Page 13 of 14 [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,295
Location: New Orleans

28 Mar 2010, 2:12 pm

Would it be controversial for painters to group together by connected talents?

Should something be done about their "Art Schools" Artist's Colonies?

What about Art Galleries?

We have stores that sell home furnishings, we have trained Interior Designers who should be telling artists what the market needs, and demanding that their work match the drapes and carpets.

Artists who know nothing of the market demand still paint as they see fit and market their works.

It takes years to select the future colors and textures of home furnishings, and artists will change the publics perception of Color, Texture, Form, on just a whim.

When anything diverges from established social norms, it should be stopped?

Highly trained Psycholigists know what the market demand for minds is, and spend their time keeping the mass of people within the confines of acceptable thought, religious worship, obeying governments, and providing their lives for the benefit of employers.

When they deem a group defective, that group should labor to seek approval. To become acceptable to Psycholigists.

In a town of a thousand coal miners, ten painters do nothing for the coal industry.

They should be intergrated into the culture, should at least produce work that shows the value of labor and the glory of industry.

It is not just the mines, it is also the mills, shipyards, and in towns that live by producing buggy whips and sealing wax. In every town there are a few who just do not fit the culture, who are always showing a differance of thought and perception.

Some are painters, others are lost in thought about new inventions, always seeking "Better" ways of doing things, which is nothing but making war on the present.

Different is subversive, a threat to our Sacred Flag, way of life, and are the enemy within.

Different has produced machines that have destroyed the value of labor, existing factories, and upset long established social structures. Villages that every man woman and child have labored for one family that owned the spinning mill have become unemployed by one new machine, all from a single differance in thought and perception.

It is not just the few. The different first took our best farm hands, who moved to villages for a life of industry, then the best of our villages who moved to cities for technology, and now the best vanish into post technology, Hidden on the Internet, bringing change in established means of marketing.

Less than 1% works to change the way of life for the other 99% without their permission, consent, and without the approval of the existing social structure.

So far the bulk of people have kept existing order in the face of change.

Disruptive types of thought have been labeled, isolated, and programs of treatment tried.

Just as Behavior Poice have been needed to maintain existing order, now Thought Police are also serving our honorable traditions.

Difference in thought and perception must be contained, isolated, for if they ever gathered together the rate of change would overwhelm our carefully planned and methodical path of social progress.

The choice is clear, it is between the world of everything you know, or a future where everything will be different.

Change must be controlled, it must be kept at a rate where people can adapt over generations.

The worst possible outcome would be the forces of change gathering outside of majority rule, and producing change at an unlimited pace.

No industry would know if it would exist tomorrow, no marketplace would be secure, and youth would not follow in the long trodden paths of their class.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

28 Mar 2010, 2:56 pm

Omicrom- I know the current lot are shall we say slightly "diverse thinkers", but in the long run
there's got to be some kind of increasing synthesis between human beings and technology.

In my own case I know in (hopefully as long as) next twenty years I will need new joints in hips and knees. A friend of my elder son's lost a leg in combat-I would like to think in his lifetime he will be able to walk properly again on a new generation of prosthetics. It is not inconceivable that organic dysfunction in the brain could be compensated for ( to some extent) by powerful computer chips that have neural interface.

Once you start moving towards this and hundreds of other examples and potentialities, than you have an increasing interrelationship between organics and new technologies. That is being driven by a fairly sane rationale, not to transcend what you are , but to maintain or compensate. There will come a point, and it's not that far off, when technology and organics become viably interchangeable, and this kind of accelerated science may form the basis of the next stage of human evolution.

Now, the OP was are we the next stage in evolution? I don't think we are in ourselves, but we might be the ones working in this kind of field, especially at a theoretical or engineering level.
And quite possibly when all the pieces are on the table, and no one else can spot the underlying pattern or implication that might be the start of the next big leap when we do.


Also sci-fi scenario example - very far-fetched, imagine if there is a limited nuclear exchange , something purpose designed to resist genetic and cellular damage from fallout might be the most apt to survive, and it is highly unlikely that exists currently in human form. The kind of sudden environmental change might be too radical and hostile for traditional evolutionary mechanisms to respond to. Hence it may well be a synthesis or organics and technologies. As one door closes, another opens.

Another thought is that I've read around a lot of the stuff on consciousness, I'm only dabbling, but some fairly serious scientific writers suggest you don't even need a structure like a cellular brain to generate awareness, to perceive, or even be self referential . A particular theory is that consciousness exploded into being, giving an evolutionary advantage to certain groups of primitive animals way back at the start of the Cambrian period. They used structures other than
recognizable brains to do this. So perhaps the field is broader than we thought, and whoever controls these new techno-economic trade routes, who can best utilize these technologies,
will become become the dominant social group on the planet. Through technology and self engineering, perhaps at a necessarily genetic level, they might become so far removed from their original ancestary they become speciated , because that is the way this stuff seems to have traditionally branched when species are put under environmental pressure.

