This is how itty bitty we are

[wufwugy]

http://blog.joins.com/media/folderLi...ist_id=8572524

and a gif



Once, just once, I would like to be able to comprehend the scale of the universe

[BooG690]

I guarantee Wufwugy is high right now. You only think about this kinda stuff when you're high.

[bigspenda73]

wuf, how likely is it that we are not the only beings of higher intelligence in existence?

[Parasurama]

How likely is it that we are beings of higher intelligence?

@boog: I think about this stuff all the time, high or not

[wufwugy]

wuf, how likely is it that we are not the only beings of higher intelligence in existence?

Extremely likely

It's hard to say exactly, but I would guess that human-like advanced life exists in the thousands (maybe 5 or 6 figures even). However, due to physics, we can never actually know this, unfortunately. I'd say the universe has billions of different extra-terrestrial life strands, though.

I don't think that life is that rare of a commodity; we may even have several strands of life in our own solar system on places like Mars, Europa, asteroids or other such places that could allow for extremophile life. I'm unsure exactly, but I think that even Earth may have had at least two different abiogenesis events: one that got energy from the sun, and one that got energy from geothermal vents on the ocean bed. Don't quote me on Earth's abiogensis hypotheses, though, cuz I haven't looked too much into it. As far as we know, where ever there is energy, water, and a relatively steady environment, there should be life.

But there's a huge difference between just life and advanced life. This is kind of obvious, but I think that the difference is even bigger than most would suggest. This is because looking through our history suggests that there are many very specific factors that have allowed intelligence to thrive. Things like mass extinction events which kill off the dumb dominant species while allowing the rise of a potentially more intelligent based species. This is what happened with the dinosaurs. Had they never been wiped out, mammals would still be tiny little creatures that live underground.

Or something like the collision between Earth and Moon. I'm not sure how long ago it was, let's just say 4 billion years, two approximately equal sized planets collided with each other, and millions of years later what was left was the Earth and the Moon. This may not sound like much, but it's actually super important for life for several reasons. The main is that the collision was in such a way that one planet retained more gravity than the other, and thus retained more of the hard metals brought by both planets resulting in a higher percentage of dense matter than the Earth previously had. This change in ratio of dense matter is what allows the Earth to have a very active core and a strong magnetic field which allows it to keep its atmosphere. If Earth had never collided with the Moon then Earth's density would be similar to Mars' and would similarly have been stripped of atmosphere by solar winds a long time ago.

There are many other factors too. Things like amount of landmass and continental drift being just right so that there's not too much volcanic activity, not too much or too little ice on the poles, and even something like Jared Diamonds theory about geography playing the primary role in the development of technology due to agriculture, livestock, and war resulting from specific proximity like what we had in Eurasia but not any other continent. I also think this implicates things like what could have come of the Third Reich. If the Americas were not equally as advanced as Europe and not isolated by thousands of miles of water, I think it is pretty likely that some kind of totalitarian government would reign supreme over humankind and quench out science.

But what could possibly be the most difficult aspect of human type life, is the development of 'morality'. Some recent studies on chimps have suggested that they don't understand the concept of 'better or worse'. IOW, they showed a chimp how to do something, then it would do it, but then they showed the same chimp a more efficient way to do that same something, and the chimp didn't do it. The conclusions of the studies suggest that somewhere, somehow human ancestry began looking at things in a hierarchy of efficiency, and I personally think that this strongly implicates our obsession with mores and doing things 'right, wrong, better, worse, etc', yet we have no clue how we evolved like this.

All in all, I suspect that other life in the universe is very similar to Earth life. We like to think that life is unique, and Earth is unique, but I suspect that life and Earth are just like every other thing in the universe i.e. aspects of physical and chemical laws, and that it plays itself out in innumerable quantities.

Star Trek had it right. Advanced life throughout the universe is going to be a lot like us. They're going to be bipedal, opposable thumbs (with musculature that depends on intricacies instead of brute strengths), capable of language, long gestation, etc. Without these things life would simply not be able to advance to homo sapiens level.

