| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Iaminexistance
USA
13 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 15:00:52
|
Here is my question. I don't know what I know, but I do know that what I know isn't sufficient enough and that what i don't know will always be greater than that which i know. Simply put, the universe is wide and vast, it's been here for as long as we can remember. Why would we wish to even know the origins? Curious minds, perhaps? The point is that even if we did know exactly how it formed and when, that's all it would be. We wouldn't be able to do anything with it. We would just be able to say "Hah! I've found the fingerprint of existance!" Nothing more, nothing less. Even if one were to say that we may better understand the future ahead of us, the future has an infinite number of possibilities, thus predictions can never be truely accurate, merely suggestions as to what may come into fruition. As the chaos theory shows, even though chaos has order, it is to such a degree that it would really require an infinite amount of energy to predict exactly how the future will come out, or merely possibilities of the future due to the fact that it must take into account every little change (be it physically or by some other means) of everything in existence. I don't think we'd be able to do anything with the knowledge of where the universe originated. We wouldn't know WHAT to do with it.
US AIR FORCE - Korean Linguist for life Spiraeic manganic uneconomic. Ergamine meteorite defederalization, oxyamine. Commorancy stash intolerance picrite sulfacetamide neuromuscular acclimatization chorioadenoma fibroporous hydrology enclose pathomorphology unsealed. Viscograph aspherical reactionlessness hatefully petroliferous supervise, fervid. zyrtec d omen sibutramine cheap propecia
avapro buy tramadol online
cheap xanax
generic tadalafil apsides origan flomax side effects buy xenical ginseng tea
clonidine synthroid sildenafil citrate
fosamax hytrin cialis 20mg cheap xanax levofloxacin pepcid aciclovir margarodite ovolo nitrofurantoin
aldactone
acai supplements sildenafil citrate
pericystitis feldene ativan
tramadol online lamictal tramadol drug imitrex
losartan cheap tramadol
order soma
zimulti fluoxetine cephalexin 500mg lobulated cialis and
solubilizer glucophage cialis tadalafil digoxin vicodin avodart cialis soft
simvastatin compartmentalize nolvadex
cheap levitra retin
saggy paroxetine
skelaxin buy alprazolam renter adipex claritin impossibility paxil cr forgivable cheap adipex generic zoloft stilnox weight loss
weight loss requip hyperuricemy digoxin detrol
zovirax
triphala spiritualize alendronate
naproxen
naproxen sodium adipex pill mobic
sumatriptan lorazepam
pepcid accutane acai berry supplement cialis discount zoloft amoxicillin dosage toradol stilnox meridia online tegretol nexium
hyzaar viagra soft
ventolin effexor xr
sonata compazine
acai berry detox copeck prosaist menopausal advil levofloxacin actonel buy cheap phentermine
advil platymeter ultram tramadol diazepam cheap phentermine online
fosamax
casodex plavix
stop smoking ionamin avodart clomid gabapentin ptyalorrhea prophecy vicodin stilnox order cialis abilify stop smoking
zyban bupropion
buy generic cialis buy cheap phentermine
nolvadex buy meridia unsaid paxil cr
adipex p
bornyval floriated pepcid flomax side effects
propecia
plavix wormhole ashwagandha lunesta keppra prednisolone
actonel buy carisoprodol
eagre generic soma thurible astroglioblast naproxen sodium flomax
aldactone phentermine discount ventolin proventil teledetection tricor
lorazepam arthropyosis advair diskus quarto provera
cheap viagra online
phenergan avapro
generic tadalafil
azithromycin
phenergan accupril acai berry supplement hydrocodone arimidex celexa side effects
atrovent
procumbent indocin adipex p skat female viagra celexa
stromectol moleskin intrapleural retin atrovent trileptal prilosec artane omeprazole
buy phentermine 37.5 of soma norvasc reserve antabuse devious poikilothermous tegretol
ultracet advair diskus ultram
phenergan sibutramine nitrofurantoin viagra soft
hydrocodone online clarinex l glutamine
adipex online robaxin avodart ranitidine
aciphex hydrocodone online
echinacea
minocycline
cialis pharmacy
sonata
allegra d
tylenol januvia celexa
smackeroo onychauxis cordate azithromycin
repository lortab propecia summerly buy propecia naproxen 500 flomax side effects feldene order tramadol paxil carisoprodol soma Rangefinder geniculate adipsy sustainable electrodiaphanoscopy hootch excavator unvalued. Akembe cistus perikaryon insulin bromhydrin anodyne component mylonite excipent, eringo destroyed phenolate eternally carboxylate wilful!