It is arrogant to suggest we are a separate better species, but perhaps prudent to see where our future strengths might lie.

Finally, wouldn't it be amazing if it turned out our hard-wiring that gives us our analytical and logical curiosity was more compatible with neural interface than than NT . Not sure on that one though, might be wishful thinking.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

28 Mar 2010, 3:33 pm

Inventor it might interest you to know that some people think that new "guilds" are already emerging partly from potential of the internet . For example large galleries have their own web sites and high quality gift shops, and these are the antithesis of high volume imported good. They support usually one person craft workers and artists. This is highly elitist in many cases an much depends on whether you belong to Craft/Art Council etc, although not exclusively.

Also many craft workers outside the elite system run a close parallel with William Morris's Medieval craft revival movement without relying on a high status gallery storefront , ( he went through Liberty's) The technologies that allow them to sell directly to the public , often the work is of the same standard as that in galleries but lacking the label of Craft Council. They also tend to sell work through exhibition and make social, economical and web based links, hence a kind of guild can be seen to be emerging composed of individual working from small workshops, making high quality goods.



omicron
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 77

28 Mar 2010, 5:06 pm

You are making an artificial distinction between technology and biological stuff. Strictly speaking we are a machine, composed of many parts, you should factor that in your futurology.

memesplice wrote:
In my own case I know in (hopefully as long as) next twenty years I will need new joints in hips and knees. A friend of my elder son's lost a leg in combat-I would like to think in his lifetime he will be able to walk properly again on a new generation of prosthetics.


Transplants are beater then a piece of plastic. Do you know many prosthetics that can take all it needs from the blood? Self repair up to a point. Your limbs are now your age, do you know many prosthetics that last that long? If you think about it, that our bodies last, more or less decently 75 years, its several times the life span of any prosthetics could ever achieve. And prosthetics are expensive( the good ones, not wooden pirate legs). Real limbs can be grown, prosthetics have to be assembled. All this ignoring all the pollutants in prosthetics.

Transplants ARE technology.

memesplice wrote:
Another thought is that I've read around a lot of the stuff on consciousness,


Sorry, to disappoint you, but there is no hard problem of consciousness. Its only soft problem solution proportional in complexity with available calculation power. Current supercomputers are still to weak, even for simple brains, let alone the human brain.

consciousness is just an illusion of a capable enough robot.

memesplice wrote:
who can best utilize these technologies, will become become the dominant social group on the planet.


Like computers? Do you believe that on average aspies can use computers beater then average NTs? :)

Direct neural connection with computers is hyped. What advantages does it bring compared with a screen and a keyboard? Your visual field will remain the same, your intrinsic processing speed will remain the same etc.... You'll still need to think out commands, computers will not get any smarter just because theres a wire sticking in your head.

memesplice wrote:
Finally, wouldn't it be amazing if it turned out our hard-wiring that gives us our analytical and logical curiosity was more compatible with neural interface than than NT . Not sure on that one though, might be wishful thinking.


In a way, we are alredy more compatible for interfacing with computers. Whats up with the fetish about neural interfacing. You still need to give appropriate commands. In your head, as we speak, there are autonomous circuits, that can read your mind. This circuits however are completely stupid and do some horrible mistakes. I'm not going to detail, but these circuits prouve that direct neural interface is not a guarantee for results.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,582

28 Mar 2010, 8:31 pm

omicron wrote:
Arrogance? Thats being politically correct, its not a valid argument. In evolutionary terms, beater is only in relation to the environment. We drastically changed our environment, so its quite certain we will evolve in some proportionally drastic way. The genes, that will become the norm in the future, alredy exist in very small proportions in the population. What these genes will be its up for debate.

Drastic changes to an environment do not necessitate drastic changes to life-forms within the environment.

Quote:
NT genes are almost certainly not the future norm, almost by definition of evolution. At the very list, you have to admit this last point. Are you saying that evolution has finished with us? Theres nothing else to do? At the very list, you have to admit that some unknown contemporary group of people are "above" NTs. Almost by definition of evolution, otherwise you don't have evolution.

Note: ADHD, dyslexia and aspiness are not mutually exclusive.

"NT genes are potentially the future norm" and "evolution is finished with us" do not have the same meaning. It is quite possible for evolutionary processes to be on-going and for NT genes to be the future norm.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

04 Apr 2010, 1:35 pm

pandd wrote:
omicron wrote:
Arrogance? Thats being politically correct, its not a valid argument. In evolutionary terms, beater is only in relation to the environment. We drastically changed our environment, so its quite certain we will evolve in some proportionally drastic way. The genes, that will become the norm in the future, alredy exist in very small proportions in the population. What these genes will be its up for debate.

