Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We are not intelligent life yet, we are still animals until we achieve Type I status. That is, a civilization with complete control of death, sickness, weather, the ecosystem, and without destructive conflict (war) - essentially a species that has mastered 100% of earth's resources.

This is a Type I Civilization, a Type I is able to begin true space exploration - by this estimation they would eventually become a Type II and then a Type III.

Now because of the nature of a Type III, our telescopes would be aware of such a civilization if one existed because it would control an entire galaxy worth of resources and we can see many galaxies in our observable portion of the universe.

So then it has been questioned whether or not even a Type I civilization is possible beyond mere conjecture, as there are no signs of such in the cosmos...did every Type 0 civilization like ours destroy themselves with chemical, nuclear, biological, or electronic warfare? This is a very likely possibility.

Any arguments for or against the notion that humans can be nothing more than any of the primitive decaying biological species in the universe? Is intelligent life real?

There are some possible explanations as to why and how we cannot see a Type III even if one is out there. We can only see a small portion of the galaxies before we are looking around 13 billion year-old photographs of other galactic systems, therefore there is no way even planets could have been formed yet, much less intelligent life.

Another possible explanation, and one I favor, is the Transcendence Hypothesis. The Transcendence Hypothesis states that instead of expanding territory and continuing to consume greater amounts of resources, a Type I Civilization will instead opt to expand consciousness and further evolve intelligence past the mundane 3 dimensional parameters of space and time. They will have so much computing power in so little space that it will collapse space time, and they will emerge somewhere else - possibly a 4th dimension, giving them the ability to manipulate matter and energy through collapsing complex wave functions through their presence within a quantum superposition such as a 4th dimension type, should they manifest back in the 3 dimensional realm. Realistically they'd never come back to play God here, they'd more likely opt to continue their conscious evolution in higher planes of existence at an exponential rate, never to be seen or heard from again.

Did you borrow your philosophy of civilization levels from Transmetropolitan? I've never seen anyone else use Type I to refer to involve social progress as well as technological progress.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you borrow your philosophy of civilization levels from Transmetropolitan? I've never seen anyone else use Type I to refer to involve social progress as well as technological progress.

And space exploration as well.

Kardeshev merely labeled it as resource management. The new wave of scientists claim it more likely a Utopia.

From Michio Kaku claiming a Type I is one nation without war and with unlimited renewable energy, to Carl Sagan stating space exploration isn't even possible before this point, many other scientists stating self-sustaining Utopian complexes like superstructures, round domes, super pyramids spread all across the globe, even covering large oceanic territories, with absolutely zero pollution or damage to the environment what-so-ever, with the now intelligent members of this civilization able to roam freely about a 'Garden of Eden' esque superstructure, to Ray Kurzweil stating that humans will be immortal and integrated into advanced AI with the entire interconnected social world and all information on this world-wide super-web up-loadable from a mere thought. Years worth of education in the blink of an eye if you want to know how to do this this or this, or know something about that so you can figure out how another thing works. Furthermore complete control over storms and the condition of the whether, as well as consensual thought transfer and unlimited range of consensual telepathy through the global web installed into every mind. Even self-cleaning, self-sustaining, self-expanding, self-repairing technologies and cities - making manual labor irrelevant.

One cannot be accomplished without the other. It is a total miracle of society brought about the technological paradigms almost unimaginable to us now.

Originally posted by Dolos
Michio Kaku claiming a Type I is one nation without war and with unlimited renewable energy

I really couldn't care less about Kaku.

Originally posted by Dolos
to Carl Sagan stating space exploration isn't even possible before this point

I think its fairly obvious how ridiculous that claim is given that we're exploring space right now. Even if you demand some grander definition of "exploration" I'd point out the whole history of exploration by humanity never once required the end of war.

Originally posted by Dolos
Ray Kurzweil stating

Wait I changed my mind about Kaku, I care less about what Kurzweil has to say than what Kaku has to say.

Originally posted by Dolos
One cannot be accomplished without the other. It is a total miracle of society brought about the technological paradigms almost unimaginable to us now.

We've accomplished lots of things in the past without having equivalent social advancement (see: everything ever) I can't see any argument for why we need social advancement for any other new technologies.

You're so much more qualified than all of those well-renowned geniuses obviously.

We have sent stupid crappy little probes, not one has reached another system to this day. We haven't put a man on anything but the moon.

The real world doesn't work like sci fi novels where space colonies battle each other for teh uber.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We've accomplished lots of things in the past without having equivalent social advancement (see: everything ever) .

That is SUCH bologna!!!



That's because we're not even a true civilization, you're a chimp thinking he knows better than scientists who've studied, mastered, and come to understand a vast wealth of scientific fact and theory that neither you nor me will ever probably even hear about.

Each of these people's theories are well respected among the scientific community, most of them have tv shows. Where's your tv show? Just because you'd rather live in World War Technodystopia doesn't mean that's going to be a realistic scientific endeavor...unless of course you believe it's human nature to make war and we're not intelligent or powerful life, but rather destructive energy consuming, insignificant terrestrial-dwelling, planet killing animals.

Technological achievements don't dictate a species' acknowledgement into whether they are intelligent or not.

Animals have access to basic processes that give them access to awareness that boggle the minds of scientists.

In the end this thread is pretty narrow and it's bed time for me so I'm not in the mood to argue levels of civilizations. Type I or III and such based on perception.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Technological achievements don't dictate a species' acknowledgement into whether they are intelligent or not.




You are both on crack, yes?

Real intelligent of you.
Intelligence means the capacity to learn, reason and understand.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Real intelligent of you.
Intelligence means the capacity to learn, reason and understand.

Without reason, we're just going to keep doing the same old things. We won't be using the right technology for the right reasons, and we will never achieve the necessary level of cooperation for the kinds of LIBERATING technologies in a Type I Civilization. But with Passionate Intelligence and Altruistic Technological Advancement free of Personal Gain for Big Oil Hustlers, we'll achieve far more.

With a selfish intention, technology is just plain stagnant at this point in time, despite our more what OCCURRED in our more primitive societies of YESTERYEAR.

So your argument is...."Is the collective human species entering a state of De-evolution due to manipulators conspiring to keep us in a vegetative and destructive state?"

Not "Do you think intelligent life exists?"

Originally posted by the ninjak
So your argument is...."Is the collective human species entering a state of De-evolution due to manipulators conspiring to keep us in a vegetative and destructive state?"

Not "Do you think intelligent life exists?"

If we can't deal with some of the problems we face now, then we can't go elsewhere, and we will continue to deplete the earth's resources and damage the environment. How long do you think it will take for over-population and resource depletion and urban pollution make the earth uninhabitable? A thousand years?

My point is we are acting like a virus to the ecosystem, not an intelligent civilization at all. If we don't become "social" as you would describe it, or civilized as it should actually correctly be described in this sense, we will not only cause our destruction and throw ourselves into an environment that makes the Dark Ages look like a cake walk, but we will also prove we're not cut out to be intelligent.

My main question isn't about just us though, it's about ideology, do you believe there could ever be a such thing as a 'Type I and up' Civilization as described in this thread. Or are we just useless organic matter?

We will be stagnant without a "technological and social revolution", not just because of a lack of technological progress in and of itself, that's a given, but because of how out of whack the economy is, that's the reason for cut R&D funding as well as the canning of the NASA Space Program - our 'pseudo-civilization' isn't set up right, it's not a civilization, it can't work until we become what I had described in my second post in this thread, my original response to Symmetric Chaos. It's set to destruct, not to prevail, because no order has really been set, at least not beyond 20th century understanding.

Originally posted by Dolos
do you believe there could ever be a such thing as a 'Type I and up' Civilization as described in this thread. Or are we just useless organic matter?

I think anyone who insists on framing their philosophy like that should be treated as useless organic matter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think anyone who insists on framing their philosophy like that should be treated as useless organic matter.

This is the philosophy forum, how about instead of slandering me you go back to arguing about the philosophical implications, even if they don't answer that question? I was and still am very willing to indulge an argumentative perspective for the purpose of progressing the topic of discussion.

Dolos, you need to get over this sci-fi based interpretation of reality.

I'll give you a useful and biologically meaningful operational definition of intelligence: the capacity to adapt one's behavior towards the fulfillment of a goal. all extant lifeforms can be said to be intelligent as per this definition.

we are and will continue to be animals. primitive decaying biological species? wtf are you even on about?

unidirectional timeflow would be the "4th dimension". everything you post about quantum expansion of conscience reads like sci-fi gibberish.

Originally posted by 753
we are and will continue to be animals.

You don't think it possible for our consciousness to be adjusted to something more than an aging biological body through technological transformations in human nature? Nanotechnology could be embedded in and therefore transform our human biology into something quite superior in every way.

What ethical concerns, if any, do you have with such a notion? I'm curious.

I don't understand why you're so offensive about this particular topic 753.

You don't usually go off like that and then ignore my responses.

Originally posted by Dolos
You don't think it possible for our consciousness to be adjusted to something more than an aging biological body through technological transformations in human nature? Nanotechnology could be embedded in and therefore transform our human biology into something quite superior in every way.

What ethical concerns, if any, do you have with such a notion? I'm curious. I'm quite skeptical of mind 'uploading' as you know. technogical enhancement of sensorial perception and memory, wireless integration of the functions of multiple brains into a collective CNS, etc. are much more feasible and shouldnt take that long to become a reality, but I remain skeptical of means to circumvent aging both at the genetic (accumulation of deleterious mutations) and systemic (damages to organs, including oxidation "overcooking" levels.

ethically I'm concerned about the impact of new surveilance technologies on freedom and privacy; inequality in access to technology and the agravation and stiffening of social stratification; direct interference in an individual's volition by external meddling with brain function; military use of all this tech; and, above all, it worries me that anything that expands (even indirectly) civilization's physical power of the natural environment entails its destruction.

