Could a more sophisticated being follow humans?

Post Reply New Topic

Nanotechnology's machines are molecules, using atoms as their building blocks. However, its possible it goes deeper than this. (sorry I dont have the references for any of this)

Picotechnology is on the picometer scale. It would use atoms themselves as their machines. It would allow for the rearrangement of subatomic particles, one of which effect would be transmutation. And MUCH greater computing power, and would genrally improve all technology, as nanotech would. Theres a precedence for this in nature: novas cause a large scale transmutation makeing heavy metals.

Then there's femtotech (on the femtometer scale). It would allow for the creation and "sculpting" of subatomic particles. The femtomachines would not actually touch the particles, but alter them through field manipulations (like a magnetic bottle containing and controlling a fusion reaction). I dont blame you for thinking this is really rubbery science, I have serious doubts it could work, but there has been research on it.

Plancktech works at the most fundamental level known science is capable of percieving, the deepest "resolution" of the universe. It would allow all sorts of things, which I cant name here. Some of the more comprehensible results would be the creation of exotic matter, which is necessary for the creation of wormholes and reactionless drives.

When you get into that you end up with only indirect observation and theory, though there are some interesting things in it.

Nanotechnology and smaller has a good chance of not being possible, as do subatomic particles, while it has an equally good chance of being possible. It's more of a "wait and see" type thing.

Well I believe in this very time (and over the last couple of thousand years), the "numan" is gradually appearing.

This is just one of the random "comforting theories" in my head - I'll try to explain:

Well there are definately different breeds of humans - I'm not necessarily talking about race etc... I'm talking about intellect and "psychological make-up".

I believe that there is an evolving process that has been happening for a while. Some haven't evolved at all - your everyday idiot who can't think. Some are pretty much in the next form already - a lot of outcasts who don't realise their potential and then some extremely successful people who do.

I believe in a "dual consciousness" and our next species would have fully mastered this. Dual consciousness to me is being inside yourself and inside the world at the same time - maybe even without differentiating - but being fully aware of both worlds at once. Quite hard to put to words.

For one of my favourite pieces of information inspiration, read the very last chapter of The Invisibles by Grant Morrison.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

It is readily apparent that everyone can function in this life as a working and beneficial person in society.

Mike, age 53, is diagnosed with mental retardation. He has his own job and works on very well made latch-hook works of art.

The IQ number is how fast you pick up information, in a basic sense. It is your will to learn that drives you, even a 'common idiot' can do great things.

I'll agree that I put too much emphasis on intelligence.

However I do feel that there are more advanced humans - not necessarily in the intelligence frame - but something deeper and much older as well.

It's like we have taken our human gifts - extreme intelligence and opposable thumbs and combined that which humans have been trying to forget and ignore - the beast and it's magic which is inside us all along.

I believe to control these two and let them work together - that's my lifelong want. I think that this is very hard to understand.

mmm...

I think that as information becomes more widely available human beings are able to drive themselves to greater heights.

While humans do have instincts, I don't believe that we are the same as other beasts.. The entire beast within thing kind of bothers me, as it doesn't make logical sense.

Yes. Obviously this idea of mine is in the early stages.

Yet I feel that we as humans, with our obviously higher intelligence and practicality, can become "in tune" with instinctive things that we can't control. And by doing this, we'll eventually have total control over ourselves.

Kind of like if our bodies were a linux operating system and the user was the brain. (This user was the Linux expert.)

In other words, our brain controls our bodies rather than the other way around.

Examples of this: You have a headache - so you send your consciousness into where it hurts and heal within a matter of seconds.

I guess I sounded a bit hippie in my previous post.

Actually, the article which stated this back in the 1950s, I think-- about humans only using 10% of our brains-- was actually saying that a human generally only uses about 10% of his/her brain at any one time. The remaining 90% is necessary for the support of the other 10%, such as energy supply and other necessary support functions, and without this support the 10% cannot function. We use all parts of our brains, but just not at the same time.