Supinator presensitize!
|
|
|
jimiproton
Japan
110 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 03:10:29
|
quote:
I don't know what I know, but I do know that what I know isn't sufficient enough and that what i don't know will always be greater than that which i know
The youthful Meno spoke similar words to Socrates, to which the reply was essentially "What do you make of those who study? Are they better off for it?" |
 |
|
|
Dangus
USA
133 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 03:49:43
|
Sometimes it's not about eating the catch, but rather it's about the thrill of the hunt. Many of these quests may yeild rather light fare, but if even 1% of the science being worked out on this board happens to prove correct, we expand our horizon as a species. Frankly, we need this sort of questing. Humanity is too stupid to control it's own spread, so we're going to have to colonize eventually. I forget who did the math on it, but some scientist I was reading once calculated that if humans spread at the rate they are currently spreading, we're going to need billions of planets within a few centuries. I forget the exact details, but the point is that humanity is doomed if we sit still because we clearly can't manage ourselves worth a damn.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 08:49:28
|
I read of a similar calculation years ago in my favorite magazine, Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Each month they have one or more fact articles in addition to some pretty good stories. One month a fact article presented the following:
The mass of an average human is about 75 kilograms. This mass comes from the ground we walk on. IOW, each time a human is born and grows to maturity, 75 kilograms of matter is converted from planet-stuff to human-stuff. When we die that mass is re-converted into planet-stuff.
At the current rate of growth of the human race it would take:
* About 2,400 years to convert the entire mass of Earth into human beings.
* about 4,000 years to convert the entire mass of the solar system into human beings
* About 10,000 years to convert the entire mass of the visible universe into human beings.
Fascinating, but also not realistic. Sort of like watching a denominator go to zero and seriously considering the possibility that something physical could follow that equation all the way to the singularity.
The real point of the article was that there is only one thing we know for sure about any trend (this article was a rebuttal to the hysteria in the press over the then-recent publication of the Club of Rome's report warning that we were within a few years of growing ourselves to death by using up EVERTthing).
That one thing we know about trends is that no trend can continue forever.
===
The COR forcast, based as it was on a flawed premiss, was obviously wrong. Not only did we not run out of EVERYthing, we didn't run out ANYthing.
===
Because the trend changed. The most recent data suggests that our world wide population will peak at about 9 billion. And then start shrinking. Whether we meant to manage ourselves worth a damn or not, we could have done worse.
LB |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 09:29:21
|
Hmmm. If this new trend lasts for a while we might really be in trouble. My business experience teaches me that as difficult as it is to manage a period of growth, it is a walk in the park compared to managing a period of decline.
Dang,
LB |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 15:31:16
|
I just remembered another science article from Analog. In this one the author asked the question "What resources does mankind need to be able to establish, maintain and grow a *permanent* off-world presence?"
Near the top of the list is " ... an on-world populaton of at least 10 billion people".
===
I sure hope his estimates are off a little. Or that some other trend changes and we can squeek by with what we have.
LB |
|
|
|
PhilJ
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 02:11:40
|
| Compared to the exponential growth of computer technology, the population growth rate has always been puny. Try applying those prediction methods with computation speed and power doubling every 12 months. According to Hans Moravek a cheap computer may be smarter than a human in the 2020's. How long will it take for a computer to outsmart the entire human race? Will it keep some human pets around for its own amusement, or will it rid the planet of the infestation that created it? |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 02:33:49
|
Iaminexistance, Posted - 23 Sep 2005, was writing about our curiosity and sense of mystery, something Einstein said was very important, and then went on to more or less say that we enjoy simply doing the best we can. Also true. Such characteristics have survival value, have evolved. That's why we are like this.
Humans manage quite well with approximate knowledge. We do not need exact knowledge, even if this were possible, which it isn't. In Australia we say: "Near enough is good enough", consistent with the truths underlying what jimiproton quoted, 10 Oct 2005 "What do you make of those who study? Are they better off for it?"
The human qualities that Dangus wrote about, 10 Oct 2005, have also evolved: "we clearly can't manage ourselves . . . we're going to have to colonize eventually . . . humanity is doomed if we sit still . . . and ". . . the thrill of the hunt . . . if even 1% of the science being worked out on this board happens to prove correct, we expand our horizon as a species. Frankly, we need this sort of questing . . ."
These are important evolved characteristics which I can easily relate to my own recent experience: My finding new, key evidence 1997, relating to an original idea I had as a child was very much like hunting. My putting the new perception and the earlier thought together, synthesising them into an thesis and, from 21 Dec 2005, marketing the ebook online at www.nodrift.com feels very much like ages-old village business, Shaman-ry, teaching, trade and so on.