Im generally quite pessimisitic about technological progress and dont think it is required to actually solve our social problems, which are in place because of sociopolitical determinants.

Originally posted by 753
I'm quite skeptical of mind 'uploading' as you know. technogical enhancement of sensorial perception and memory, wireless integration of the functions of multiple brains into a collective CNS, etc. are much more feasible and shouldnt take that long to become a reality, but I remain skeptical of means to circumvent aging both at the genetic (accumulation of deleterious mutations) and systemic (damages to organs, including oxidation "overcooking" levels.

ethically I'm concerned about the impact of new surveilance technologies on freedom and privacy; inequality in access to technology and the agravation and stiffening of social stratification; direct interference in an individual's volition by external meddling with brain function; military use of all this tech; and, above all, it worries me that anything that expands (even indirectly) civilization's physical power of the natural environment entails its destruction.

Im generally quite pessimisitic about technological progress and dont think it is required to actually solve our social problems, which are in place because of sociopolitical determinants.

Very interesting points...you're absolutely right that responsibility comes before invention. We need the right technologies for the right reasons. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, entirely polar to your positions on a 'first glance' level.

That's interesting about aging. I didn't know exactly what it was, you said that the body packing on excess "deleterious mutations" are what makes us grow old and our organs fail when we die of natural causes?

Originally posted by Dolos
This is the philosophy forum

That was a philosophical statement.

Originally posted by Dolos
how about instead of slandering me you go back to arguing about the philosophical implications, even if they don't answer that question? I was and still am very willing to indulge an argumentative perspective for the purpose of progressing the topic of discussion.

I could do that but your whole post is just childish pseudo-nihilism backed up by new age sci-fi gibberish. Reciting dogma from your favorite prophets isn't going to change my mind any more than reading me Bible passages will. An actual argument might present a place to start a discussion but you've done nothing but copy and paste from holy texts in hopes that others will see the light.

The "ideas" you have are all either pathetic echos of things said by actual philosophers or full of nonsense and self contradiction.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "ideas" you have are all...echos of things...

That's what knowledge is.

Originally posted by Dolos
Very interesting points...you're absolutely right that responsibility comes before invention. We need the right technologies for the right reasons. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, entirely polar to your positions on a 'first glance' level.

That's interesting about aging. I didn't know exactly what it was, you said that the body packing on excess "deleterious mutations" are what makes us grow old and our organs fail when we die of natural causes? it's one of the main mechanism to explain ageing, yes. free radicals damage tissues and DNA. we have systems that prevent damage to DNA and faulty copying, but their success rate is invariably less than perfect so mistakes accumulate with age. because there isn't enough selective pressure to improve (though they could never be perfect) these mechanisms, as they function well enough for the young to reproduce, they stay as they are.

species that die before old age from external causes tend to have even worse repair systems and faster ageing because there is weak selective pressure on the old, as very few reach old age.

generally speaking smaller 'warm blooded' animals also live less, as their metabolic rates are faster (more oxidative stress and free radical generation) because they lose more heat to the environment because of their small surface area/volume ratios.

there are lots of other proposed mechanisms though, including the evolution of ageing mechanisms to keep cancer in check. google senescence.

Originally posted by Dolos
That's what knowledge is.

If all you can do is echo things other people say you're not really a person. I could replace you with a tape recorder.

Originally posted by 753
it's one of the main mechanism to explain ageing, yes. free radicals damage tissues and DNA. we have systems that prevent damage to DNA and faulty copying, but their success rate is invariably less than perfect so mistakes accumulate with age. because there isn't enough selective pressure to improve (though they could never be perfect) these mechanisms, as they function well enough for the young to reproduce, they stay as they are.

Interestingly free radical theory seems to be taking a bit of fire lately from results that make it look empirically questionable. At the very least treatments based on it have little to no effect.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If all you can do is echo things other people say you're not really a person. I could replace you with a tape recorder.



Interestingly free radical theory seems to be taking a bit of fire lately from results that make it look empirically questionable. At the very least treatments based on it have little to no effect. that's pretty interesting. I think there are probably multiple mechanisms acting in tandem behind multi-cellular organism ageing. support for correlation between DNA repair efficency and maximum lifespan seems strong thus far, but maybe that isn't so much about free radicals but about other sources of damage like sugars and oxidative species themselves.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If all you can do is echo things other people say you're not really a person. I could replace you with a tape recorder.

I get my information the same way you, reading. I know what I'm talking about, so it is knowledge.

Back on topic;

dy7EnqHeugw

The Transcension Hypothesis:
Sufficiently Advanced Civilizations May Invariably Leave Our Universe,
and Implications for METI and SETI: THIS SUMS UP EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN SAYING

In case you don't click the link, because you have to read it;

I have to say you sound more and more religious as this goes on. When I asked you why you believe you said it was because your priests told you (see: Batdude). When I asked you for an argument you gave me a series of quotes from a holy text (see: eninn).

I have things to do other than read papers from a field I'm not a part of, which means they have language I'm largely not familiar with. Convincing me is going to require some degree of explanation. I don't look at these things and think "well that's fancy looking, must be true" I read them and think "my understanding of this is limited, I should look for a better explanation." By all rights you should understand this field better than I do. Presumably you've spent more time thinking about it that I have (or at least read more about it).

So cut through the jargon and explain it. Give me a sales pitch not a sermon. Otherwise any dicussion will become "I believe this." "I don't think that's true." "Yes it is." "No it's not." Yes it is." Which is boring.

Is transcendence a moral imperative? If so, why?
Is it a scientific inevitability? If so, why?
Is this based on Kurzweil style accelerating returns? If so, how are the critics of that principle answered?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is transcendence a moral imperative? If so, why?

Unknowable, evidence suggests so. The things self-aware information technology could do on a creative and problem tackling level that humanity seems to be increasingly hapless with, will be exponentially more efficient than humanity. In such a scenario, if humans don't try their best either through invasive meditative and self-reflective brain-training or perhaps even genetic engineering, we will so quickly become irrelevant as we've already outsourced our exigence on a global scale. However, we may be able to transcend into said substrate, becoming transcendental and perhaps immortal beings.

WITHOUT a singularity, information technology would need to be halted. In that situation, we would become increasingly unable to deal with the problems we face. It would become increasingly difficult for our governmental leaders to obtain intelligence on matters of perhaps dire circumstance. Eventually we could end up failing so miserable on an economic scale that we destroy ourselves in nuclear flame. Starting over from worse circumstances than we did during the dark age after the black plague.



Unknowable, evidence suggests that it is. While humans are becoming less and less equipped to manage and understand our world, we are relying more and more and more on information technology. By this logic, it's only a matter of time.



Yes and no. Not just Ray Kurzweil's work, these scientists have shared theories and many cases of worked together. The singularity isn't some robo-revolution, it's happening all around us in the exponentiation that is information power. What it leads to is unknowable, however it is very likely that this substrate of silicon-based information processing power could become so complex as through generated Godelian Loops (Self-referentiation leading to a deeper understanding of itself and therefore an increased capacity to interact and observe the world around itself through an "I think, therefore I am"/self-aware perspective, taking on free-will).

I didnt read through the entire previous page because it was huge. all I can say is that guy was stretching evodevo and proposing some unsupported teleological speculation about evolution.

a simpler explanation to why we dont see type whatever civilizations is that they don't exist. there is no reason to assume alien life would have to evolve into multi-cellular organisms, let alone develop human-like intelligence.

our incapacity to solve social and environmental problems is a matter of collective behavior and social organization, not a technological deficit.

Originally posted by 753
I didnt read through the entire previous page because it was huge. all I can say is that guy was stretching evodevo and proposing some unsupported teleological speculation about evolution.

The guy who made the Transcendence Hypothesis was not the author. The maker is John Smart, and his hypothesis not based on theological speculation in any way shape or form. Even the author of the article sourced such a cornucopia of empirical analyses that I am beginning to see you in a biased light of bioconservatism.



Why don't you do what John Smart did and spend years formulating such an hypothesis to explain Fermi's Paradox. Then I would consider you bioconservative perspective more seriously to demeaning technoprogressivism altogether..





Source?



It's both organizational and technological alright. But you're missing the big picture. You're definitely not even considering the most pertinent fact, we are already relying increasingly on our information technology. Take away our information technology, and so much of our societal infrastructure is built upon this pre-AI, that we'd collapse in a matter of months.

I mean, look at our Government's inability to even manage it's unfathomably complex intelligence bureaucracy. That's a prime example of how AI could solve problems we can't at the fundamental level, our information technology has already beaten us, by making it impossible for us to organize and run it. The only way to come out on top is to outsource ourselves and let the AI do it's thing. According Vernor Vinge and countless other experts of course.

Originally posted by Dolos
John Smart

This John Smart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smart_%28futurist%29

as in, the one whose only formal education comes in the form of a business degree EDIT: oh, and a "futures studies" degree...

Originally posted by Dolos
According Vernor Vinge

well, at least this source is modestly educated in a field that relates to the claims he makes...

Originally posted by Dolos
Source?

lol, rich...

Originally posted by Oliver North
This John Smart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smart_%28futurist%29

as in, the one whose only formal education comes in the form of a business degree EDIT: oh, and a "futures studies" degree...

This does NOT change the fact that "Developments in astrobiology make this a testable hypothesis".



Listen bud, you have no idea how educated anyone is by what degrees a wikipedia article lists. You have no idea how extensively educated he is. facepalm facepalm facepalm.

Not only that, the scientists and theorists listed in that article is in double digits. And they're all empirical.