The 10% total usage, to my knowledge, is a total myth and a misreading of the original article. But I think humans like it because it makes us feel that even though we may feel stupid at times, we have sooooo much potential.

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

As to the original question: Given my personal belief in the evolutionary process, I believe if we last long enough, humans are not the "end product" of hominid evolution. It is true: Earth is a constantly changing environment, and probably one day, life-destroying. I am of the mind that life can happen in certain environments, and we were probably not the first life-- maybe not even the first, as some would call it naively, intelligent life-- and I suspect we will not be the last. I don't believe the Universe caters to the whims of Life, but instead, at certain times makes it possible: allows it to come about, and then inevitably destroys it in its own universal evolution of sorts.

I do NOT believe humans are the purpose of the universe; no big surprise there since I am an atheist. And I often shake my head at the egocentricity of the human race (even shaking my head at my own small self). I find it funny that we humans wander around in our "playgrounds" with our little "toys" and our "meanings of life" and "purposes" and "philosophies"--when one day, we will simply vanish back into the universe that offered us up to begin with.

or act as midwife to a deluge of infinite diversity of thought and life. The development of AI will, most certainly, increase the development of technology exponentially, as they will be able to bootstrap themselves to higher levels of thinking, as soon as they gain control of the infrastructure necessary to support and enhance themselves. Skynet-like breakouts may occur, but the Internet would not be, by any means, helpless. THese can be controlled.
This, along with genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and other things will allow for a great variety of life, both organic, machine, and combined, expanding into space.

You were right, Sophist. Humans are not the final word of evolution. We're just the catalyst.

I am of the mindset that artificial intelligence is not truly artificial. I mean, in our own form we function as such. We are simply organic computers. Now as to whether humans will ever have the capabilities or the time to create intelligence equal to that which the universe has naturally fostered, I don't know. But I have little doubt it can be done. Computers are simply life made of different building blocks. Life is artificial in itself because it doesn't last. It is the appearance of life that our bodies/functions give off. I feel we are still computers, just somewhat different from the ones that we, ourselves, make.

Interesting enough the theory of evolution is asserted as truth when it can have so many holes punched into it. I would openly debate but every debate I've got into here the definition of a peer reviewed scientific community has been each and every other debatist. I was the only one bringing sources.

Feel free, though, if you'd like to see the other side of the arguement, to go to www.wolvenmoon.com and post up your beliefs, or go after one of the other threads. You will be asked to leave if you do not post up your sources when asked. Seeing it in your public school's textbook isn't a good enough excuse. Call the local department of education and ask about the curriculem. They will gladly tell you the title and you will be able to look it up online, and cite your source that way.(And by asked I mean told to post up your sources or get ready to be kicked so far off of the religious debate thread you end up in the lucasarts gaming thread.)

Kitsune, I take it you are very much a Creationist?

I don't think any human has enough information to satisfactorily debate anyone else for or against the Theory of Evolution. But we see the minuteness of evolution even in our own lives and in ourselves. It's as simple as genes changing. I do not believe that idea is very much in debate. This alteration of genes is the basis for evolution. If you change the building blocks of an organism, it will change. This seems simple enough logic to me.

Now, this is simply my belief so take it as such, but I truly think most people who do not accept the theory of evolution or even something remotely similar, are too afraid to take God out of the equation. And with many Xtian beliefs, most of them contradict Evolution especially if taken literally. I find it strange that so often people refute the evidence of their own eyes in the name of something that they cannot see. However, I do realize religion is ingrained in our social systems and for many is a part of every day life, and to take this away would be unthinkable to them. Hence the fear and defensiveness. But I would not ask that they forfeit any spiritual beliefs. Simply that they cease in their zealous proclaimations, as only frustration and anger comes from this from both opposing sides.

