Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinejiva
dream serpent

Registered: 11/06/03
Posts: 141
Loc: everywhere all the time
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2133749 - 11/24/03 10:28 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

(by "life" we will assume you mean "biological life")

valid theory


--------------------
i am another you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZenGecko
enthusiast
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 285
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2134014 - 11/25/03 12:32 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

It is possible that there may be some component to life that science cant replicate, but to state that there is, as a fact, is nieve. Science has already succeeded in modeling several parts of the brain. And so far it looks like there should be no reason for them not being able to model the whole thing, once enough information and computing power is available. The computing power is about there. the fastest supercomputers are currently approaching the raw capability of the human brain, and so is memory storage technology. All that is really left is to figure out how our own brain works, and build a software or hardware model of that. And they are continuing to learn more and more everyday. There is no evidence that our conscienceness arises from some unreproducable mechanism. In fact most of the evidence suggest that conscienceness arises our of shere complexity, that is that once something reaches a suffeciant level of complexity and if its organized properly it inevitably becomes conscience. if natural processes can build a entity that can be conscience out of proteins, water, and amino acids, and some other common elements, then it stands to reason that we will likely be able to do the same thing with the same materials and/or similar processes. Science has discovered over and over that it doesn't neccesarly have to copy nature exactly to get what it wants, but can often perform the same feats by simply employing the same basic principles and a lil human ingenuity, and on top of that usually there is alot of room for improvement on the natural, because nature works on the just good enough principle. People want to think there special, and that there is something supernatural that makes us actually tick, that can never be reproduced, but really the only evidence for that arguement is the simply fact that it just hasn't been done...YET. In fact most of the other evidence points to the conclusion that it WILL eventually be done. Like i said maybe we will eventually discover that it cant be done, but we arent there yet, and to say that it will just never happen is arrogant, and nieve especially in light of the advances that are being made everyday.
Sincerely,
That which is, and has no choice but to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 months, 29 days
Re: The robot revolution [Re: ZenGecko]
    #2134118 - 11/25/03 01:31 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

:thumbup: :thumbup:
Good post.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 months, 29 days
Re: The robot revolution [Re: jiva]
    #2134120 - 11/25/03 01:31 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"(by "life" we will assume you mean "biological life") "

Yes


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: The robot revolution [Re: ZenGecko]
    #2134146 - 11/25/03 01:53 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I predict... Robots will not reach the same capabilities as the human brain with consciousness behind it. By that point, we will be creating biological entities, complete with tissue, blood, and bone. We will call these androids. They will not have a soul, and thus, be limited to mechanical functions and things dealing with logic and rationality. You cannot program emotion and creativity. These beings will perhaps be flying our planes, building our buildings, doing the risky, dirty work, or things that require perfection or close to it. They will not be starting wars, or killing people, because of many reasons. One being that they have no soul, and thus no karma.. therefore no karmic cycle of action and reaction. Another reason being that with no emotion, there is no passion, and/or misunderstanding, lack of communication, and any of the other things that cause war. They will not have egos, and thus no ego fears/personalities, etc.

Until we get around the 6th density and above, where it is our mission in life to create intelligent conscious life, then that will be a whole other matter, dealing with souls and embodiement. Until then it's technology, and even the greatest technology cannot create a replica human down to every last neuron, emotion, and facet of being. We will create 'smart' robots, perhaps even biological robots, but they will still be robots, and not terminators. Unless some crazy fuck was so inclined to create a race of robots that destroy, in which case there would be robot wars as the neutralizing robots would be employed to oppose them.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejiva
dream serpent

Registered: 11/06/03
Posts: 141
Loc: everywhere all the time
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Shroomism]
    #2134183 - 11/25/03 02:19 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I really don't think that programming emotions would be that hard. It would just be a matter of programming instinctual reaction. Once you have that you have robots that are content, desperate, agrivated, and so on. And if a robot is desperate, it might start to ask questions to which there is no answer. And if it realizes the limits of human language, it might try to communicate through abstract media.