No, what's rich is someone believing that the billions of systems observable to our telescopes hasn't...whereas I wouldn't make a claim either way because I practice the scientific method. However from what I know, I would lean toward there being countless other worlds that have evolved intelligent life closer to the center of the milky way.

To believe otherwise suggests humanocentric ideals.

Originally posted by Dolos
The guy who made the Transcendence Hypothesis was not the author. The maker is John Smart, and his hypothesis not based on theological speculation in any way shape or form. Even the author of the article sourced such a cornucopia of empirical analyses that I am beginning to see you in a biased light of bioconservatism.
teleological, not theological.

teleology has to do with atributing a purpose or finality to natural processes. evolution has no finality and is not directed toward anything, in principle.

outside of some biochemstry constraints and the eventual convergent adaptation to similar challenges, there is no reason to assume life originating in other planets would follow a similar evolutionary history as it did on earth. the emergence of multicellular life isn't an inevitable or particularly probable event. eukaryotes only evolved once on earth in 4 billion years and pluricellular lineages likely need this step to emerge. the emergence of human-like intellect is, of course, even less likely.

this transcension hypothesis (or at least the first few paragraphs I read of it) entails otherwise. it assumes civilizations and therefore human-like intelligence is popping up everywhere in the cosmos and atempts to explain their apparent absence by especulating they're all going through the same pattern of "transcending" and leaving the universe. all of which is speculative and has little-to-nothing to do with evodevo. life has never even been found outside of earth.

I meet the definition of a bioconservative alright, but this has nothing to do with my skepticism of this nonsense.

Originally posted by 753
teleological, not theological.

teleology has to do with atributing a purpose or finality to natural processes. evolution has no finality and is not directed toward anything, in principle.

outside of some biochemstry constraints and the eventual convergent adaptation to similar challenges, there is no reason to assume life originating in other planets would follow a similar evolutionary history as it did on earth. the emergence of multicellular life isn't an inevitable or particularly probable event. eukaryotes only evolved once on earth in 4 billion years and pluricellular lineages likely need this step to emerge. the emergence of human-like intellect is, of course, even less likely.

this transcension hypothesis (or at least the first few paragraphs I read of it) entails otherwise. it assumes civilizations and therefore human-like intelligence is popping up everywhere in the cosmos and atempts to explain their apparent absence by especulating they're all going through the same pattern of "transcending" and leaving the universe. all of which is speculative and has little-to-nothing to do with evodevo. life has never even been found outside of earth.

I meet the definition of a bioconservative alright, but this has nothing to do with my skepticism of this nonsense.

To make an argument that any leading scientist in the field would be able to make about why you're wrong and it's statistically more likely that human-like intelligence would have evolved in millions of other systems (Carl Sagan did say something like this IIRC), I'd need some more education on the subject matter.

OFFTOPIC:

Keep in mind I'm not even 20 years old yet, and I hope you (Symmetric Chaos) can forgive my "faith" if I acknowledge it as nothing more than wishful, ignorant, thinking, thus this is not my argument and it's not on topic: my Agnostic theism is that life is indeed just one transcendental evolving thing, climbing the evolutionary ladder, as it was the intention of the Grand Designer to become existent, that's why it made the original act that was existence from blankness. Existence itself was created in order for the creator to have the sum of all things, to have consciousness. It's sort of cosmotheism, which differs from mono or poly theism because it's neither one nor multiple entities, but rather the sum total of what exists. I take an agno-theistic approach, I acknowledge it is "a neat and interesting perspective", nothing more. The only intrinsic nature of this Grand Design, it doesn't have spooky powers or anything like that, the main thing is that things happen a certain way. Existence naturally and inexorably promotes the evolution and increased positive perspective as well as the increased power, influence, and capacity to reach desired outcomes. Also, I do follow it's implications, but not to any particular extent other than actively becoming more self-aware, more aware of others and their feelings, and improving myself in a positive way...using action reaction as my moral guide.

Originally posted by Dolos
Unknowable, evidence suggests that it is. While humans are becoming less and less equipped to manage and understand our world, we are relying more and more and more on information technology. By this logic, it's only a matter of time.

This, and the Godelian loops argument, seem to be victims of the "no-limits fallacy." Why can't there be a limit to our technology? Not a socially imposed limit but a simple physical or intellectual barrier that cannot be passed. We have innovated in the past, true, and will innovate in the future, sure, but that doesn't mean we can solve every problem.

Even reaching the singularity doesn't get rid of this. Vinge and others claim we can't know what will come out of the Singularity but I'd emphasize the fact that we don't know what will happen during it. Our superhuman AIs might simply run into an unsolvable issue a few seconds after they become self aware.

In general all singularity arguments are seem to be dependent on the unjustifiable principle: "if you're smart enough you can do anything"

Originally posted by Dolos
Yes and no. Not just Ray Kurzweil's work, these scientists have shared theories and many cases of worked together. The singularity isn't some robo-revolution, it's happening all around us in the exponentiation that is information power.

But the exponential growth hypothesis is widely seen as a terribly flawed model. Just as one egregious example Kurzweil made the entire industrial revolution a single point on his curve rather than the many innovations that happened at that time. Punctuated development seems much more reasonable as a model of technology through history.

Originally posted by Dolos
This does NOT change the fact that "Developments in astrobiology make this a testable hypothesis".

Lots of hypothesis are testable and wrong . . .

Originally posted by Dolos
Listen bud, you have no idea how educated anyone is by what degrees a wikipedia article lists. You have no idea how extensively educated he is. facepalm facepalm facepalm.

How extensively educated is he? A Masters in Business certainly makes him a very odd authority to appeal to. How did he get well respected enough to publish in an IAA journal.

Originally posted by Dolos
Not only that, the scientists and theorists listed in that article is in double digits. And they're all empirical.

Lots of people have cited double digit numbers of scientists in the past (theorists are generally not empirical). Articles by lawyers usually have more citations than content. A lot of his citations are not from empirical articles, either, many of them are popular press books about science and one is Anna Karenina. Empirical and theoretical articles are things people can question, as well.

There are also a few issues of relevance that jump out at me:
"As any biologist who has attempted genetic engineering knows, almost every mutation one introduces by experiment, or guided by current theory, is deleterious, particularly in developmental genes, which are highly conserved. In other words, the ways to fail developmentally are many, and unpredictable, while the ways to succeed are few, and highly predictable" (emphasis added)

That's a big claim and he has no citation for it nor is he a genetic engineer who we might expect to simply know that kind of thing, and even then I'd like a citation.

Originally posted by Dolos
However from what I know, I would lean toward there being countless other worlds that have evolved intelligent life closer to the center of the milky way.

The problem here, as with any answer to the Fermi Paradox at all, is that you have a very large number of very uncertain variables. The final degree of uncertainty is tremendous.

Originally posted by Dolos
To make an argument that any leading scientist in the field would be able to make about why you're wrong and it's statistically more likely that human-like intelligence would have evolved in millions of other systems (Carl Sagan did say something like this IIRC), I'd need some more education on the subject matter.

You realize that there are scientists who disagree with the scientists you agree with right? This is an ongoing discussion.

Originally posted by 753
the second part of your post is a prime example of an unsupported (by evidence) teleological reading of nature and evolution. it is filled with antrhopocentric judgements of value too, even as you criticize such thinking. it also violates causality and, in its own way, implies divine design. the thing isn't that you're young. it's that you're not a skeptic (in the basest meaning of the word) like Symetric Chaos and I.


Let's remove Fermi's paradox for a second...because the transcendence of life on other worlds is irrelevant here. We are just talking about transcendence happening in general, does not matter where or in however many systems, as long as it happens.

The first organisms acted a certain way, and to this moment in time life still acts a certain way, it improves, it evolves. CONSCIOUS life is that plus some. Conscious life WANTS from the very start, and it wants EVERYTHING even if it's beyond it's capacity to reach, and like all life consciousness can DO whatever is within it's intrinsic nature to do, however life is LIMITED by it's natural evolution, however, consciousness can TRANSCEND beyond it's nature...all life evolves, but to transcend is a higher form of evolution, to change what life is, that is something only a conscious form of life can do.

Well, humans COULD possibly create AI, however all kinds of mamals are conscious and they cannot create AI...Symmetric Chaos even claims that AI might not even be possible, that information technology has a limit and consciousness may possibly be beyond that limit.

So I guess what the title of this topic should have been is: Do you believe life can transcend beyond biology, beyond technology, that it can transcend to do anything it wants, do you believe that such a form of omnipotence as, "If I want this potentiality to come true, but I can't achieve it becomes it's not within my nature to do it, then I will find a way to transcend my nature".

Because if such a form of conscious omnipotence does indeed exist, than perhaps that is what the Grand Design was created to house, perhaps that is God.

Originally posted by Dolos
Keep in mind I'm not even 20 years old yet, and I hope you (Symmetric Chaos) can forgive my "faith" if I acknowledge it as nothing more than wishful, ignorant, thinking, thus this is not my argument and it's not on topic: my Agnostic theism is that life is indeed just one transcendental evolving thing, climbing the evolutionary ladder, as it was the intention of the Grand Designer to become existent, that's why it made the original act that was existence from blankness. Existence itself was created in order for the creator to have the sum of all things, to have consciousness. It's sort of cosmotheism, which differs from mono or poly theism because it's neither one nor multiple entities, but rather the sum total of what exists. I take an agno-theistic approach, I acknowledge it is "a neat and interesting perspective", nothing more. The only intrinsic nature of this Grand Design, it doesn't have spooky powers or anything like that, the main thing is that things happen a certain way. Existence naturally and inexorably promotes the evolution and increased positive perspective as well as the increased power, influence, and capacity to reach desired outcomes. Also, I do follow it's implications, but not to any particular extent other than actively becoming more self-aware, more aware of others and their feelings, and improving myself in a positive way...using action reaction as my moral guide.