Drastic changes to an environment do not necessitate drastic changes to life-forms within the environment.


Actually, drastic changes in the environment cause huge accelerations in evolution. The drastic change means that a large portion of individuals who would normally get around just fine, now have trouble just surviving. I am not sure how well it generalizes to the current situation, but it's a general rule that usually holds.

Quote:
Quote:
NT genes are almost certainly not the future norm, almost by definition of evolution. At the very list, you have to admit this last point. Are you saying that evolution has finished with us? Theres nothing else to do? At the very list, you have to admit that some unknown contemporary group of people are "above" NTs. Almost by definition of evolution, otherwise you don't have evolution.

Note: ADHD, dyslexia and aspiness are not mutually exclusive.

"NT genes are potentially the future norm" and "evolution is finished with us" do not have the same meaning. It is quite possible for evolutionary processes to be on-going and for NT genes to be the future norm.


Agreed.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,582

04 Apr 2010, 3:49 pm

fidelis wrote:
Actually, drastic changes in the environment cause huge accelerations in evolution. The drastic change means that a large portion of individuals who would normally get around just fine, now have trouble just surviving. I am not sure how well it generalizes to the current situation, but it's a general rule that usually holds.

Two things. A "general rule that usually holds..." is a rule that does not necessarily apply. Secondly, not every drastic change will result in organisms being less able to survive. A drastic change could also be one that is neutral to survival of a particular class of organisms, or increases the rate of survival of a particular class of organisms. In the latter case, if all varieties within a class of organisms all equally have their survival enhanced, it is not necessarily certain that any evolutionary change will be triggered by the environmental change, and this is obviously the case in the instance where the change is neutral to the survivability of a class of organisms.

As to how it applies to the current situation, well the drastic changes referred to are not of the kind that reduce the survival rate of human beings, but rather of a kind that increases the rate at which humans survive.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

04 Apr 2010, 4:42 pm

pandd wrote:
fidelis wrote:
Actually, drastic changes in the environment cause huge accelerations in evolution. The drastic change means that a large portion of individuals who would normally get around just fine, now have trouble just surviving. I am not sure how well it generalizes to the current situation, but it's a general rule that usually holds.

Two things. A "general rule that usually holds..." is a rule that does not necessarily apply. Secondly, not every drastic change will result in organisms being less able to survive. A drastic change could also be one that is neutral to survival of a particular class of organisms, or increases the rate of survival of a particular class of organisms. In the latter case, if all varieties within a class of organisms all equally have their survival enhanced, it is not necessarily certain that any evolutionary change will be triggered by the environmental change, and this is obviously the case in the instance where the change is neutral to the survivability of a class of organisms.

As to how it applies to the current situation, well the drastic changes referred to are not of the kind that reduce the survival rate of human beings, but rather of a kind that increases the rate at which humans survive.


I agree with you except for one thing. Even if the changes have increased survival, it doesn't mean that they would be proportionate to the original survival distributions. One section of genetic society will get an upper hand. Who that is, I don't know and couldn't care less. I am just putting it out there that at least one section of people, who previously had less of chance than their peer, would have a greater chance than their peer after these changes have occurred, and because they occurred recently, we haven't seen these effects yet.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,582

04 Apr 2010, 6:05 pm

fidelis wrote:
I agree with you except for one thing. Even if the changes have increased survival, it doesn't mean that they would be proportionate to the original survival distributions.

Which might be relevant if I had ever claimed the contrary.
Quote:
One section of genetic society will get an upper hand. Who that is, I don't know and couldn't care less. I am just putting it out there that at least one section of people, who previously had less of chance than their peer, would have a greater chance than their peer after these changes have occurred, and because they occurred recently, we haven't seen these effects yet.

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion that every drastic change that increases the survival rate of a species will necessarily do so disproportionately?



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

04 Apr 2010, 6:45 pm

Surly you don't think I meant every single one of them No no, no. I am saying that the chances of the majority of humans going through a change the same way is profound. If their is going to be a big change, doesn't it seem logical that it would affect different people differently on average? That in the long run, there would be a noticeable difference?


I tried searching the subethernet for statistics regarding this, and like usual came up empty. The thing that's bugging me about this though, is I am sure you have some evidence regarding this, and even if you didn't it wouldn't be a leap of logic. I have no solid evidence but I have a few examples.

A new medicine comes out to treat the next flue epidemic. Some people respond more to it than others. These people will be less likely to die from the flue than those who have only moderate response to the new drug.

A new economic modal comes to light, and it can only be used effectively by emotional people. Everyone is somewhat emotional, so it benefits everyone, but those who are more emotional find more use out of it.

Brain implants, that work best on nonlinear thinkers, but do increase the computational abilities of everyone. Everyone benefits, but those right brain thinkers get the most out of it.