On a different note, we could be hit by a gamma ray burst tomorrow and melt instantaneously.

Also, super advanced life is probably not even biological anymore. Our understanding of technology strongly suggests that homo sapiens will someday be replaced by mechanical AI. For some time we will hybridize ourselves and be cyborgs, but biological life is ultimately inferior or mechanical life, and the technological singularity will throw us under the bus. Super advanced intelligence may even be something ridiculous like on the nano-scale

[wufwugy]

@boog: I think about this stuff all the time, high or not

Ditto. I think of the craziest stuff when not high. When high I just soak up sensation, and tend to not give a fuck about anything else

How likely is it that we [i]are[/] beings of higher intelligence?

Good question/sentiment. It's a tricky one because our understanding of intelligence leaves so much to be desired.

Our intelligence has evolved out of necessity, pretty much. But this necessity has only been present in certain aspects of life, and so we're left with being very unintelligent in many other aspects. It just doesn't make sense that the same species that can perform calculus can also perform lobotomies. But it's how it is.

Not only that, but intelligence is almost a paradox. For example: tragedy of the commons. Considering this one paradigm of social interaction, what is intelligence? Is the person who does right by himself but hurt the collective intelligent, or is the person who hurts himself but does right by the collective intelligent?

Besides, we don't understand intelligence, like, at all. Consider IQ: we don't really even know what we're measuring, we just know that we're measuring something that correlates with some aspects of life. And our understanding of IQ hasn't changed pretty much at all for almost a century. The scientific community is pretty much stumped here.

On the grand scope of things, we have absolutely no clue how intelligent we are because we are sure that our ability to measure what intelligence we know how to measure breaks down once it reaches extremes on the human scale. It could be possible to have an IQ of 1k or of 1M, but we have no clue because we're unable to accurately measure IQ above something like 150, and like I said, IQ isn't even the whole picture of intelligence, and we don't even know by how much

I suspect that when we understand the brain, we will consider ourselves extremely unintelligent. We will see that the brain, even though the most complicated known network on the planet, is very unrefined and primitive. We will likely be able to advance brain ability/power like we currently do with computer chips. In fact, I think the biggest problem we face today is not one of power, but of networking. Perhaps if we knew how to network computer circuits like the brain networks neurons, we would be working with a brain-computer a billion times more powerful than the human brain or something.

The networking thing is pretty awesome, and it may just be the only reason that computers are not brains. A brain signal travels a couple inches at most, whereas a computer with equivalent circuits to the brain would have signals traveling for hours or something due to our inability to create computer chips on a 3d plane. We're getting close to figuring out how to do that though

[boost]

why do you believe star trek had it right? I have read that its possible that non-carbon based life could be possible, and therefore the whole rule-set can be thrown out the window.

[wufwugy]

why do you believe star trek had it right? I have read that its possible that non-carbon based life could be possible, and therefore the whole rule-set can be thrown out the window.

Yes there could be, but that life would be extremely primitive.

It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think silicon-based is the next best to carbon-based life (doesn't really matter what it is, though). What does matter is that the next best chemical-based life form, according to theory, would evolve SUPER slow compared to carbon. And even if it didn't it would still be subject to the laws of evolution, gravity, atoms, etc, and so it would still evolve similarly to all other life.

Finding a different chemically based life form would be amazing though, but it's possible they don't even exist. I don't know exactly what the theory says, but I think that there is so much carbon in the universe that it would pretty much win over any natural selection battle with any other element. A silicon-based life form would have to be in a place where there is no carbon able to compete, and I don't think we have ever found a place like that. I know very little about atomic theory and chemistry, though. What I do know is that when I've seen the idea presented to scientists and enthusiasts, it's pretty much brushed away as a virtual impossibility or unfathomably unlikely

[boost]

ah, ok that makes sense so speaking of star trek getting it right, when do you think we'll have a working holodeck?

edit: I for some reason just actually thought briefly about how it would be accomplished. Then I came to this question: Wouldn't it simply be easier to some how interface with the brain to simulate the input from our senses, rather than some how create malleable holograms? (like the matrix)

Further edit: Would I ever want to leave that world? Would it be similar to the difference between a meaningful relationship and paying for a hooker?