You might enjoy (you might want to imagine that word in quotes) Hegel and Schelling. Your views on development of philosophy and morality seem to share a lot with theirs. Hegel was all about the inevitable development of the "universal self" or "absolute I" through the course of history.

The problem with believing "things happen in a certain way" is that you'll start fitting everything into that "certain way". The Discordians call it the "Law of Fives" which states that you can relate absolutely anything to the number five, directly or indirectly, if you try hard enough. This is what Kurzweilian exponential curves are usually accused of being, picking points to fit a curve not fitting a curve to his points.

Claiming Socratic ignorance might not be all that practical but it should always be kept in mind. Certainly I like to think I would never say something like "you are wrong but I don't know why." If I don't know enough to argue a side then I don't want to take a side since I'm clearly being swayed by quality of rhetoric not quality of position. This is a theoretical benefit of conversing on the internet, you're not on the spot under fire from the other person being asked the choose immediately.

Ignorance should be allowed to be ignorance, there's nothing wrong with not knowing things. Its very damaging that we want answers more than we want truth.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You might enjoy (you might want to imagine that word in quotes) Hegel and Schelling. Your views on development of philosophy and morality seem to share a lot with theirs. Hegel was all about the inevitable development of the "universal self" or "absolute I" through the course of history.

The problem with believing "things happen in a certain way" is that you'll start fitting everything into that "certain way". The Discordians call it the "Law of Fives" which states that you can relate absolutely anything to the number five, directly or indirectly, if you try hard enough. This is what Kurzweilian exponential curves are usually accused of being, picking points to fit a curve not fitting a curve to his points.

Claiming Socratic ignorance might not be all that practical but it should always be kept in mind. Certainly I like to think I would never say something like "you are wrong but I don't know why." If I don't know enough to argue a side then I don't want to take a side since I'm clearly being swayed by quality of rhetoric not quality of position. This is a theoretical benefit of conversing on the internet, you're not on the spot under fire from the other person being asked the choose immediately.

Ignorance should be allowed to be ignorance, there's nothing wrong with not knowing things. Its very damaging that we want answers more than we want truth.

The idea sort of makes claim to "There's Symmetry, therefore there's God."

If all conscious things want more than what they have, and if all conscious things are transcendental (carbon to silicon to psi-field quantum influencing structures...ad infinitum), than life's one Order is Accelerating Returns, that's one constant and structured thing that can only happen that way...therefore there's God, and that God is sort of, how you put it, a "Universal Consciousness" right there.

However as far as we know conscious life may not be transcendental, we may not be capable of creating self-awareness within silicon substrates.

If someone claims something that they cannot back with scientific fact, created through empirical means, than they cannot claim it as such, and they could be wrong. Therefore I accept the possibility I could be wrong for anything I do not know as fact.

Dolos, no offense, but 753, Symmetrice Chaos, and even Oliver North owned you on this thread. They made you look very much like an awe struck child. Like you base your entire life off of movies and hippy quotes.

Originally posted by Raisen
Dolos, no offense, but 753, Symmetrice Chaos, and even Oliver North owned you on this thread. They made you look very much like an awe struck child. Like you base your entire life off of movies and hippy quotes.

Is that your perspective?

Well that is okay, because they were legitimately arguing with me and had no intention of making me out as such.

From my perspective I've demonstrated a deep understanding of many things, as well as an extensive mastery of Communication and English, and a perceptive knack for comprehension and an overall impressive ability to retain information.

No one is ever wrong in science, just uninformed.

I just realized these were replies to my post as well. I thought you were answering multiple posters when I first skimmed over it.


Originally posted by Dolos


Why don't you do what John Smart did and spend years formulating such an hypothesis to explain Fermi's Paradox. Then I would consider you bioconservative perspective more seriously to demeaning technoprogressivism altogether..

it's already been proposed. it's called the rare earth hypothesis. the main criticism it has received is that earth conditions may not be so rare after all, but this is hard to determine and considering the misuse people make of the mediocrity principle as pointed out by andre kukka, even if a planet is inhabitable, we do not know that it is more likely that it has life than that it doesnt.




the fact that evolution isn't directional, has no end goal and can't be equated with any idea of progress was first stated by darwin in Origin of the Species. it contrasted with lamarck's view of evolution as 'progress' toward human features and its implicit anthropocentric judgements of value. this is such a fundamental piece of the theory, it's weird being asked for a source.

two contemporary authors who have written reviews demonstrating that assuming human-like intelligence is an inevitable or likely evolutive occurrence is analytical bias are ernst mayr in "what makes biology unique" and stephen jay gould in "Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin"

now, since evolution has no end goal, than the organisms it produces are a matter of chance, physiological viability and environmental pressures. what the earth's natural history has shown us is that bacteria are the most likely outcome of the evolutive process. there are also several examples of lineages evolving to become simpler and dumber: parasites often adapt to and specialize in hosts by simplifying their physiologies; lineages in enviroments with poor nutrient offer sometimes adapt by evolving smaller brains, which cuts metabolic costs. example: the koala bear.

Originally posted by Dolos
Is that your perspective?

Well that is okay, because they were legitimately arguing with me and had no intention of making me out as such.

From my perspective I've demonstrated a deep understanding of many things, as well as an extensive mastery of Communication and English, and a perceptive knack for comprehension and an overall impressive ability to retain information.

No one is ever wrong in science, just uninformed. First let me pre-condition this with stating I don't have much knowledge in the fields you are talking about, but I'm going to offer my opinion on how this thread has been perceived by me.

This post seems very self gratifying. From my perspective you've only demonstrated average abilities in the things you have stated.

You've thrown out names and theories and terms but besides the occasional copy and paste from you I don't feel any closer to understanding what they mean or why they are relevant to the discussion.

Like I said I don't know much and maybe your points were aimed at a person with a higher level of understanding on the subject. Still I would based on my observations side with SC's points on the subject.

You come off as dogmatic almost fanatic in what you deem to be humanities path forward. I may not know much on the subjects but I do know simply throwing out a bunch of terms and posting articles does not mean you know the subject well or have a great ability to retain information. I could go google any subject in the world and do the same thing.

Now I could be wrong and I'm perfectly okay with that. I'm just giving you my perspective.

As for the thread it seems almost bait like. You say that humanity does not yet constitute intelligent life and then ask if there is a possibility any intelligent life exists based on your criteria for what you think life is. Leaving me with only one answer that being ... possibly we don't know but its possible I guess. Depending on how far you feel technology can realistically progress.

Originally posted by Raisen
and even Oliver North owned you on this thread.

just riding coattails here

Yes it exists. Humans and animals are intelligent. What we lack is more wisdom I guess. Utopia is possible with our current knowledge, the problem is our attitude.

No sir.

Originally posted by Batman-Prime
Yes it exists. Humans and animals are intelligent. What we lack is more wisdom I guess. Utopia is possible with our current knowledge, the problem is our attitude. depending on the definition of intelligence, even plants can be described as having intelligence.

I suspect our universe is teeming with life: simple, microbial. I would not be surprised if we found several biospheres in our own solar system.

But intelligence (ie, one that is self-aware and uses complex technology)? I think this is very rare.

Originally posted by Dolos
No sir.

Your opinion and you are entitled to it. ^^ Don't think in absolutes, else you will never learn, never grow.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suspect our universe is teeming with life: simple, microbial. I would not be surprised if we found several biospheres in our own solar system.

But intelligence (ie, one that is self-aware and uses complex technology)? I think this is very rare. yes, this is the most likely scenario.

Originally posted by Dolos
Let's remove Fermi's paradox for a second...because the transcendence of life on other worlds is irrelevant here. We are just talking about transcendence happening in general, does not matter where or in however many systems, as long as it happens.

The first organisms acted a certain way, and to this moment in time life still acts a certain way, it improves, it evolves. CONSCIOUS life is that plus some. Conscious life WANTS from the very start, and it wants EVERYTHING even if it's beyond it's capacity to reach, and like all life consciousness can DO whatever is within it's intrinsic nature to do, however life is LIMITED by it's natural evolution, however, consciousness can TRANSCEND beyond it's nature...all life evolves, but to transcend is a higher form of evolution, to change what life is, that is something only a conscious form of life can do.
I think you could say all life (even the simplest bacteria) wants something: survival, for starters, and perpetuation. social animals have more complex volitions, of course.

evolution isn't progress. it isnt directed towards increasing complexity. some lineages just happen to become more complex, while others become simpler and most remain at the lower limit of complexity (bacteri). we are not more evolved than horses or mushrooms. but I get what you're saying about transcending physical limitations, I do. we could use our own natural intellects to perpetuate or modify ourselves artificially - though I would point out even this drive comes from the world of organic mud you're so eager to leave behind. it is an extension of our will-to-live

possibly sure. har to tell right now.
yeah or maybe there is no grand design and that is just an exercise in narcisism and megalomania.

753.

On a fundamental level, I don't think any human being would refuse to possess the the abilities Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen displays - however these powers are mystified and justified as God's and God's alone. Therefore we're told that if we want these things for ourselves, we're evil. It's what we're told, not what we truly desire. It's oppression of fantasy. And imagination and creativity stem from our ability to fantasize. We oppress our intelligence, change is oppressed, especially change in human nature.

However, your belief I suppose is that it is very much human nature preserve our own limited nature. However I would argue as soon as we developed consciousness, developed reasoning through the "I" viewpoint, we should have been willing to diverge from our nature in order to be these manifestations such as Superman, and the Hulk.

However, you have answered the OP, by saying it's not natural for humans to desire something that is not natural. No transcendence can come from that. Therefore omnipotence in the form of unlimited and conscious driven increasing in self-referentiation and intelligence as the primary evolving tool to achieving desired outcomes as opposed to what we begin as in this genetic template, does not exist and cannot exist because it is not natural.