Now I haven't been around too much to know much about anything, but I have yet to see any scientist try to disprove the existence of God(s). But I have heard MANY Creationists attacking the Theory of Evolution as if its very existence is an attack on them. This is only my observation and by no means does that mean that it is even the norm. But I find it uncanny that so many people of various religions find it necessary to attack such theories. It makes me suspicious that for themselves their beliefs are not founded on as firm a rock as they like to claim. Defensiveness often implies a weakness.

I do not say that this is a reflection on any existence of a god(s) or not, but simply that these people are perhaps more blind followers than thinkers and have not truly excercised their beliefs to discover the level of their spiritual elasticity.

Actually, through what we've seen and can see in fossil evidence we can believe that no animal will change outside of it's family level of classification.



http://www.wolvenmoon.com/modules.php?n ... topic&t=28

I ask that you come with scientific evidence, not dogma and accusations of being afraid of change.



And unwillingness to defend implies ignorance. Now, without sounding too aggressive I'd like to point out that darwin's theory of evolution was based upon the hypothesis that all life was simple. The microscope darwin used to observe simple lifeforms showed him grey-green blobs. Upon seeing life as utterly simple it would be semi-possible for abiogenesis to occur. This leads to the watch in the forest arguement for creation.

If you find a watch in the forest floor, with no maker's name, you assume it was made and not randomly thrown together by chance.



Person:Okay...so...just cut out the book of genesis...and...there!



Anyone that takes the time to learn their beliefs and how to defend them against poorly made theories has truly taken their beliefs to the next level.



http://www.icr.org/headlines/headline-050516.html

http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/prz-0206.htm

http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html

Do I need to get more? Like much of the history taught in public schools it isn't broadcasted in public the persecution that occurs. Now, you saw an AIM chat log. That was a TYPICAL conversation with an evolutionist. I'm glad that things have remained more civil here.

Kitsune, you are clearly taking this as a personal attack on your beliefs? This last posting of mine was not intended towards you personally.

to which you, Kitsune, disagreed.

Um, if we DID have proof one way or the other, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. That was simply my point. That it is still an arguable point.

Kitsune said:


Interesting. Please show me your reference point for this. Just as you, I enjoy seeing evidence before me. And please clarify for me who "WE" is.

Kitsune said:


in reference to:


May I reiterate:


THIS was in no way meant to be a statement of fact regarding the world, but a statement of FACT regarding my experiences/perceptions. I feel OFFENDED that you have reacted in such a way as to slander a matter of perception/opinion when it was presented as such.

Kitsune said:


I refer you then to the philosopher, David Hume, if you are wishing to have a quotes war in that perception is only that, perception. There is no provable law that a watch is ALWAYS made by a watchmaker. In addition, analogies are a poor basis for evidence. Granted, I realize this is a common analogy and not yours to begin with, so this is in no way a critique of you.

Kitsune said:


in reference to:


Clearly, you are not understanding what was meant by this. I ASK IN NO WAY THAT ANY PERSON CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS OR FORFEIT THEIR RELIGIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE INCORRECT. Why would I? All I am saying, is that humans throughout modern civilization have KILLED, MAIMED, and HUMILIATED others simply because of a belief. It doesn't matter whether it was a belief in a god or something else. Zealots are pathetic creatures. And I have seen too many of these, especially these days, coming in the forms of Creationists. I do not single these people out as it is a characteristic of ALL human nature. But for a person to be willing to go so far JUST to prove that they, above all others, are right. Sounds like a God-complex, imho. And you want a definition of evil if you believe in the word?-- And I am not referring to Creationists but ZEALOTS.

THIS was what I meant. Too many people have died fruitlessly in the name of religion. And I don't ask that religion be taken out of the equation, but that zealousness and bigotry be taken out of it and not used in any name of god. (An impossible request, I know). I would suspect, that in most respects, you, Kitsune, would want the same-- but forgive me if I misjudge you on this point.