--------------------
i am another you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZenGecko
enthusiast
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 285
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Shroomism]
    #2134192 - 11/25/03 02:25 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

how can they have the same capabilities of the human brain, yet not be able to be creative or have emotion?
Why do we assume that a soul, which by the way no one can really agree on a good definition for, must arise from some supernatural source, completely beyond the understanding of science? how can something within the system not be subject to the rules of the system? if it isn't in the system, how can it have an effect on something in the system? perhaps conscienceness, and inturn maybe soul is created when a suffecient level of complexity and organization has occured. Conscienceness arises from many pieces that themselves are not conscience, the whole is greater then the sum of the parts, but the parts are not supernatural, and probably not outside the understanding of science, but when the parts are put together you get the whole that is greater then its parts. if we can approximate the parts, we should get the whole that is greater. The arguement that this is not possible is solely based on the assumption that it cant be done, because it hasn't been done yet. There is little or no actual evidence that it can't be done. Its like saying you can never walk to the fridge and get a coke because you haven't done it YET. if your simply stating a belief that it can't be done, fine your entitled, but please qualify your statements, if you think you can prove why it can't be done then please try, i'm very intrested assuming your arguements are based on actual evidence and not blind assumptions or faith. I believe it probably will be done eventually, i have to admit the possibility that it might be impossible because it hasn't been done YET. But there is a ton of evidence suggesting that it will be possible assuming the laws of physics dont spontainously break down tomorrow.
Sincerely,
That which is, and has no choice but to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: The robot revolution [Re: ZenGecko]
    #2134199 - 11/25/03 02:30 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I'm not saying it can't be done. Just not with science alone.
Maybe if one day, science and spirituality make some kind of dramatic integration, it would be possible.
It's not beyond the understanding of science, science (currently) is unwilling to accept the notion.
And I said that I didn't think they would have the same capabilities as the human brain.
Anything is possible, and I am willing to accept the possibility of humans creating intelligent life with consciousness. But not in the 3rd dimension, and not with 3rd dimensional empirical science.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZenGecko
enthusiast
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 285
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Shroomism]
    #2134212 - 11/25/03 02:50 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

ok.... why not?
Sincerely,
That which is, and has no choice but to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Shroomism]
    #2134388 - 11/25/03 07:38 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:
Unless some crazy fuck was so inclined to create a race of robots that destroy...




I can neither confirm nor deny my intentions as of this moment. :evil:

The only way I could ever see robots thinking of revoultion is if we program to either revolt or we program them with a way for them to actually take on an individual perspective and don't put some sort of restriction to make sure that they don't feel that they have rights or that the existance that they live isn't suspossed to be any other way.

What I find scary is how much robots and the way the ego works have in common. *shudders*
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 17 years, 1 month
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2134472 - 11/25/03 08:58 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
I think robots might be the next step in evolution.

Life may soon be obsolete.





It sounds like you are saying that life, through evolution, is trying to rid itself of emotions and creativity. The type of creativity that comes from pure subjective reality, anyway.

I will think more on this, for sure.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: sirreal]
    #2134480 - 11/25/03 09:04 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sirreal said:
It sounds like you are saying that life, through evolution, is trying to rid itself of emotions and creativity. The type of creativity that comes from pure subjective reality, anyway.





I think that evolution is about finding a balance. I mean, throughout history, there has been a lot of back and forth between two extremes. I think we are reaching a point now that we are really starting to balance out. I dunno, it just seems that we are actually starting to get things right for once. :grin:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Phluck]
    #2134516 - 11/25/03 09:22 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I think robots might be the next step in evolution.
Life may soon be obsolete.

oh, shut up!

(this is a friendly shut up , don't take it personally :smile: )

robots will be dumb fuckers, I might let them polish my shoes (occasionally)
   

Edited by raytrace (11/25/03 09:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: The robot revolution [Re: Mixomatosis]
    #2134558 - 11/25/03 09:41 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

have a read folks:

an abridged chapter from economics in one lesson, by henry hazlitt:

"The Curse of Machinery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the most viable of all economic delusions is the belief that machines ... create unemployment...

This fallacy is still the basis of many labor union practices...

Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat.