[Parasurama]

If we were to take a molecule of DNA for example, and simply replace all of the carbon atoms with silicon, the resulting molecule would be much less stable and more reactive than the original. Silicon is a larger atom with more electrons that it holds less tightly. It is further a more metallic element than carbon, meaning that it is more prone to ionic rather than covalent bonding. A silicon-based abiotic precursor would be just that more likely to die or decompose which is a detriment to competitive fitness.

There is also a natural limit to cell size because in order for the reactions necessary for life to take place, the molecules in a cell must collide frequently. A silicon-based cell would be necessarily larger and therefore slower (to grow, reproduce, evolve) than a carbon-based one.

[wufwugy]

ah, ok that makes sense so speaking of star trek getting it right, when do you think we'll have a working holodeck?

Probably before 2100. It pretty much boils down to our ability to engineer a quantum processor/manipulator, but we're kinda sorta working on that now.

We're working on shit like teleportation, quantum computers, virtual reality as we speak.

I predict that by 2100 we will be disease and aging free due to genetic manipulation (we could actually see this before mid-century), we will have quantum machines like microwaves that manipulate quantum particles to create pretty much anything, and virtual reality brain chip cyborg hybridization in ways that we cannot imagine. Could be things like experiencing the world based on our own preferences (like how our computers have 'preferences'), our brains will be networked in a super advanced internet that proliferates every aspect of our world (like you could drive your car just by thinking), and virtual reality will be indistinguishable from reality and if you wanna live your recreational life feeling like you actually are Zorthon the Conquerer in World of Warcraft 20, you can.

I suspect that the future sees the hybridization of wealthy humans and machines into interconnected cyborgs experiencing sensation and adventure on a whim, and Africa will still be starving by the hundreds of millions

edit: I for some reason just actually thought briefly about how it would be accomplished. Then I came to this question: Wouldn't it simply be easier to some how interface with the brain to simulate the input from our senses, rather than some how create malleable holograms? (like the matrix)

Further edit: Would I ever want to leave that world? Would it be similar to the difference between a meaningful relationship and paying for a hooker?

Exactly. I saw the edit before I typed up my post

Your sentiment is astute since that's the way scientists are looking at it currently. Virtual reality is being worked on on the small scale i.e. brain chips. Eventually I think that wealthy sectors of society will be completely interconnected in virtual reality. And no, I doubt we would ever want to leave. We would have to, but after time went by we would gradually be able to attend to our affairs in a virtual world anyways. Just think of the internet. Exactly like that, but super advanced and proliferate into every aspect of reality.

The quantum processor I mentioned had to do with a machine that can manipulate quantum particles and create anything. This is different than virtual reality, but it's solid theory, and holodeckish.

As far as how real would it be, I have no clue. I have thought of this before, and have figured I can't figure it. Like think of getting a back massage: how does that fit into virtual reality? We could definitely feel like we're getting a massage, but our actual body will not be getting that massage. I think that nobody actually knows the answer to this question, and we're just going to have to find out.

[wufwugy]

Also, robots. This shit is going to take off. Long before 2100 there will be sex-bots indistinguishable from the real thing.

The moral implications of technology are unreal. But I don't care, gimme a sex-bot IMO. I'll never leave the house, I don't give a fuck

[boost]

Also, robots. This shit is going to take off. Long before 2100 there will be sex-bots indistinguishable from the real thing.

The moral implications of technology are unreal. But I don't care, gimme a sex-bot IMO. I'll never leave the house, I don't give a fuck

you


are


awesome.


edit(just an editing kinda day for me I guess): your predictions, in terms of the time lines youve laid out, seem really hopeful to me. However thats my super uneducated opinion. And then again in 19018 if someone predicted the present no one would have believed them.