Kitsune said:


I agree. But I have come across many who seem to have not; who have taken what they heard from their parents from day one, and been blind servants since then, no questions asked. That is not free will/choice but the lack of it.

http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html


Interesting. I would say there is QUITE a difference in structures between the hominids, in my own personal study of paleoathropology. Especially in homo floresiensis just recently found in the Indes.

As for the articles you listed, I do not quite understand their significance in regards to my statement:



Perhaps I am merely obtuse and you might be obliged to sum it up for me.

Forgive me if I am seeming at all sharp or overly-annoyed at this point. But I was very taken aback at your response with some of my statements made CLEARLY as statements of my personal opinion. Perhaps you know my opinions better than I do?

sigh.

But of course, when it comes down to it, NONE OF US is going to be around long enough to PROVE whether Evolution exists more than in conjecture or not. THAT is the nature of the Theory of Evolution as well as Inductive Reasoning. You ask that I come to the table with evidence/proof-- but what proof can ANYONE offer that will make either of us happy? Point is, you and I will be dead in a hundred years, you in heaven and me in my grave. There is little point in arguing and building frustration and giving me a stomach ache while both of us can be doing something more pleasant and constructive with our time. Let us just take it a little easier. Life is too short-winded to waste this much breath.

Love,
Sophist...

There is proof against evolution, or sufficient lack of evidence towards evolution to make it a viable theory. Many of the so called fossils of human developement have been found to be primate and human bones mixed together.



First off, page 279 of "Exploring creation with biology" by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell, module 9, there is a mention of the theory of "The immutability of species". This is an idea that Charles Darwin destroyed.

Secondly, on page 280 of this same book there is a mention of the theory of microevolution, or that over time an organism can become a 'more specialized species of that organism.' There is much evidence for this and it is considered a well supported theory, but not a scientific law.

Below this is the word macroevolution underlined. This is the hypothesis that the same processes which work in microevolution can over eons of time transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism. These are vastly different theories.

There is little evidence for macroevolution and much for microevolution.

The modern day backing for this lies in the studies of genetics. Genetic code is what determines the characteristics of a species. Darwin didn't know that the natural variation that we see in today's animals is the result of different alleles (look it up) being expressed in different individuals. We know that the number of alleles in genetic code of ANY creature is limited. This shows that the variation in a species is limited as well. Macroevolution cannot occur in the same way that microevolution occurs.

Where macroevolution suggests that any lifeform has the infinite ability to change microevolution states that a lifeform has the ability to change in ways that do not fundamentally change the lifeform. A chihuahua is still a dog and over time we could breed it to a siberian husky. But we could never breed a siberian husky to a cat.

Now, if I need to I'll open up my other biology book to provide you with the exact quotation that a creature only changes within it's family level of classification.



There is no law in place because it is accepted fact that a watch is put together. Now, the evidence for macroevolution is slim to none and I have yet to see you put any evidence in front of me.



Yep. I agree. I believe I tossed three links at you in my previous post and don't need to reiterate. It's a moot point.



What does Christ save us from? Have you accepted him? Are these people trying to show they are right as an ego enhancer or to save you from yourself? I already know my size, and I don't need to prove it. I will not, however, surrender myself to allowing everyone to walk off a cliff without giving them a warning and trying my damndest to stop them from walking off of it. If you're determined to jump off of the cliff into hell, I can't stop you but I WILL warn you about it and give you evidence to the cliff being there.





That's the definition of zeal. The goal is to show people that hell and heaven exists and that they have a free ticket to pass hell, collect a hundred dollars, and move straight to heaven.

The point of that article was in:

Anything against evolution that is put out in the open is laughed at. It's like there's a catholic church out there believing in the geocentric theory of the universe.



The problem is that evolution can be DISPROVED and creation can be SUPPORTED. Neither can be proven but one can be disproven and one can be shown to have favorable evidence.


Life is too short not to try and bring you to Christ. You only have so much time to pick him before it's over. It's better sooner then later. As cruel as it sounds I'd rather give you a stomach ache by showing you God then to let you burn in hell. It just wouldn't sit right with me.