To go no further back, let us turn to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. The first chapter of this remarkable book is called "Of the Division of Labor," and on the second page of this first chapter the author tells us that a workman unacquainted with the use of machinery employed in pin-making "could scarce make one pin a day, and certainly could not make twenty," but that with the use of this machinery he can make 4,800 pins a day.

So already, alas, in Adam Smith's time, machinery had thrown from 240 to 4,800 pin-makers out of work for every one it kept. In the pin-making industry there was already, if machines merely throw men out of jobs, 99.98 per cent unemployment. Could things be blacker?

Things could be blacker, for the Industrial Revolution was just in its infancy. Let us look at some of the incidents and aspects of that revolution. Let us see, far example, what happened in the stocking industry.

New stocking frames as they were introduced were destroyed by the handicraft workmen (over 1,000 in a single riot), houses were burned, the inventors were threatened and obliged to fly for their lives, and order was not finally restored until the military had been called out and the leading rioters had been either transported or hanged.

Now it is important to bear in mind that in so far as the rioters were thinking of their own immediate or even longer futures their opposition to the machine was rational. For William Felkin, in his History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery Manufactures (1867), tells us (though the statement seems implausible) that the larger part of the 50,000 English stocking knitters and their families did not fully emerge from the hunger and misery entailed by the introduction of the machine for the next forty years.

But in so far as the rioters believed, as most of them undoubtedly did, that the machine was permanently displacing men, they were mistaken, for before the end of the nineteenth century the stocking industry was employing at least a hundred men for every man it employed at the beginning of the century.

Arkwright invented his cotton-spinning machinery in 1760. At that time it was estimated that there were in England 5,200 spinners using spinning wheels, and 2,700 weavers -- in all, 7,900 persons engaged in the production of cotton textiles.

The introduction of Arkwright's invention was opposed on the ground that it threatened the livelihood of the workers, and the opposition had to be put down by force. Yet in 1787 -- twenty-seven years after the invention appeared -- a parliamentary inquiry showed that the number of persons actually engaged in the spinning and weaving of cotton had risen from 7,900 to 320,000, an increase of 4,400 per cent...

In the depression of 1932, the game of blaming unemployment on the machines started all over again...

If it were indeed true that the introduction of labor saving machinery is a cause of constantly mounting unemployment and misery, the logical conclusions to be drawn would be revolutional, not only in the technical field but for our whole concept of civilization.

Not only should we have to regard all further technical progress as a calamity; we should have to regard all past technical progress with equal horror.

Every day each of us in his own capacity is engaged in trying to reduce the effort it requires to accomplish a given result. Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and efficiently -- that is, by saving labor. Every intelligent workman tries to cut down the effort necessary to accomplish his assigned job. The most ambitious of us try tirelessly to increase the results we can achieve in a given number of hours.

The technophobes, if they were logical and consistent, would have to dismiss all this progress and ingenuity as not only useless but vicious.

Why should freight be carried from New York to Chicago by railroads when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?

Theories as false as this are never held with logical consistency, but they do great harm because they are held at all. Let us, therefore, try to see exactly what happens when technical improvements and labor-saving machinery are introduced. The details will vary in each instance, depending upon the particular conditions that prevail in a given industry or period. But we shall assume an example that involves the main possibilities.

Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men's and women's overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force.

This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed.

The manufacturer, however, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost. If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the machines was as great in terms of payrolls as the amount of labor that the clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine; otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it.

So there is still a net loss of employment to be accounted for. But we should at least keep in mind the real possibility that even the first effect of the introduction of labor?saving machinery may be to increase employment on net balance; because it is usually only in the long run that the clothing manufacturer expects to save money by adopting the machine: it may take several years for the machine to "pay for itself."

After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his competitors, and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capitalist, who has gained.

But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three:

(1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or

(2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or

(3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment.

In other words, the manufacturer, as a result of his economies, has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount he has saved in direct wages to former coat makers, he now has to pay out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machine, or to the workers in another capital industry, or to the makers of a new house or motor car for himself, or of jewelry and furs for his wife. In any case (unless he is a pointless hoarder) he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.