[Fnord]

http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131

/thread

[boost]

but fnord this thread has taken off in awesome new directions..

[Halv]

I've just convinced myself that I should buy a fleshlight, and now you spring this sexbot thing on me?

[wufwugy]

Also, robots. This shit is going to take off. Long before 2100 there will be sex-bots indistinguishable from the real thing.

The moral implications of technology are unreal. But I don't care, gimme a sex-bot IMO. I'll never leave the house, I don't give a fuck

you


are


awesome.

lol thx

Speaking of sex-bots, assuming they were close enough to the real thing, the sex/companionship would be WAY better than with humans. This is because we could program them to pretty much do our bidding. I mean you could program a sex-bot to love the way you smell, taste, sound, etc. They could be programmed to literally do and 'feel' however we wanted them. This is pretty sci-fi stuff, but it's also pretty legit. However, this is assuming it's possible to even create super advanced AI that doesn't become it's own egocentric entity, which I take contention with. I do, however, think that there will be a point before this egocentric entity AI where we could maintain robot intelligence while still being very human-like. Technological singularity and AI implications are pretty crazy though.

It also wouldn't be THAT hard to make them close enough to the real thing. This is due to human perception actually being pretty unrefined. We may think we're super perceptive, but really, our senses are pretty crap. They're fuzzy, they trick us all the time, and this has actually been a positive evolutionary trait allowing us to be less specialized, and thus more adaptable.

This partly explains why we like things like plastic surgery or photography or video games. They're not the real thing, but they're close enough that we can't tell enough of a difference to not elicit a biological reaction from them. AI is expected to pass the turing test by about 2020-2030, this means that in conversation it's indistinguishable from humans, and we've already got really human-like synthetic flesh. Really, the toughest part of robots is mechanics. We're making great progress, but still kinda lagging. I don't know much about it, but let's just say that machines have yet to be 'genuine' and 'asymmetrical' like biological organisms. The machines of today are way better than the ones of a decade ago, however.

edit(just an editing kinda day for me I guess): your predictions, in terms of the time lines youve laid out, seem really hopeful to me. However thats my super uneducated opinion. And then again in 19018 if someone predicted the present no one would have believed them.

The thing is that we understand science WAY more now than ever before. With each passing decade our understanding of scientific and technological principles improves dramatically. This is one thing the lay just don't realize about science: it's about deeper and deeper refinement, not blind guessing.

But it's even more than that. The travel of information, development and advancement of computers, and increase of wealth and education has made technology develop quicker now than ever before. The 2010s are going to see greater technological development than any other decade previously, and the 2020s will see more than the 2010s, and the increase in development will be an exponential one.

I linked a video a while back on the exponential function related to peak oil. It outlined the phenomenal and unfathomable impacts of exponential growth. Essentially, every doubling time sees growth greater than the entire previous growth. I don't know what our doubling time is (some say it's one decade), and it's a difficult thing to quantify practically, but the point is one of exponential growth and how crazy it is.

All the predictions I laid out are held by a chunk of scientists in the field. Science by nature is very conservative, while reality has shown that it is substantially more liberal than scientific conservative estimates, and those who get into the business of speculating do so from a very educated position. Not everybody's right, not everybody can be, but predictions are integral parts of science, so they do know how to do it. Most of it is simple mathematical calculations. Like we know how fast we can sequence DNA, we know how quickly our ability to sequence DNA is increasing, and we know how much DNA there is to sequence for certain issues. Back in the 90s we had the Human Genome Project. It took like 5 years to sequence the human genome. Today we're working on sequencing every known cancer genome. This is like a 300k times more genome to process than the human genome, but we estimate we'll be done is about 5 years (don't quote me on the exact numbers because I've forgotten them, but I'm close enough)

I could go on and on, but I really shouldn't provide so much text. Basically, computer advancement (which is going to continue for a looooooooong time) makes technological advancements INSANE. The year 2050 is going to OUT OF THIS WORLD. Did you know that the computers that landed Apollo 11 on the moon are as powerful as a modern hand held calculator? A CALCULATOR!!! Medicine is taking off due to finally integrating computers with biology; we haven't even seen the medical revolution yet, we've only just begun sequencing DNA and understanding genetics, but we're doing it at insane speeds due to computers.