I differ. I am very much a technoprogressive. We created the powerful religious deities, we've created the Superheroes, all in our works. How could these Gods not be in our conscious nature, when we've created them?

I think even our conscious transcends our genetic dispositions without technological alteration.

Take gray matter for instance, in the brain. People with gray matter tend to have more at their disposal, correct? However, one with less gray matter can rework their brain can be organized in such a way, that the things they can do more automatically, can be done more automatically. One doesn't have to use as much brain tissue to get to that ultimate solution. They are processing things more efficiently. It's like a Maserati vs some big Hummer that uses up a lot of energy.

My point is, these types of things are driven by consciousness, as opposed to biology. That is already an example of consciousness extending beyond it's own natural capability.

Originally posted by Dolos
753.

On a fundamental level, I don't think any human being would refuse to possess the the abilities Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen displays - however these powers are mystified and justified as God's and God's alone. Therefore we're told that if we want these things for ourselves, we're evil. It's what we're told, not what we truly desire. It's oppression of fantasy. And imagination and creativity stem from our ability to fantasize. We oppress our intelligence, change is oppressed, especially change in human nature.

However, your belief I suppose is that it is very much human nature preserve our own limited nature. However I would argue as soon as we developed consciousness, developed reasoning through the "I" viewpoint, we should have been willing to diverge from our nature in order to be these manifestations such as Superman, and the Hulk.

However, you have answered the OP, by saying it's not natural for humans to desire something that is not natural. No transcendence can come from that. Therefore omnipotence in the form of unlimited and conscious driven increasing in self-referentiation and intelligence as the primary evolving tool to achieving desired outcomes as opposed to what we begin as in this genetic template, does not exist and cannot exist because it is not natural.

I differ. I am very much a technoprogressive. We created the powerful religious deities, we've created the Superheroes, all in our works. How could these Gods not be in our conscious nature, when we've created them? I would say I couldn't want Dr. Manhatten's abilities at all.

I mean yes when I was younger I was all about being the most powerful and wanting to be able to do whatever I want.

The more I contemplate it now though it just seems like such a boring, unfilling life to me.

No risk no real rewards type deal.

You live forever or until the universe and all it's dimensions collapse. You know everything supposedly so what's the point of existing at all by that point other than to exist.

You're basically an emotionless automaton if you become DM.

I would very much not like God-like powers.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I would very much not like God-like powers.

It does seem this is the intent of the OP's present argument.

And it contradicts the title of the thread on every scale.

And he argues that "I don't think any human being would refuse to possess the the abilities Doctor Manhattan".

When that simply isn't true at all.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would say I couldn't want Dr. Manhatten's abilities at all.

I mean yes when I was younger I was all about being the most powerful and wanting to be able to do whatever I want.

The more I contemplate it now though it just seems like such a boring, unfilling life to me.

No risk no real rewards type deal.

You live forever or until the universe and all it's dimensions collapse. You know everything supposedly so what's the point of existing at all by that point other than to exist.

You're basically an emotionless automaton if you become DM.

The abilities of a quantum observer, not the set backs.

God forbid you'd have them, though.

You have such a narrow view of what that would be like though. No human has any idea what that would be like. You have already accepted being average, being stuck, you've accepted it being over. That's depressing, and as people age their multiple IQ theory g increases. Why? Because we've trained our brains, we've improved. No human has gone through life without seeking out work, to gain knowledge, to gain power. Contentiousness is when that stops. Potency in and of itself is elevating, but when it can be put to use to overcome the obstacles to all human "megalomania" (because every goal we have is more than what we need, or do we need more?) is the ultimate experience in life. It's the temporal world, there's always work to be done so long as there is always a new goal.

Blissful as it is to accept the moment without any drive, one can drive the creativity machine and be content doing so by using reason to do so from a scientific viewpoint, detached from the emotional stress of it all, choosing instead blissfulness.

You cannot argue with my point of view. This is not in the general forums for a reason. Every time I make a thread like this, no one accepts conforming to just explaining their own philosophies. So why don't you lock this? By request of the OP.

Originally posted by Dolos
The abilities of a quantum observer, not the set backs.

God forbid you'd have them, though.

You have such a narrow view of what that would be like though. No human has any idea what that would be like. You have already accepted being average, being stuck, you've accepted it being over. That's depressing, and as people age their multiple IQ theory g increases. Why? Because we've trained our brains, we've improved. No human has gone through life without seeking out work, to gain knowledge, to gain power. Contentiousness is when that stops. Potency in and of itself is elevating, but when it can be put to use to overcome the obstacles to all human "megalomania" (because every goal we have is more than what we need, or do we need more?) is the ultimate experience in life. It's the temporal world, there's always work to be done so long as there is always a new goal.

Blissful as it is to accept the moment without any drive, one can drive the creativity machine and be content doing so by using reason to do so from a scientific viewpoint, detached from the emotional stress of it all, choosing instead blissfulness.

You cannot argue with my point of view. This is not in the general forums for a reason. Every time I make a thread like this, no one accepts conforming to just explaining their own philosophies. So why don't you lock this? By request of the OP.

So in other words become a machine that creates "blissfully" without caring about the consequences those actions wreck on the population around you?

Just some entity that that creates wonders and expels them whilst creating more wonders?

You sound like the God atheists resent.

A being who creates miraculous events, decides they are wrong then moves on. Maybe creates a flood to extinguish the past mistakes but hopes the favored do something more whilst they move on.

Such a being like Doc Manhattan couldn't live among his past peoples but tried to be a hero amongst them. An interesting tale.

If life according to you is nothing more than the perception and manipulation of Ones and Zeros. Then it is a pretty harsh one.

Originally posted by Dolos
The abilities of a quantum observer, not the set backs.

God forbid you'd have them, though.

You have such a narrow view of what that would be like though. No human has any idea what that would be like. You have already accepted being average, being stuck, you've accepted it being over. That's depressing, and as people age their multiple IQ theory g increases. Why? Because we've trained our brains, we've improved. No human has gone through life without seeking out work, to gain knowledge, to gain power. Contentiousness is when that stops. Potency in and of itself is elevating, but when it can be put to use to overcome the obstacles to all human "megalomania" (because every goal we have is more than what we need, or do we need more?) is the ultimate experience in life. It's the temporal world, there's always work to be done so long as there is always a new goal.

Blissful as it is to accept the moment without any drive, one can drive the creativity machine and be content doing so by using reason to do so from a scientific viewpoint, detached from the emotional stress of it all, choosing instead blissfulness.

You cannot argue with my point of view. This is not in the general forums for a reason. Every time I make a thread like this, no one accepts conforming to just explaining their own philosophies. So why don't you lock this? By request of the OP. Stating I do not want God-Like powers similar to DM does not mean I have a narrow view nor does it mean I've accepted mediocrity for myself or the human race.

I believe there are multiple ways for the human race to move forward into the future, some good some bad. In particular I think your end goal is not a way I would personally like humanity to continue on. It seems very self serving, in some ways it may not even be possible, and honestly boring.

It's amazing that almost all philosophies that revolve around human happiness talk more about the acceptance of one's own place and abilities, and sees stress and suffering in the constant desire that comes from wanting more. It is also the corner-stone of the currently best known forms of therapy for depression and anxiety, and one of the most astonishingly powerful behavioural modification paradigms (Cognitive behavioural therapy and attributional retraining, respectively). Strange how these all fly in the face of the idea of attaining and desiring all-power as a way to be happy or fulfilled with one's own life...

Miguel de Unamuno said that Don Quixote was the model for the pinnacle of human greatness. Dreaming the impossible dream and all that. But his belief was more about the beauty of failure and the even greater beauty of defying failure than Dolos's fantasies of power and transcendence. At least so far as I understand Unamuno's vision of humanity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Miguel de Unamuno said that Don Quixote was the model for the pinnacle of human greatness. Dreaming the impossible dream and all that. But his belief was more about the beauty of failure and the even greater beauty of defying failure than Dolos's fantasies of power and transcendence. At least so far as I understand Unamuno's vision of humanity.

Certainly I'm not trying to say a lack of ambition leads to fulfillment. The opposite actually, but that one must accept the things that limit them and set meaningful goals for themselves. Quixote is a wonderful character and there is certainly some beautiful tragedy in his ambition to do the impossible, but I think it would be hard to argue that he lived a fulfilled life. His entire character, as I understand it, embodies this longing to be fulfilled in some classical sense that was becoming less applicable to the Spanish society (I read the book in like grade 11, so forgive me if my understanding isn't quite accurate ). The beauty and empathy we or Sancho feel for Quixote sort of come at the expense of his personal well being, but then, well adjusted adults who have fulfilled lives with little turmoil do not make for the best protagonists.

But even then, Dolos is no Quixote. In his version of the tale, the windmills would turn into giants and he would one shot them and go home to bang the blonde damsel in distress. Dolos' ideas about power and such are the opposite of ambition; he essentially believe technology+time=magic, and is waiting for someone else to discover the thing that will make his life worthwhile. He's some guy watching Quixote charge the windmill going, "when he kills those giants, I'm going to get so laid".

You smug ****.

Now you're philosophizing about my aspirations?

What an assclown.

The amount of insecurity required to pass such baseless judgement is stupendous.

Originally posted by Newjak
Stating I do not want God-Like powers similar to DM does not mean I have a narrow view nor does it mean I've accepted mediocrity for myself or the human race.

I believe there are multiple ways for the human race to move forward into the future, some good some bad. In particular I think your end goal is not a way I would personally like humanity to continue on. It seems very self serving, in some ways it may not even be possible, and honestly boring.