But the matter does not and cannot rest at this stage. If this enterprising manufacturer effects great economies as compared with his competitors, either he will begin to expand his operations at their expense, or they will start buying the machines too. Again more work will be given to the makers of the machines.

But competition and production will then also begin to force down the price of overcoats. There will no longer be as great profits for those who adopt the new machines. The rate of profit of the manufacturers using the new machine will begin to drop, while the manufacturers who have still not adopted the machine may now make no profit at all. The savings, in other words, will begin to be passed along to the buyers of overcoats ?- to the consumers.

But as overcoats are now cheaper, more people will buy them. This means that, though it takes fewer people to make the same number of overcoats as before, more overcoats are now being made than before. If the demand for overcoats is what economists call "elastic" -- that is, if a fall in the price of overcoats causes a larger total amount of money to be spent on overcoats than previously -- then more people may be employed even in making overcoats than before the new labor-saving machine was introduced. We have already seen how this actually happened historically with stockings and other textiles.

But the new employment does not depend on the elasticity of demand for the particular product involved. Suppose that, though the price of overcoats was almost cut in half -- from a former price, say, of $75 to a new price of $50 -- not a single additional coat was sold. The result would be that while consumers were as well provided with new overcoats as before, each buyer would now have $25 left over that he would not have had left over before.

He will therefore spend this $25 for something else, and so provide increased employment in other lines.

In brief, on net balance machines, technological improvements, automation, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of work...

Yet it is a misconception to think of the function or result of machines as primarily one of creating jobs.

The real result of the machine is to increase production, to raise the standard of living, to increase economic welfare.

It is no trick to employ everybody, even (or especially) in the most primitive economy.

Full employment -- very full employment; long, weary, back-breaking employment -- is characteristic of precisely the nations that are most retarded industrially..."


economics in one lesson is a great book. it's comprised of 30 or so short chapters like this one debunking common myths about the market. there is an abridged version available online here: http://www.chariscorp-wordgems.com/wealth.hazlitt.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: The robot revolution [Re: raytrace]
    #2134603 - 11/25/03 10:05 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

to say that it will just never happen is arrogant
as is to say that it will just happen

the question is: should it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 17 years, 1 month
Re: The robot revolution [Re: sirreal]
    #2134680 - 11/25/03 10:48 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sirreal said:
Quote:

Phluck said:
I think robots might be the next step in evolution.

Life may soon be obsolete.





It sounds like you are saying that life, through evolution, is trying to rid itself of emotions and creativity. The type of creativity that comes from pure subjective reality, anyway.

I will think more on this, for sure.





I just wanted to re-state my earlier post before stating this:


To say that AI is going to replace biological life(as we know it) is rather demeaning to what life seems to be doing.

I believe that AI is a very important component to the whole process, but to say that it is "the next step" is a rather narrow view.

Subjective reality, atleast IMO, is the heart of life.

I agree with Fireworks. Life is experiencing itself in infinite ways. We are but one manifestation.

AI may be another.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: The robot revolution [Re: sirreal]
    #2134743 - 11/25/03 11:13 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

just want to bold this: demeaning  :alert: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDasKomet
D 322
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 85
Loc: US
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: raytrace]
    #2134790 - 11/25/03 11:26 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Robots are old men. Magnetic interactions; sensory perspectives. Your blood is the silky mud; forgiveness. Sound compression gives you sore feet and time to think. AHAHAHAHAaaaaa the blood is pumping! YEAH!


--------------------
The Woven World is all I see.
Put cloves in your weed and tell them its for the LSD.
.oO0 Listen to White Zombie 0Oo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: DasKomet]
    #2135237 - 11/25/03 02:44 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Puny humans.
You give your race far to little credit. Machines will NEVER EVER outsmart us, at-least not as long as there are humans alive. We are far to clever, creative, destructive and versatile. People seem to think that the human brain is a slow primitive organ when in-fact its millions of times more advanced then any computer will ever be.

We are the apex of civilization. Machines and robots no matter how advanced they may become will always be subject to our rule. We created them, gave them purpose and infused them with life.