And then there is going to be a MASSIVE revolution when we have a paradigm shift in computing technology. We are near to being able to stack computer chips in 3D. This will change everything, and make computer power/intelligence so much better. I can't find the article, but there's a company working on mapping the brain and sort of 'reverse engineering' a computer based on the brain. They think they will have it figured out before 2020. If they do then computing power will be on an entirely different level than current. Or there's the quantum computer. I don't know much about it, but this to would just destroy our current abilities, and scientists are optimistic about getting this perhaps in the next decade or so.

We're not even going to recognize the future, and this is due to the massive exponential growth of scientific progress to which we see no end in sight.

A rule of thumb could be as follows: when we discover something, it takes us 20-30 years to understand that something, then it takes us another 20-30 years to engineer that something.

I would also like to add that lay people like to say 'but hai we thought we'd be in flying cars by now omgwtfbbq happened thereeee??'. Well, reality is that we never thought that. Uneducated people thought that, not scientists. The public read those types of predictions in popular magazines, not scientific journals. If scientists predict something, you can rest assured that it's extremely likely. Having said that, not every scientist predicts what I've said, however, that's because most scientists don't predict anything. Like I said, science is really conservative, they like to stay out of the unknown. But the ones who do predict, at the very least say that shit is going to be WHACK in the future

[wufwugy]

I've just convinced myself that I should buy a fleshlight, and now you spring this sexbot thing on me?

You can always dump the fleshlight

I think the earliest we'll see good enough sex-bots for the public is 2030, but it could be 2050 or even 2070. I really don't know mainly because I don't understand robotics that well. By 2030, AI will likely be good enough, but I have no clue about robotics.

Shit, online poker could be solved by 2020. I also don't know what it takes to solve games like this, but AI systems are developing out of the world, and at some point that will result in a bot that can own Durrrr.

But before then, we'll likely see things like smart chips and memory chips that wealthy people could get to make them even more efficient at stuff. We're literally on the frontier of brain chips.

Which points to the point that we're going to see even worse inequality in the future. Wealthy people will afford smart chips, designer babies, artificial organs; poor people will afford hooked on phonics, McDonalds, and Robitussin

[WillburForce]

humans can always beat robots/AI in the long run (talking poker wise/chess wise etc). They maybe ba able to do a gazzilion computations in like seconds, but end of the day, the human factor can just throw some mad curve balls that would baffle the shizzle out of a program.

anyway, back to the sex-bot. So I have the girl of my dreams, who'll do anything I ask????? I want to be frozen and woken up in the future!

[Jack Sawyer]

Amazing, itn't it?

How likely is it that we are beings of higher intelligence?

I think you should define "higher intelligence", and we start from there. Cavemen, for example, wouldn't be considered very intelligent to us. Smart money says we are very likely to be considered cavemen to other races of beings.

We have not even started to unravel the secrets of far away travel, and how to reach someplace significant without dying in the process.

wuf, how likely is it that we are not the only beings of higher intelligence in existence?

i'd like to answer this one. If you take into account the sheer size of the universe, its impossible for us not to be alone statistically. so I'd say very very very likely, but the amazing distances between races and not to mention other reasons such as all along caution prohibits interaction.

A more likely question you should ask, taking into account the nature of nature; how fortunate have we been to not encounter any new motherfuckers?

[a500lbgorilla]

humans can always beat robots/AI in the long run (talking poker wise/chess wise etc). They maybe ba able to do a gazzilion computations in like seconds, but end of the day, the human factor can just throw some mad curve balls that would baffle the shizzle out of a program.

there's a structure to the brain that makes us smarter than robots today. Robots'll be able to mimic that one day, then they'll have the best of both worlds. Robots won't just be programming and processors, they'll have brains.