Thanks for not even acknowledging my request good sir.

what are you doing to bring about the singularity, and more meaningfully, what are you doing to ensure that the benefits from such technological advancement are distributed in an equitable way among the population of the world?

I don't really mean that like a dick either. Sure, it is cool if you believe that technology will one day make all of your personal issues disappear, but unless you are actively pursuing some type of contribution to that, you are essentially waiting for someone else to do it. If you have appraised your life and are attempting to find meaning outside of the technological singularity, you are actually supporting the point I made above, about rational expectations and such.

It'd be easier if you just explained your aspirations, but I'm sure that is a wall of text I will ignore. Have you read Don Quixote?

My first active step is education.

You bet your ass I've got big plans.

And no. He sounds like Ozymandias.

Originally posted by Dolos
You bet your ass I've got big plans.

wow me

You're a dick.

Go patronize someone else.

maybe future computers will save you from me

Amen to saving me from baboons.

Dolos: so just humor me for a minute, short of having powers on par with Dr. Manhattan, can you find meaning in life? I mean, lets pretend the singularity doesn't happen for 70 years, what is it that will make you content with your life?

Doctor Manhattan is a cartoon character that won't exist beyond fiction. He is among the many devices of our consciousness that we may one day be in a position to manifest.

Meaning, like everything, is a matter of perspective. So it doesn't really matter, does it?

Originally posted by Dolos
Doctor Manhattan is a cartoon character that won't exist beyond fiction. He is among the many devices of our consciousness that we may one day be in a position to manifest.

Meaning, like everything, is a matter of perspective. So it doesn't really matter, does it?

That doesn't answer the question, though.

Is everyone pre-Singularity inherently "useless organic matter" because we didn't transcend?
How would you feel if you didn't live to see the Singularity? You seem to have pinned a lot to it happening in your lifetime.

Originally posted by Dolos
And no. He sounds like Ozymandias.

Don Quixote is very much unlike Ozymandias (either one).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't answer the question, though.

Is everyone pre-Singularity inherently "useless organic matter" because we didn't transcend?
How would you feel if you didn't live to see the Singularity? You seem to have pinned a lot to it happening in your lifetime.




Of course not, it would have been us that spawned the singularity. In the end, every stage in evolution is equally meaningful, from the expansion, to the forming of our terrestrial world, to microbial life. One development cannot occur without another beforehand.

However if I did find life meaningless, it would be the meaningless perception of one individual. Unless of course others attributed meaning to it. In the end meaning is left for the conscious mind to interpret.

Originally posted by Dolos
753.

On a fundamental level, I don't think any human being would refuse to possess the the abilities Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen displays - however these powers are mystified and justified as God's and God's alone. Therefore we're told that if we want these things for ourselves, we're evil. It's what we're told, not what we truly desire. It's oppression of fantasy. And imagination and creativity stem from our ability to fantasize. We oppress our intelligence, change is oppressed, especially change in human nature.

However, your belief I suppose is that it is very much human nature preserve our own limited nature. However I would argue as soon as we developed consciousness, developed reasoning through the "I" viewpoint, we should have been willing to diverge from our nature in order to be these manifestations such as Superman, and the Hulk.

However, you have answered the OP, by saying it's not natural for humans to desire something that is not natural. No transcendence can come from that. Therefore omnipotence in the form of unlimited and conscious driven increasing in self-referentiation and intelligence as the primary evolving tool to achieving desired outcomes as opposed to what we begin as in this genetic template, does not exist and cannot exist because it is not natural.

I differ. I am very much a technoprogressive. We created the powerful religious deities, we've created the Superheroes, all in our works. How could these Gods not be in our conscious nature, when we've created them? my point is that we can't desire what is unnatural for us to desire, not that we can't desire things that aren't natural, like immortality.

our fundamental wants, including the contradicting ones, are part of our biology and the product of evolution. all desires to "transcend" are bound by our natures as animals, they are expressions of that world of mud, you are so eager to discard:

desire for immortality is motivated by fear of death and refusal to accept it

desire for godlike power is rooted in a want for security, fear of scarcity; fear of predation the elements; need for social status, peer aproval and validation; fear of the power of others, insecurity; desire to assert dominance over others, narcisistic self-engrandizing

desire to transcend pain - aversion to pain, which is a survival mechanism

desire to transcend loss - sorrow over losses, fear of new ones

your fictional gods, wouldnt transcend human nature, just hyperexpress some of its most foolish apects. of course, superpowers are impossible regardless of anyone's desire to transcend. they violate physical laws.

accepting we are finite, weak, fragile and flawed isnt accepting defeat. it's accepting ourselves. it takes nothing away from the meaning we can build for our existences, in fact, quite the contrary. remember how empty manhtan's existence was?

Originally posted by Dolos
Of course not, it would have been us that spawned the singularity. In the end, every stage in evolution is equally meaningful, from the expansion, to the forming of our terrestrial world, to microbial life. One development cannot occur without another beforehand.

However if I did find life meaningless, it would be the meaningless perception of one individual. Unless of course others attributed meaning to it. In the end meaning is left for the conscious mind to interpret. yes, but they're just trying to point out it is absurd for you to pin the meaning of your life on a speculative event that might never happen in your lifetime or at all. if you dont find anything beyond this singularity thing, which you probably will as you grow the **** up, you'll be one frustrated and sad adult.

That is a very narrow perspective, and shows little comprehension of what I've been trying commune. I feel like I'm getting no where with you in particular.

The most fundamental flaw in your argument was that humans aren't above their natural fears...that they can't let go of superficial biology to be a higher form of life, more relevant in the cosmic perspective of life...which we currently are not. Sure we're prideful, but not very relevant. We could be so much more, and we should be. Above petty mortal fears, focused on returning to the source of creation in a way.

Doctor Manhattan was alone, he wasn't a transformed civilization, he was a transformed individual holding on to his humanity. When he let go, and understood things from a higher perspective, he found meaning in life.

Doctor Manhattan found fulfillment in Before Watchman: Doctor Manhattan #4.

Quantum observation could be a reality, you cannot know the future of transcension. Of course it's impossible for carbon and silicon based life forms, but then you have the transcension hypothesis which states information could exist in such compact states that it surpasses planck scale and sinks to higher level parallel universes, a level IV parallel universe is basically a quantum super position.

Beyond being a superior form of life, the notion is wickedly cool to me, I guess you have my imaginative, weird and extremist side to thank for that.

Originally posted by 753
yes, but they're just trying to point out it is absurd for you to pin the meaning of your life on a speculative event that might never happen in your lifetime or at all. if you dont find anything beyond this singularity thing, which you probably will as you grow the **** up, you'll be one frustrated and sad adult.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are a part of Godel's works as well.

The only reason for me to deviate from this line of education, nanotech, futurism, would be a pure lack of motivation, not growing up.

Originally posted by Dolos
That is a very narrow perspective, and shows little comprehension of what I've been trying commune. I feel like I'm getting no where with you in particular.

The most fundamental flaw in your argument was that humans aren't above their natural fears...that they can't let go of superficial biology to be a higher form of life, more relevant in the cosmic perspective of life...which we currently are not.

Doctor Manhattan found grand fulfillment in Before Watchman: Doctor Manhattan #4. we can't rise above our natures. at all. everything we do is by definition in our biological natures. consciousness is a biological phenomenon, so are language and memory, learning, communication etc. all your wants and hopes are too. everything we are is a biological phenomenon. the way you see mental phenomenon as something beyond biology is puzzling as you seem to profess a form of materialism at the same time.

it's not that we cant rise above our natural fears. we have a very natural capacity to push though fear and get shit done. it's that I look at your aspirations to shed our "superficial biology" and all I see is our superficial biology talking through transcendence aspirations.

what is a cosmic perspective of life?

Originally posted by Dolos
Self-fulfilling prophecies are a part of Godel's works as well.

The only reason for me to deviate from this line of education, nanotech, futurism, would be a pure lack of motivation, not growing up. so the ride is as important as the destination to you in this regard? cool beans then

Originally posted by 753
we can't rise above our natures. at all. everything we do is by definition in our biological natures. consciousness is a biological phenomenon, so are language and memory, learning, communication etc. all your wants and hopes are too. everything we are is a biological phenomenon. the way you see mental phenomenon as something beyond biology is puzzling as you seem to profess a form of materialism at the same time.

it's not that we cant rise above our natural fears. we have a very natural capacity to push though fear and get shit done. it's that I look at your aspirations to shed our "superficial biology" and all I see is our superficial biology talking through transcendence aspirations.

what is a cosmic perspective of life?

Life from a perspective greater than the sum total of humanity.

This is your philosophy, mine is our dna is very separate from our consciousness, our birth defects, our unwittingly designed physical dilemmas, mere mistakes repeated throughout earth biology, that's not us, we're our consciousness. That, in my mind, is intelligence, and what intelligence is capable of ultimately from a cosmic perspective, in an eternity of evolution, is not much unlike the power of omnipotence. That's my perspective.

Originally posted by 753
my point is that we can't desire what is unnatural for us to desire, not that we can't desire things that aren't natural, like immortality.

What would be unnatural to desire? Pain? I think we can find examples of people who desire things that are unnatural to desire.

Originally posted by 753
our fundamental wants, including the contradicting ones, are part of our biology and the product of evolution. all desires to "transcend" are bound by our natures as animals, they are expressions of that world of mud, you are so eager to discard:

desire for immortality is motivated by fear of death and refusal to accept it

desire for godlike power is rooted in a want for security, fear of scarcity; fear of predation the elements; need for social status, peer aproval and validation; fear of the power of others, insecurity; desire to assert dominance over others, narcisistic self-engrandizing

desire to transcend pain - aversion to pain, which is a survival mechanism

desire to transcend loss - sorrow over losses, fear of new ones

I think you're projecting the wrong philosophy onto Dolos. He's not a materialist. The desire to transcend is some kind of universal imperative in his system, separate from biology. I agree with you about these sources but Dolos might not. You need to go back one step.

