear obviously, a monkey won't see it (no pun intended), but it's why they are meant for us.
evolution doesn't give you useless stuff specifically for you (if it's inherited though, it's a different matter, and might even be scrapped).
@JollyJoker:Quote:
I've read a couple of posts about feedback and stuff, and there's one point in them (actually there may be more, mind you, but that's not relevant here, so cool down ) there's absolutely no debating about: straying off-topic tends to ruin a thread.
You know actually that is a minor part of Utopia, because I'm talking about the "mysterious efficiency" (which I detailed to mvass anyway), and I don't have a problem at all with you not replying to it. (you'll also notice i rarely comment/quote whole posts, but it doesn't mean I don't read them). And I can understand if you disagree, however calling it "hysterical ramblings" or "nonsense" isn't helpful to the thread either. You can certainly think it's nonsense, but how useful is it to state it like that, to ANY thread (not just this one, and to ANYONE)? What's the point of such a reply?
I found a lot of nonsense in the God thread I think a year ago too (mostly from "newbies"), but I didn't make a reply with "that's just nonsense" without any explanation/substance/arguments at all, because I don't think I would have added anything significant to that by saying it without anything else.
To simply sum what I tried to say with the AI: a Utopia society would be one run by robots, who don't complain. Humans can just lay off home and do nothing (after all: what's more of a utopia than being free of 'work'?), or maybe learn a thing or two from the robots and see how superior they are in this respect.
The only problem with this is, I am not sure if we CAN emulate a 'consciousness', where I agree with you, we still have no clue about it. Even if we can, I'm not sure we'll ever find a good theory, at least not in my lifetime. But the subconscious though, that's pretty theorized already and it works quite well in practice (read: simulators).
@Cepheus: It's a habit of mine to write parantheses, maybe because of my imperfect english (I always feel like adding maybe "obvious" stuff which I think isn't as obvious). Sorry for that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 03:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass, if we gain by evolution something specifically done for us (not like, let's say, inheriting stuff like limbs from previous 'generations'/species), then it is obvious that something must be used for the next step.
The addition of features is random - if the feature helps survival, it is passed on. If not, then it dwindles. So reason has helped us survive. But who is to say that it does more than that?
And the Nazis could've used a similar argument. "Technological advancement didn't give us these ovens for nothing! We would be extremely primitive if we didn't use them to bake the Jews!" 
Quote:
Your cells don't "pursue pleasure" and they are the backbone of what you are and why you are even here.
Your cells aren't independent living organisms, though. And ants are too primitive to have anything like pleasure.
(And I thought you didn't believe in evolution. )
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 02:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The addition of features is random - if the feature helps survival, it is passed on. If not, then it dwindles. So reason has helped us survive. But who is to say that it does more than that?
Two points to note here which I'll address at a time:
1) is evolution only about survival?
2) is evolution about going to the next step?
I have answers for both. If we take 1), then I have already explained that given that mentality of yours, we are incredibly wasting our full potential for survival. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the future (maybe not in my lifetime ) machines would wipe the floor with us. Especially if they are made of nano-bots (cells) it would be ultimate proof of efficiency in survival over primitive humans -- and this is REGARDLESS of whether they are more intelligent or not (let's assume, for the sake of it, that they are SIMILAR in that area). But then, under those conditions, who would care about proof anyway?
It's pretty obvious what's more efficient in a factory, isn't it? Of course, that "routine job" is almost 100% non-mental, but imagine an analogy with machines doing mental work/appreciation/art/whatever. (remember what I mean with pleasure please!) Because 'mental' machines in my book will not follow that definition of pleasure but they WILL follow art and abstractions (if they emulate the right-brain, of course, which is a requirement anyway).
If you are an engineer of those machines you will immediately see why pleasure (my definition!) is a COMPLETE waste and you would not bother 'implementing' it in the machine -- unless you want it to be inefficient. No rational engineer designing such a thing would want it. In the case of God, in my opinion, He gave it as a choice -- and I think it is a good thing as it makes those with strong will power and reason stand out, if they realize that this "feature" should not even have been implemented and should be scrapped (who knows, after countless centuries we might scrap pleasure altogether).
Now, regarding point No.2, which was outlined in my previous post, let's just say that what we have been specifically given, we are not utilizing to full potential, and might even go backwards! Anyway the point is, we should always seek the maxima of what we know it is going to be the next step. How do we know that? Obviously, since it's made specifically for us, then it's supposed to be "the next step". Things we 'inherit' are doubtful however -- not always, but sometimes they are scrapped as they do not provide adequate evolution.
Evolution, at least for us, is far more than just adaptation. That's just the "previous" step so to speak. Neanderthals would have never thought that their "next step" kin would, let's say, enjoy mathematics for the sake of it -- all they could think of was hunting and pursuing that primitive pleasure of theirs. They could have never thought of doing maths for the sake of it, or for playing chess, for example, because those weren't even considered goals by them. But we evolved. And the next step was clear.
Now, I have no idea what our "next step"-kin will do, but it is obvious right now, that we'll never know unless we go step-by-step. And of course, just like we know the "previous steps" (including adaptation, which is the 'second' step so to speak -- the first one being massive reproduction, for very-simple organisms), so will our followers look at us and probably name this step "reason step". What will they have next? No idea, maybe they'll even consider reason itself primitive because they scrapped it in favor of something much more developed. I have no idea, see, I'm honest, but I know that we have to act because we will set the foundations of it.
Quote:
And the Nazis could've used a similar argument. "Technological advancement didn't give us these ovens for nothing! We would be extremely primitive if we didn't use them to bake the Jews!"
Well you could've used nukes instead, however, keep in mind that is not a Utopia by far, because it completely removes something which we have (amplified) compared to animals as well: love, altruism, etc... and one could argue, even reason.
We have been given a lot of things, among which are love and reason. So with the above viewpoint, we would scrap these two and use only one (although mind you, technological advancement is by no means evolution of species, if they are still retarded/crackpots instead of, let's say, noble; it doesn't change a thing). Mind you, if a species has better ways of achieving something, and that something is a primitive desire, then it's actually downgraded. (because it will pursue it more).
Quote:
Your cells aren't independent living organisms, though. And ants are too primitive to have anything like pleasure.
Ants are a lot more advanced than us, in this respect. In fact, given their situations, they are a lot more efficient.
Quote:
(And I thought you didn't believe in evolution. )
Not in the classical sense, but I try to use some arguments here (would 'religion' be welcome?). Either way it's pretty similar for me, because in this 'religion' we still have to 'rise above' ourselves (of course step by step), especially in mentality/spirituality in this context (religion).
Plus, you are NOT independent. You need food, you need energy, you need stuff, just like cells do. Well in fact you ARE made of cells so it's only normal that it's the way it is. Plus a Utopia refers to society obviously, not to individuals.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 02:23 AM |
|
|
Evolution is about survival. But the individual is about pleasure. And we are individuals, not evolution. As for the machines - why would we create something that would destroy us of its own will? (And don't bring up the nuclear bomb; I've never heard of a bomb thinking, "Hmm... I'm going to destroy all of humanity.")
Quote:
Ants are a lot more advanced than us, in this respect.
Nope. They're a lot more primitive, especially in this respect.
Quote:
Plus, you are NOT independent. You need food, you need energy, you need stuff, just like cells do.
But I am independent to obtain these things in any way I choose. Cells aren't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