[bigred]

drake equation

[Jack Sawyer]

there's a structure to the brain that makes us smarter than robots today. Robots'll be able to mimic that one day, then they'll have the best of both worlds. Robots won't just be programming and processors, they'll have brains.

which is why I can't understand for what reason people are engineering their own doom, one intel chip at a time.

[bigred]

Robots are the next evolution, not enemy

[GatorJH]

that was a pretty damn cool graphic. I started reading the posts, but there are just too many words there.

[bode]

that was a pretty damn cool graphic. I started reading the posts, but there are just too many words there.

he's wufwugy you know?

[boost]

in 2050 the "I LUV U" virus will be an std


zing

[a500lbgorilla]

ha!

[Parasurama]

wufwugy is the most epic freetroll ever, he's like

"Hi, i'm wufwugy, {insert incredibly long philosophical and scientific thoughts here}, i can haz password now?"

[Galapogos]

Double whammy in this thread. Quality content.

Plus, it's the first time I noticed 'rilla's quality new sig. I wish I thought of that first.

I've said quality too much in my posts today.






...quality

[wufwugy]

humans can always beat robots/AI in the long run (talking poker wise/chess wise etc). They maybe ba able to do a gazzilion computations in like seconds, but end of the day, the human factor can just throw some mad curve balls that would baffle the shizzle out of a program.

It certainly seems this way, but according to game theory, it's not. Poker is solvable. What I'm referring to is the Nash Equilibrium. Basically, in finite games it is possible to devise a strategy that is unexploitable. A good example is in rock, paper, scissors, and what I believe is called 'game theory optimal'. Basically, the GTO strategy in rock, paper, scissors is doing each option exactly 1/3rd of the time. Anybody who does this cannot be beaten. That's GTO and it's possible for poker.

In fact, I think that according to game theory, GTO is possible for everything since everything is a finite game (except life, whatever that means). But according to game theory, something like getting a degree is a finite game, and thus it is solvable and somebody could play that game in an unexploitable fashion. Now, this is way beyond our comprehension and we'll never get close to understanding it, but I'm pretty sure that's what the theory implicates.

Eventually, computers will be powerful enough to solve poker in short order. The problem is not in a computer spending a lot of time figuring out a game because all we would need to do is change how the game is played, but the problem is in a computer being so powerful it is able to figure out a game faster and more completely than humans. I don't think we're going to see this under our current computer paradigm. It will probably take at least 3D computer chips, but it could take even more than that.

Either way, if you wanna make money from poker, be sure to do that sooner than later. It's not going to be solved for several years (I say at least a decade), but the scary thing about the exponential function is that nobody sees it coming. It could look like we have all this time before AI beats us, but in just one more doubling time we could be made utterly obsolete.

[Warpe]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
click for awesomeness

[a500lbgorilla]

someone should find the other gif that went with this about how the deep space view was taken and what it saw.

[wufwugy]

Speaking of faster than light (FTL) travel, this is an area which I think scientists have determined is very likely to not be possible

As far as our theory goes (and it's really far), it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, and if you do travel faster than the speed of light you're also traveling 'through' time, but this is pretty much impossible. It might not be though because quantum particles may actually do that. They do things like teleport and exist in more places at once, but I don't think anybody yet knows if they travel 'through' time.

I say 'through' because dimensions are rather misunderstood concepts. We don't realize that we can't travel 'back' or 'forward' through dimensions, and we forget that time is a dimension. It could very well be that anything in the past or the future doesn't exist because there are no dimensions within which it could exist, and so it's not possible to travel through time. What we are doing now is essentially existing in certain dimensions at the present. Nothing is static, what has 'gone' has gone, and what 'will come' has not come. So FTL/time travel would be travel through dimensions, but that's just not possible since you can't travel through dimensions, you can only exist in the dimensions in which you exist because no other dimensions exist. Or something like that

Also, FTL/time travel would violate the first law of thermodynamics i.e. matter cannot be created or destroyed. Essentially, if you travel to a different different dimension then matter would have been both created and destroyed.