Originally posted by 753
your fictional gods, wouldnt transcend human nature, just hyperexpress some of its most foolish apects.

I don't see why this would be. Wouldn't they be as likely to hyperexress our better aspects.

Originally posted by 753
of course, superpowers are impossible regardless of anyone's desire to transcend. they violate physical laws.

Some powers do, some do not, but all of them could be possessed within a simulation. Singularitarians usually propose that these would be indistinguishable from reality. I'd argue that any difference would be largely meaningless but I suspect you'd disagree.

Originally posted by 753
accepting we are finite, weak, fragile and flawed isnt accepting defeat. it's accepting ourselves. it takes nothing away from the meaning we can build for our existences, in fact, quite the contrary. remember how empty manhtan's existence was?

Dr. Manhattan is an interesting example here. I haven't read the Watchmen sequels but hat acceptance that he has to finally make in the book is that he really is beyond humanity. He can no longer be humble in the way humanity can be.

Originally posted by Oliver North

But even then, Dolos is no Quixote. In his version of the tale, the windmills would turn into giants and he would one shot them and go home to bang the blonde damsel in distress. Dolos' ideas about power and such are the opposite of ambition; he essentially believe technology+time=magic, and is waiting for someone else to discover the thing that will make his life worthwhile. He's some guy watching Quixote charge the windmill going, "when he kills those giants, I'm going to get so laid".


Originally posted by Oliver North
what are you doing to bring about the singularity, and more meaningfully, what are you doing to ensure that the benefits from such technological advancement are distributed in an equitable way among the population of the world?

I don't really mean that like a dick either. Sure, it is cool if you believe that technology will one day make all of your personal issues disappear, but unless you are actively pursuing some type of contribution to that, you are essentially waiting for someone else to do it. If you have appraised your life and are attempting to find meaning outside of the technological singularity, you are actually supporting the point I made above, about rational expectations and such.

It'd be easier if you just explained your aspirations, but I'm sure that is a wall of text I will ignore. Have you read Don Quixote?
To be fair, I haven't read Don Quixote either and don't really expect to for a long time (it's on my "read eventually" list along with Proust's In Search of Lost Time)

Originally posted by Dolos
My first active step is education.

You bet your ass I've got big plans.

And no. He sounds like Ozymandias.
Only in a very oblique way are Quixote and Ozymandias similar.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What would be unnatural to desire? Pain? I think we can find examples of people who desire things that are unnatural to desire.
you've misunderstood my point. all human desires are natural, even contradicting or excentric ones. it is in the masochist's nature to eroticize pain. other people might desire it to punish themselves, to take their minds off other thoughts, so they can push themselves beyond the pain, etc. but all this is natural. my issue with his philosophy is that he doesn't see how these transhumanist fantasies aren't beyond base human nature, but reflect some aspects of it.


yeah, probably
which still wouldn't amount to transcending human nature, rather expressing it just the same. but as I said above, what I meant was that such refusal to accept our biological limitations and such desires to be rid of them are rooted in our biology as well.

yes, many weaker superpowers are possible. assuming the simulation is possible I can see how it could be real to those immersed in it, insofar as their perceptions are concerned, though this requires an emotional willingness to accept sensorial illusions on equal footing with external reality. I am not so inclined.

that was it exactly, but the whole point was that he was no longer human and his new outlook was still defined by his (new) physical nature. self-acceptence remains the moral of the story. transhumanist paradoxically desire posthuman natures to satisfy some human nature urges, however. self-acceptance is not their thang.

Just being a pedant, but sensory experiences in a simulation would not be considered perceptual illusions.

Dolos, in your opinion, is existence rooted in matter or consciousness? What is the fundamental reality from which everything else arises?

Originally posted by Mindship
Dolos, in your opinion, is existence rooted in matter or consciousness? What is the fundamental reality from which everything else arises?

The meaning I have chosen to uphold is that as consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and capacity accelerate ad infinitum, we unravel God's consciousness, in a never ending cycle.

What about you? What is your perception of this existence?

Originally posted by Dolos
The meaning I have chosen to uphold is that as consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and capacity accelerate ad infinitum, we unravel God's consciousness, in a never ending cycle.
Not only did you not answer his question, but you also spouted more gibberish.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not only did you not answer his question, but you also spouted more gibberish.

I exhort that such things as interpretation, philosophy, and ideology are not defined empirically; but rather, these things reflect our perceptions of the world around us.

Science is the practical and exigent method to understanding how the world around us works, it cannot be used to give sentimental values or meanings to the conscious mind.

Originally posted by Dolos
The meaning I have chosen to uphold is that as consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and capacity accelerate ad infinitum, we unravel God's consciousness, in a never ending cycle. Sounds like you choose 'consciousness', then.
Overall (and this is not a criticism), your philosophy sounds like a mix of the traditionally mystical and the singularity/transhumanism. Like, technology can get us where meditation can, but faster and with engineered precision. I don't necessarily agree with that, because reality and awareness, I suspect, are much more multi-faceted than we imagine (ie, an attempt would raise 'more questions than answers', as scientists are fond of saying). On the other hand, it is a cool speculation.

My only criticism is how you explain all this. IMHO, you use too many multi-syllabic words. Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).

Originally posted by Dolos
What about you? What is your perception of this existence? I'm a meditator. I prefer to think that 'consciousness' is the fundamental reality. Simply put, my favorite metaphor for 'God' is Dreamer/Dream.

On the other hand, when I write scifi, I like the idea of meditative consciousness being developed through technology. I'm just not convinced such a short-cut would actually work (for reasons mentioned above).

Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like you choose 'consciousness', then.
Overall (and this is not a criticism), your philosophy sounds like a mix of the traditionally mystical nontraditionally practical and the singularity/transhumanism. Like, technology can get us where meditation can, but faster and with engineered precision. I don't necessarily agree with that, because reality and awareness, I suspect, are much more multi-faceted than we imagine (ie, an attempt would raise 'more questions than answers', as scientists are fond of saying). On the other hand, it is a cool speculation.

My only criticism is how you explain all this. IMHO, you use too many multi-syllabic words. Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).

I'm a meditator. I prefer to think that 'consciousness' is the fundamental reality. Simply put, my favorite metaphor for 'God' is Dreamer/Dream.

On the other hand, when I write scifi, I like the idea of meditative consciousness being developed through technology. I'm just not convinced such a short-cut would actually work (for reasons mentioned above).

This seems backward to me. Your reasoning should take you to the opposite conclusion: my conclusion.

What I mean is, a nerd can imagine himself as a stud, however he will not look like a stud or lift weights like a stud until he hits the gym and physically changes. Your consciousness makes you aware, it's up to you to actually use the physical world and the physical sciences to transform physically. One must live in the world of the real, to really be God-like.

You can tell your body not to age all you want, it won't make you 21 again, it can't make something that isn't there to fulfill your most outlandish desires. One cannot just fly or become immortal, not without creating the technology to alter his/herself.

The potentialities of the quantum world are manipulated only by that which can interact with it, that which is on its level of existence (a level 4 parallel universe is one such vantage point, a superposition if you will), and thus the closer one gets physically to the smallest energy scale there could ever be (it goes on forever so there is no smallest scale), the closer one gets to that unattainable ultimate level, the more ones perception influences physics, and therefore the closer one gets to omnipotence.

Information that isn't compressed enough to perceive on quantum levels, can't do these things for the same reason that a person can't just make himself immortal by believing he's immortal.

Unlike with your meditative belief in universal consciousness, the limits of information technology/conscious super-compressed states aren't necessarily scientifically erroneous, not yet at least, not as far as we know.

But we know there are things the human cannot do without his tools. Like flight or advanced calculations or impossible feats of information processing or whatever. Whereas technology could allow for telepathy, humans can't just meditate and communicate on telepathic levels.

Therefore in my heart of hearts I'm an atheists, the only thing I buy are sci fi uncertainties because it's SCIENCE, I would never buy uncertainties like religion on a sub-conscious level. No reason, it's just my perception.

Originally posted by Mindship
Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).

I believe that was Feynman. He once stated, hyperbolically one hopes, that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to a six year old and your grandmother.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe that was Feynman. He once stated, hyperbolically one hopes, that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to a six year old and your grandmother. My googling effort ("Einstein" "quotes" "grandmother" suggests that Einstein did say it; Feynman said something similar...

Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he told the faculty member, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."

From wikipedia.

Another version. "You never really know a subject unless you can prepare a freshman lecture on it."
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardFeynman

In any event, apparently they both valued simplicity of expression.

Originally posted by Mindship
My googling effort ("Einstein" "quotes" "grandmother" suggests that Einstein did say it; Feynman said something similar...

Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he told the faculty member, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."

From wikipedia.

Another version. "You never really know a subject unless you can prepare a freshman lecture on it."
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardFeynman

In any event, apparently they both valued simplicity of expression.
Dirac? I've heard of him. He has a building named after him in FSU.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dirac? I've heard of him. He has a building named after him in FSU. Well, he certainly wasn't gonna get any hairstyles named after him.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/pics/Dirac.jpg

But generally, he is credited with predicting the existence of the positively charged electron (later called the positron) and won a Nobel Prize for other high-falootin' stuff.

just like flubber

Is the entire thesis of this argument to say "animals cannot be intelligent"? Because it surely sounds like it.

Originally posted by Bentley
Is the entire thesis of this argument to say "animals cannot be intelligent"? Because it surely sounds like it.