These are all hypothetical, but are at least somewhat realistic, and completely relevant.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,582

04 Apr 2010, 7:43 pm

fidelis wrote:
Surly you don't think I meant every single one of them

What else am I supposed to think? I refered to the possibility that there could be a drastic change that increases the rate of survival for a species without necessarily changing the proportionality of survival and you stated you do not agree with this.
Quote:
No no, no. I am saying that the chances of the majority of humans going through a change the same way is profound. If their is going to be a big change, doesn't it seem logical that it would affect different people differently on average? That in the long run, there would be a noticeable difference?

I am discussing evolution, my comments refer to evolution, which process has impacts and implications for organisms other than humans.

It is my view that it is logically possible that there could be a change in the environment of a species or breeding population, that results in greater survival rates without effecting proportionate survival rates, however unlikely it may be, and the only way you can alter that view is to front up with facts that substantiate the contrary.
Quote:
I tried searching the subethernet for statistics regarding this, and like usual came up empty. The thing that's bugging me about this though, is I am sure you have some evidence regarding this, and even if you didn't it wouldn't be a leap of logic. I have no solid evidence but I have a few examples.

No, there is no evidence that it is impossible for there to be a drastic change in the environment that increases survival rates of a species without introducing changes in the proportionality of survivability correlated to particular polymorphisms.

Quote:
A new medicine comes out to treat the next flue epidemic. Some people respond more to it than others. These people will be less likely to die from the flue than those who have only moderate response to the new drug.

A new economic modal comes to light, and it can only be used effectively by emotional people. Everyone is somewhat emotional, so it benefits everyone, but those who are more emotional find more use out of it.

Brain implants, that work best on nonlinear thinkers, but do increase the computational abilities of everyone. Everyone benefits, but those right brain thinkers get the most out of it.

No amount of examples of changes that do introduce changes in the proportionality of rate of survival prove that there are no possible changes that would increase rate of survival among a species without unbalancing the current proportionality of survival rates, anymore than my giving examples of the millions of people who are not pilots proves that there are no pilots.

Quote:
These are all hypothetical, but are at least somewhat realistic, and completely relevant.

About as relevant as citing myself to prove that there are no pilots.

Not to mention that at least two of the changes you cite will not necessarily entail any particular change in reproductive fitness.



Newday
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 10

10 Apr 2010, 9:47 pm

If Autism isn't an 'advancement' in evolution, then it is certainly a new culture.
Autistics are better at specialization, which is a new concept in every culture. No longer are we able to learn everything there is to know, which was a possiblity a century ago. As technology and knowledge have grown beyond the scope of the possibility of an individual knowing everything, we are increasingly becoming specialist parts of society, any and every society.
Think about it.
Autistics are specialists.
Autistics have there own methods of doing things. We have more similarities within the spectrum than with neurotypicals. We understand each other better than neurotyipicals understand us, and better than we understand neurotypicals.
We are an emerging culture.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,582

12 Apr 2010, 11:07 pm

Newday wrote:
If Autism isn't an 'advancement' in evolution, then it is certainly a new culture.

Is it? so when precisely did it arise? The last 100 years, the last 1000 years, the last 10,000 years? What sort of date do you put this "new development" at and more importantly how the heck do you know how long Autism has been around?
Quote:
Autistics are better at specialization, which is a new concept in every culture. No longer are we able to learn everything there is to know, which was a possiblity a century ago.

No it was not possible to learn everything there was to know a century ago. Specialization has been around no less than 10,000 years. In fact it has probably been around a lot longer than that.
Quote:
As technology and knowledge have grown beyond the scope of the possibility of an individual knowing everything, we are increasingly becoming specialist parts of society, any and every society.
Think about it.
Autistics are specialists.
Autistics have there own methods of doing things. We have more similarities within the spectrum than with neurotypicals. We understand each other better than neurotyipicals understand us, and better than we understand neurotypicals.
We are an emerging culture.

I have no idea why on earth you would imagine that anyone could know everything there was to know 100 years ago.



voss749
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

26 Apr 2010, 12:21 pm

If aspies all looked like Heather Kuzmich, 6 foot tall model gorgeous with 150 IQ then yeah evolution might be an arguement.
As for the rest of us...well ya know :)



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

02 May 2010, 9:20 pm

I was thinking about this old experiment where mice were put in a maze shaped like a "T." To the left, there was a big block of cheese, and to the left there was a small block a cheese. The majority went to the left, but a small number went to the right. The mice who went for the small cheese ended up getting more cheese per mouse. This stayed consistent as the design was altered. This could explain how aspies weren't made extinct a long time ago. We have some advantage. By not liking crowds, we isolate ourselves and get more resources. This coupled with specialization makes us slightly important in a community setting as well. Some people have some random skill that is too important to lose. Anything from food preservation to ironwork.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.