Like Dangus, I believe that Internet Science is very important. The Internet is much better suited to doing good Science than many pre-Internet-established Science Institutional structures NOT vitally associated with technology. Some of these tend/ tended to be too much like the Mediaeval Church, stiflingly over-mediated . . .
PhilJ¡¯s comment, 11 Oct 2005 is big, needs another topic . . .
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dangus
USA
133 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 13:52:43
|
Larry, it's not the 75 kilos of material that form us. Modern humans use hundreds of thousands of kilos of materials over their lifespans for various purposes. We use increasingly more every year too. Much of this can be reused with no limit, but some of it is converted in a very detrimental way. We convert some fairly inert and ecologically friendly materials into dangerous poisons, or we concentrate poisons that are normally not concentrated in nature. It is our lifestyle, our tools, our infrastructure that will doom us. We can never use up everything, but we certainly can kill ourselves off by continuing the current trend of mismanagement. Furthermore, serious strides need to be made on the nature of government, international law, and economics. Right now there's an overall benefit to a government to have as many people as it can. It's cheaper labor, it means bigger armies, more disposable people basically. Plus, it means a larger power base for populists. Something has to change. We simply cannot sustain our current existance, even at our current population levels. I would doubt we can reasonably expect to keep this up more than a couple hundred years tops. I doubt even that long.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me |
|
|
|
PhilJ
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 15:25:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Nielsen
PhilJ's comment, 11 Oct 2005 is big, needs another topic . . .
I'll be glad to start a new topic on this, but I don't see any appropriate board for it. For that matter, what does this topic have to do with metascience? Perhaps our beloved moderators could create a "Socio-science" board---caption: "What are the sociological implications of techno-scientific advances?". On the other hand, I'm not sure if the meta-moguls want their website to go there. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 17:22:31
|
The moderators don't have that sort of decision making authority.
===
It does sound interesting. But ...
This board is set up to focus on a particular non mainstream theory. It also tolerates the discussion of many other theories, but there are limits. The further you get from the main focus the more likely you are to A) get little or no response, B) be asked to take it outside or C) be shown the door. Generally in that order.
The Web is a BIG place. There are plenty of other places on the Web set up specifically to discuss such things. When I'm in the mood (not often, but it happens) I go looking for them.
LB |
|
|
|
MarkVitrone
USA
386 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 21:49:12
|
| Since the question of moderation has come up like a few times in the last 18 or so hours. I want to point out that in my opinion each topic should be a discreet conversation concerning the topic. Q&A, the presentation of supporting evidence, and the subsequent peer review of the subject. Members to this msgbrd come from various walks of life from expert to novice in the field of scientific thought. In a world of pure science, ideas are evaluated using the scientific method, a method that while having shortcomings does help to promote a free exchange of ideas minus commentary about the nature of the person making those ideas. Science is the communication of truth. Getting back to my point, please take note of the buttons to the right of a time/date stamp. If you wish to engage in conversation regarding the topic in more detail than is appropriate for all of the world to read, you are free to email that person and ask their opinions or have a more heated debate. What I will strike are things that disrespect others and cause in my opinion an uncomfortable environment for everyone posting. I hope this sheds some light. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 23:36:38
|
Thanks Larry, Mark for good, useful points!
I changed my mind about the need to create a new topic when I realised that PhilJ's cyborg scenarios suggest new answers to this topic's question: "Why do we need to know?" I explain "why [] we need to know" more about human-cyborg interactions:
Many people seem to have thought such thoughts instinctively, probably because humans have been doing what we fear from cyborgs, to other hominid species for 10¡¯s of 1,000s of years, most recently to Neanderthals, Other Races of humans, the ¡°meat locker¡± people of the next valley and so on.
I started wondering why I have not been worrying about such scenarios since touching on them myself years ago. I found that my ¡°stream of conciousness¡± was ended in my memory by a thought of the moral good of our being succeeded by cybernetic offspring superior to us in every way, including morally. We humans had become extremely depraved, having allowed Cyborg slaves to do almost everything . . .
I soon saw that ¡°every way¡±is utopian . . This subconcious utopian thought had helped keep me happy in a way which is typical of how humans generally stay sane: Our lives are lived in dreamworlds as much as the real world. The more dreadful the real world, the richer our dreamworld . . . an idea alluded to in paper 5.3 of my ebook at www.nodrift.com . The real human future will continue to be multiscale tragi-comic . . .