Even if we make an android so perfect that it mimics our very essence we must not forget that it was WE, the humans that created it. They cannot and will not ever outsmart us. We alone have the power to create and destroy life. A robot will only be perfect if we make them that way. So when the day comes that we bask in their perfection they will in turn look to us and see their creators. And we will no longer be humans, but gods.

I am the alpha and omega. The beginning and the end.



--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZenGecko
enthusiast
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 285
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The robot revolution [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #2136793 - 11/26/03 03:34 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

why would it be at all demeaning to what life seems to be doing, if we create AI, or if AI is the "next step"? if it is the next step, then that would be exactly what life is trying to do, so yippy its doing what it intended. I see no way in which machine intelligence would detract from the meaning of life, purpose of life, or whatever. What difference doest it make if its flesh and blood, or silicon and plastic, if it can think and feel, and ask the same questions that we all do? And i havent heard one rational arguement for why it wont be able to. The distinction between natural, and artificial is in our head. What we call artificial can only come about because the laws and processes that govern the "natural" allow it to, or actually push for it to come about. We evolved to a point naturally where we could create technology, and now it looks as if that technology will likely evolve into a new conscience life form. That just seems so awsome to me, and we are going to get to be the ones who create this new life. If it exceeds our own capability we should be happy, isn't it the dream of every good parent that their children will surpass them? technology will also allow us to improve ourselves, and i think most people would agree that humans do have their flaws. First there was s study that suggest that there is one gene that significantly affects our ability to cope with stress. People with one version of the gene tend to be more high strung, more towards a manic depressive personality, while people with the other version of the gene are usually much better at coping with the stresses of life and still maintaining a level and positive mental state. Now imagine if we removed that bad version of the gene so that the overall human population had the ability to deal with stress and maintain a balanced mental state 20% better then it could before. its hard to begin to imagine how that would effect society, what if everyone was a lil nicer, not so stressed out and just more balanced overall. Now imagine we find a gene that if fiddled with would raise the average iq of the human race by 5-10 points, so now if we do both these, on average we are going to be smarter and more mentally balanced, my god what kinds of changes would that bring to our society? i dont know but i'd like to be there to see it if it ever happened. Now couple those kinds of abilities with the addition of technological componets to our bodies and brains. What if we all had a math coprocessor, could recall memories with perfect accuracy at will, connect to a fully imersive virtual reality internet? Our capacity to learn and more importantly understand would be greatly increased, could this do anything other then make us better people? I'm definately not advocating rushing head on, into these endevors with wreckless abandon, we should be cautious, and wait till a procedure has a very high if not perfect sucsess rate, but we should also not be to quick to close the door on opportunities to improve ourselves. The potential risk should be weighed verses the potential gain, but ulitimately once it is relatively safe what right would someone have to tell someone else that they couldn't have these things done? just because that other person doesn't think its right. The amish don't think we should be using all this technology but atleast the dont actively try to prevent us from doing so based on what they think is right, and man if they did we would surely tell them to fuck off, how dare they tell me i have to take a horse and buggy to work when i could drive my sweet ass mustang, just because they think its wrong? Fuck em
Sincerely,
That which is, and has no choice but to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Neo Manifestation Mechanics and Phrases 101 Anonymous 2,941 18 07/25/02 01:22 PM
by postalboy
* Erewhon - Book of Machines kotik 530 1 12/26/05 08:18 AM
by dr0mni
* human beings. the perfect machine.
( 1 2 all )
faelr 3,087 37 04/26/04 02:43 AM
by Strumpling
* Spirituality & Beliefs, Driven by Light and Love....? PhanTomCat 1,294 10 02/07/05 10:22 AM
by incubaby_421
* Only have your own thoughts!!! Mixomatosis 643 14 01/04/05 10:24 PM
by Mixomatosis
* The New Revolution
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
ArmFromTheAbyss 3,957 81 05/28/03 09:55 PM
by Murex
* Are humans biological machines?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Viaggio 5,772 62 04/08/04 06:38 AM
by fireworks_god
* I, Robot, am the Buddha in a teenager's skin
( 1 2 3 all )
Lion 5,246 50 03/25/14 07:15 PM
by DividedQuantum

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,191 topic views. 4 members, 4 guests and 35 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.