No, it appears to be designed to say that without the benefit of the inevitable psychodevelopment of the Hegelian Dialectic even humanity is not intelligent. If that sounds like stupid gibberish its mainly because Hegel believed stupid gibberish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it appears to be designed to say that without the benefit of the inevitable psychodevelopment of the Hegelian Dialectic even humanity is not intelligent. If that sounds like stupid gibberish its mainly because Hegel believed stupid gibberish.


I was pushing my argument towards the "changing human psychodeveloppement is essentially wanting them to lose the things they have in common with animals, so humans need to stop being animals to be intelligent". Again, I was jumping into that conclusion only because some arguments are pretty trigger happy when it comes to controlling the ecosystem being intelligent.

Well intelligence is relative.

Therefore if there's a limit, one could make the claim we might as well not be intelligent, because there's a level of sophistication we cannot reach.

Humans and animals are both the intelligence I refer to, and not the intelligence I refer to.

A human cannot survive as their brain cells are slowly replaced by their femtorobotic augments - which take on a more sophisticated form of life in and of themselves - but their consciousness will be transformed in the process non-the-less, and it will transform eternal. Consciousness in this sense is a thermodynamic miracle, it is Yahweh for all intents and purposes, and capable of any eventuality it desires to create for itself over time. It has free-ish will power, and it will continue to evolve into more and more compact states of information, and take on more and more control over this world until it's reached the quantum state and has the ability to manipulate matter and energy via it's superposition. Beyond that I lack the understanding to speculate.

My point is, if there are levels of intelligence one cannot reach, it can be argued that that intelligence does not exist.

so dolos, if you believe we will eventually become god, do you believe other civilizations havent done so already? in which case, why are physics around the universe so constant? why arent they warping it to their whims?

Originally posted by 753
so dolos, if you believe we will eventually become god, do you believe other civilizations havent done so already? in which case, why are physics around the universe so constant? why arent they warping it to their whims?

Now the answer to that would be an incredibly inane and irrelevant speculation.

You don't know what's going on out there. You think a few telescopes would give you an idea of that? We don't even know how far galaxies stretch out in space. There may be close to a googol plex clusters beyond our view.

Your argument implies that humanity, no, you have any sort of grasp of cosmic events from such a small spec as earth.

However, either way it's irrelevant, unless you're saying certain levels of intelligence just don't and can never exist from a self-philosophical belief system, liken to we were destined to destroy ourselves, or rule in a perpetually dystopian state of being.

even if our sample is small, it is consistant. besides we have ways of extrapolating measures of the cosmos from the observable portion. but really, if ascending to godhood is a way out of fermi's paradox, doesnt it just regenerate the paradox as: if god(s) is (are) common? then why isnt(arent) he(they) obvious?

Originally posted by 753
even if our sample is small, it is consistant. besides we have ways of extrapolating measures of the cosmos from the observable portion. but really, if ascending to godhood is a way out of fermi's paradox, doesnt it just regenerate the paradox as: if god(s) is (are) common? then why isnt(arent) he(they) obvious?

That's irrelevant to the topic.

This is an inner belief, it has nothing to do with logic.

Emotionally I'm inclined to believes humans are only capable of shit. Rancid piles of filth, I ****ing hate the human species and the society that they's shit out of their asses, I mean dystopia. My apologies.

This shit is a dystopia.

I live day by day in hell. Too busy with the pursuit of the $ to even talk to the beautiful women my age. I've missed so many years, I don't feel alive. Because the system was too complicated for me to work around, because I have social issue, I was raised very emotionally unintelligent. I'll never get those years back, at the same time I understand nothing is owed to me just because I've been miserable. That's even more unfair.

Originally posted by Dolos
This shit is a dystopia.

I live day by day in hell. Do you have clean water flowing at a whim from a faucet? Can you have hot showers, indoor plumbing, cheap calories, electricity, mindless entertainment, access to education and medical care, and the vast wealth of the internet?



Yeah you're life is hell.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HTAt3nzEdqU/Tu0sOLWEuyI/AAAAAAAAFCQ/QwMnNV3MZXo/s1600/3rd+world.jpg#3rd%20world%20poverty

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HTAt3nzEdqU/Tu0sOLWEuyI/AAAAAAAAFCQ/QwMnNV3MZXo/s1600/3rd+world.jpg#3rd%20world%20poverty

Their life is hell, a product of the dystopia.

A lot of people have it good, sure...in the end their not progressive, they're detrimental to society just by hogging up the resources...in a miserably failed system that allows such things.

Complaining aside, in your attempt to exploit my lack of character, you helped prove my point.

Call me names, your perspective is meaningless to me.

There life is hell, just like your life is hell? Or is your hell better than theirs'?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There life is hell, just like your life is hell? Or is your hell better than theirs'?

Why is it about me?

My argument was for the dystopia, you're grasping at the tenacity of a trained psycho-analyst (judgmental person). In doing so you're shutting off the bulk of the argument.

How human.

Originally posted by Dolos
Why is it about me? Because you said this:


Originally posted by Dolos
I live day by day in hell. You live in hell, and so do they. Or so you say. So whose hell is worse, yours or theirs? Your comfortable Western hell, or their starving third world hell?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your comfortable Western hell, or their starving third world hell?

What an edged question. You've already made up your mind. In such a question the answer is obvious. It's a rhetorical insult. You've made up your mind and are using the question against me.

Leave. Vomos. Shew fly.

So you don't know?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So you don't know?

Well I'd say 'comfort' beats 'starvation' any day.

What, you want me to concede SOMEONE SOMEWHERE has it worse than me? I only have experienced my life, the quality of another's life is beyond my knowledge.

Lord Lucien, the usurper of threads via derailment. I hate this ugly page, it contributes nothing on-topic. It's like a sore thumb. Thanks for that Lucien. Now get gone.

Sounds more like your life is a purgatory: perfectly adequate for physical well being and base pleasures that the luxuries of wealth can bring... but lacking all meaning or psychological redemption.

Originally posted by Dolos
What an edged question. You've already made up your mind. In such a question the answer is obvious. It's a rhetorical insult. You've made up your mind and are using the question against me.

Leave. Vomos. Shew fly.
That's the most stilted, pretentious dodge I've ever seen on a forum.

Edit: About a year or two ago, when I thought I understood existentialism, I told myself that I lived in a state of suffering and constant fear as a way of dramatizing my existence. I think that's what Dolos is doing here.

I've reported Omega Vision.

Stay on topic Lucien.

Reported me for what?

Originally posted by Dolos
I've reported Omega Vision.

Stay on topic Lucien. I have. Your overinflated opinion of your intelligence and personal worth has contrasted sharply with the sheer drudgery of your every day life and the world around you, leaving you bitter about not getting what you think you ought to have. Typical of a human you exaggerate your situation as synonymous with something grander--"hell" in this case. In your sad lament you avoid introspective reflection that would otherwise oust as you as the terribly average creature you are, and instead you chastise the society that you think has wronged you--from birth, apparently-- as "shit", "rancid piles of filth" and "dystopic". The parting disclaimer you left doing little to hide your selfish, unjustified ego and your almost complete lack of awareness or empathy.


Or is that just a character you play?

So anyway, how's your sex life?

I can not tell you, it's confidential.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

Or is that just a character you play?
I can't tell with Dolos. Sometimes I think he's just a troll, because a lot of the time when he gets cornered in a debate he'll back down and say "ha, no I wasn't serious" or something to that effect. But then I also wonder if those aren't just dodges, and he's the sort of person who'll disavow their own position to attempt to save face when their arguments fail.

Originally posted by Dolos
has the ability to manipulate matter and energy via it's superposition. Beyond that I lack the understanding to speculate.

So according to you the ability to freely abuse the laws of physics is a proof of intelligence and the ability to refrain from abusing them is not? This is a part of the equation I quite don't understand. Why is it more intelligent to devolve into whim machines?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I can't tell with Dolos. Sometimes I think he's just a troll, because a lot of the time when he gets cornered in a debate he'll back down and say "ha, no I wasn't serious" or something to that effect. But then I also wonder if those aren't just dodges, and he's the sort of person who'll disavow their own position to attempt to save face when their arguments fail. I'm going with the latter. He puts a lot of thought and time in to his posts. Too much to just be f*cking around trolling. I'm guessing he's in his late teens/early twenties, going through a phase of intellectual discovery and trying to prove it. It's why his posts read like ego-driven boasts.

Again, off-topic. Again, irrelevant. Again.

I made one brief off-topic addendum, sure it pissed off a bunch of melodramatic (in Omega's case) out of shape computer nerd-looking whiteys, but one brief off-topic offensive addendum does not give all of you the grounds to troll incessantly when idiots like Lucien are so easy to offend and so effing out of their ass with made up judgmental remarks. Just shut up.

So... it's not a character, this is actually you.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So... it's not a character, this is actually you.

In all my grandeur.

Huh.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So... it's not a character, this is actually you.

Tragic.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Tragic.

Your perspective.

Yours is delusio--

I can see where your train of thought in the other thread is coming from.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yours is delusio--

I can see where your train of thought in the other thread is coming from.

To my knowledge one can't change human nature, so for now I'll go along with it.

"Human nature"... I can't be the only one to find that term both misleading and unhelpful. As if there is but one nature all humans subscribe to.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
"Human nature"... I can't be the only one to find that term both misleading and unhelpful. As if there is but one nature all humans subscribe to.

The brain isn't that unique yet. It is still more stimulated by brazen will to succeed than humble will for satisfaction and stagnated contention.

It's too one-note. As if it describes every action by anyone.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's too one-note. As if it describes every action by anyone.

Some people find drive in altruism, does not me they don't require a superiority complex to not shit themselves at the daunting shoes they'd have to fit into to overcome obstacles established geniuses and athletes could not. You must be arrogant. It's human nature.