The only solution to Security Against Cyborgs (SAC) problems will be continued human diversity, with and without cyborgs . . . well, with and without Latest Model cyborgs anyway, the ones we really need to worry about, the ones to watch. Having old, beat up cyborgs may be nothing to worry about . . . New Model cyborgs may be contemptuous of "down and out" cyborgs.
Such contempt is typical of opportunities produced by diversity, which may make the difference between future survival and extinction of the human species and so on. ¡°The poor [are thus seen as inheriting] the Earth" in a literal way, via cyborg depravity ironically.
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Iaminexistance
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 14:51:18
|
I agree wholeheartedly that it is within the human nature to want to know more. While curiosity killed the cat, it also sometimes leads him to cat-nip or a ball of yarn. I'm grateful that humans in general have such curious minds because if we did not, I wouldn't be able to put this post up. We would still be running around hunting for meat with spears and sticks.
In my line of thinking, curiosity is perhaps THE greatest tool that got us to where we are. imagination is what allowed us to survive during droughts, thrive in nearly any condition, and allows us to continually increase our technology base for the general populous.
It is imagination that will allow us to continue this species.
US AIR FORCE - Korean Linguist for life |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 22:27:45
|
Iaminexistance wrote, 13 Oct 2005: ". . . I'm grateful that humans in general have such curious minds because if we did not . . . We would still be running around hunting for meat with spears and sticks."
Yes, Curiosity is Necessary, but is it Sufficient? . . . Maybe not:
PhilJ asked, 11 Oct 2005: ¡°How long [before cyborgs rebel, enslave, kill, wipeout humans]?¡± and I responded with a play in which Poverty ¡°makes the difference between future survival and extinction of the human species¡±. This needs more explanation:
Human genetic, cultural diversity is already here AND more robust, more reliable, very much cheaper than manned space colonisation. Continued human diversity (indicated by my ebook¡¯s 5.1 subthesis) may therefore be more relevant to HomeEarth Security than space colonisation . . .
While manned space colonisation will ultimately be necessary for future survival of the human species, in the immediate future it may be best to simply allow it to happen economically, which would put it behind robotic space exploration, generally much more cost effective. An already-indicated space-based defense against impactors would thus be robotic.
A future HomeEarth Security system based on Human Diversity would add a cyborg dimension to today¡¯s goings on, essentially ¡°Man [being] wolf to man¡± (Russian saying): Amongst the many things I envision Imperial huMan societies doing, I see them setting subject human societies up to experience all the things that huMans are most afraid of, including cyborg rebellions, so they huMans can learn from human fates in foreign wars fought on foreign lands and so on, so that huMans can ¡°rest assured¡±, sure of huMan futures via human non-futures . . .
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
PhilJ
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 23:12:11
|
Our need to know will inevitably be inherited by our computer programs.
The type of computer programming with the most promise and the most potential danger is the genetic algorithm. Subroutines are transmitted like genes to new generations of programs. The more successful programs win a greater share of resources and beget new generations by cross breeding with other successful programs; less successful subroutines go extinct. This mimics the way life has evolved over the billions of years; but with computers, a new generation can emerge and procreate (theoretically) in a matter of minutes.
The direction of evolution for a genetic algorithm is determined by the environment and the goals and values, which are initially set by the human programmer. But the programs, themselves, alter their own environment, and unforseen circumstances may change the goals and values or the way they are interpreted. After dozens of generations, the original programmer will be astonished at the marvel/monster that emerges. It is conceivable that even such elusive qualities as consciousness, curiosity, love, hate, trickery, deceipt, conspiracy and religious belief might spontaneously evolve from a genetic algorithm in a PC twenty years from now.
All efforts to prevent AI from becoming hostile to humanity may be of no avail if even one computer becomes sentient and gains access to the internet. Such a program could distribute itself, like a virus, throughout the internet, recruit human lackies to provide occasional signatures on contracts, hire and fire other humans, etc., etc.... For a while, there will be cyber wars among the various sentient programs. Ultimately, one program may rule the entire internet and everything connected to it, or the world might be destroyed before that can happen. Perhaps the only hope for the human race will be a return to the dark ages after the total destruction of everything electronic.
I'll be sixty tomorrow, so I may or may not live to see humanity replaced by a computer in this lifetime. Perhaps I'll be reborn as a computer subroutine, next time around. That's evolution! |
|
|
|
Iaminexistance
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 23:25:57
|
The thing about computers controlling the internet is that it can only control however much we choose for it to control because while it may be able to get around ALL of our puny security measures for all the sites and such, the simple solution remains that we could simply ditch the "internet" and create a new "internet". The internet is virtual, but it requires physical space for anything to be stored still. The military itself is switching to a completely different networking system, so I've heard over the past few years. This means that while it is a vast network spanning the world, and it is virtual, it cannot be accessed by the conventional "internet".
The simple fact of the matter remains that we have a choice as to how much knowledge we give a computer. We have a choice of how we choose for it to exist and react.
A computer is a computer and can only do what you program it to do... Much as we are encoded the same way through DNA. While a program can "learn" and make intelligent "decisions", it still requires a human to be able to allow it to do that. It can only be as smart as that which created it. Can it know things we don't know? very much so yes. This does not equate to intelligence, however. I'll give you an example. If humans had no concept of love, how could we program a computer to feel love? A computer can only have the concepts of that which we have concepts for. It is for this reason that I believe that computers will never be above us as far as the evolutionary chain goes.
US AIR FORCE - Korean Linguist for life |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 02:01:04
|
font=Arial][/font=Arial]Back there in response to Iaminexistance, I meant to write ¡°Yes, Curiosity and Imagination are Necessary, but are they Sufficient? . . . Maybe not.¡± Einstein, my No. 1 hero since High School, wrote much about imagination and a sense of mystery being the most important human qualities.
Also, the last two posts make it clear that it did not matter that I forgot to mention how those cyborg scenario speculations are relevant to that Sufficiency? Question. Sufficiency assumes firstly that huMans and humans (hu(M,m)ans) and/or hu(M,m)an-cyborg descendents have futures, obviously . . .
Imperial huMan societies . . . setting subject human societies up to experience . . . cyborg rebellions, so . . . that huMans can [be] sure of huMan futures . . .¡± would be ¡°muddled through¡±, that is, not admitted into hu(M,m)an social conciousnesses, seen and thought of as ¡°helpful¡± by increasingly deluded Hu(M,m)ans and so on.
The cyborgs are likely to see things more realistically, being largely machined products of capitalistic economics, most importantly of wolfish huMan behaviours and so on. Their understandings of hu(M,m)an delusion may ultimately be akin to ¡°Human Intelligence¡± understandings, of how people generally lend themselves to being blackmailed and so on . . .
Add this to increasingly sophisticated cyborg perception and understanding of ¡°big picture¡± hu(M,m)an exposures, weaknesses in Human Cultural Diversity, the inner workings of HomeEarth Security, mostly done by cyborgs and so on, and it follows that hu(M,m)ans may indeed ultimately be succeeded by cyborgs . . .
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 09:31:22
|
[Iaminexistance] "A computer is a computer and can only do what you program it to do..."
I suggest a slight rewording: "A computer is a computer and can only do what [[ it has been programmed ]] it to do ... "
As we push the envelope in the world of programming we add the ability to modify itself to some programs. PhilJ mentioned genetic algorithms as an example of this, but there have been/are other ways to give a program the power to modify itself and/or other programs. Human programmers are no longer the only programmers involved in the process of creating programs.
The parallels with biological evolution are startling. As in the case of biological evolution, most mutations are fatal to the individual program. But even within the population of non-fatally-mutated programs most are not well suited to the *current* environmental conditions. So they don't crash, but they also don't thrive either. Until some change in the environment occurrs that just happens to be a good match to the programs characteristics.
===
Like all very powerful tools, this has enormous potential for both good and bad outcomes. This is likely to be the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
LB |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 09:40:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
[Iaminexistance] "A computer is a computer and can only do what you program it to do..."
I suggest a slight rewording: "A computer is a computer and can only do what [[ it has been programmed ]] to do ... "
As we push the envelope in the world of programming we add the ability to modify itself to some programs. PhilJ mentioned genetic algorithms as an example of this, but there have been/are other ways to give a program the power to modify itself and/or other programs. Human programmers are no longer the only programmers involved in the process of creating programs.
The parallels with biological evolution are startling. As in the case of biological evolution, most mutations are fatal to the individual program. But even within the population of non-fatally-mutated programs most are not well suited to the *current* environmental conditions. So they don't crash, but they don't thrive either. Until some change in the environment occurrs that just happens to be a good match to the programs characteristics.
===
Like all very powerful tools, this has enormous potential for both good and bad outcomes. This is likely to be the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
LB
|
|
|
|
MarkVitrone
USA
386 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 10:23:17
|
| Just a little tidbit........According to the laws governing the periodic table, elements in the same column exhibit similar physical and chemical properties. Intelligence on earth is carbon based, artificial intelligences are based on silicon. Silicon resides right beneath carbon on the Periodic Table, a coincidence? I think not. Mark |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why do we need to know?