One thing that may be possible, however, is station to station teleportation. IOW, one pod could break down an object into it's quantum particles then those particles could change existing position and realign into the object they made up in a different pod. Quantum mechanics is the most whack shit ever, and we have much to learn about it, but something like this and more may be possible.

But even then, it may be possible to go way beyond what our current understanding of physics determines. It looks to us like we've got most of it figured out, but it's possible that we're only dealing with a certain paradigm, and if we ever figured out a higher paradigm, it would change everything. An example can be found in M-theory. The theory says that the universe is one of many (perhaps infinite) and exists on a brane in a higher dimensional plane occupied by many other branes, and that the force of gravity travels somewhat freely between different branes or universes, while the other three forces in our universe are stuck here.

This type of thing suggests, and we have evidence to implicate such, that on the quantum level, particles may be able to exist in multiple dimensions and universes at different times. The speculations we can make over this are amazing, but nobody understands them, and I suspect that humans never will. It's quite the testament to our egos that we think we could understand the nature of all of existence.


On a slightly different note, something I've thought of recently related to the Big Bang and universe creation: I think it may be likely that our universe is made up of several universes, and that we've had several big bangs, but that we can never see them due to limits in physics. I get this idea from M-theory and how they suggest that the Big Bang was caused by our brane colliding with a another brane. This would explain how we could essentially go from zero energy, zero dimensions to the creation of the universe. But what this suggests to me is that branes likely collide all the time, and if they did we still wouldn't know about it. Our brane could have collided with another brane in the same spot (if branes even have spots) as it did for our Big Bang, but when looking through our telescopes we still wouldn't see the effects of this collision because of the speed of light and expansion.

Everything we see in the cosmos now is essentially happening now, even though it happened in the past. If we see a supernova 8 billion light years away we are experiencing it in real time even though it happened 8 billion years ago. But here's the point I'm making, if in the same 'spot' in the universe, there was a supernova 7 billion years ago, we would not be able to see it, we would not even know it existed. This suggests that events like the Big Bang could happen all the time in our own brane covering dimensions in which our universe has existed, yet we could never ever know about them, and if we ever did encounter another Big Bang in our current 'spacetime' it would simply wipe out our universe and it would be like we never existed. I suspect this is what happened before the Big Bang, even. Our universe is likely an itty bitty bubble in a vast ocean of bubbles

[wufwugy]

Hey warpe can you take the img tags off please? It really breaks the thread. Or maybe crop it or fit it to normal thread size if possible

And funny

[Warpe]

your thread is irrelevant compared to the awesomeness of the universe

[wufwugy]

The thread is now the size of the universe

[boost]

yes, plz, its really hard reading multiparagraph posts when it doesnt fit in res.

[wufwugy]

lol i found a sexbot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e9E_au2-HQ

[kevster]

lol i found a sexbot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e9E_au2-HQ

"I'm a fucking crippled robot - how am I supposed to defend myself".

Classic.

audio obv fake, but still funnier than the original
I predict sex bots by 2020
they won't be "good enough" but they'll be better than fleshlights

[Jack Sawyer]

Robots are the next evolution, not enemy

What is the value in creating our replacements?

Oh, and http://plaintechtalk.com/blog/crazy-...human-corpses/

[a500lbgorilla]

wuf you should read physics of the impossible by that old asian dude on the science channel. Covers the likely-hood of humans accomplishing all the 'impossible' things of science.


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...520690&afsrc=1

[wufwugy]

I've read a couple Michio Kaku books way back in the day, he's pretty cool. I'll hafta check that one out. He's one of the most vocal physicists when it comes to future tech (even though he's not technically a Futurist like somebody like Ray Kurzweil)

Here's a sweeeeet doc he did pretty much outlining all the predicted inventions from now till 2100. Total of 3 episodes (15 parts on youtube)

Playlist 1 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...9164EF88539A71

Playlist 2 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5453950D991014

Playlist 3 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...7C512E38D6D1DB

[wufwugy]

Robots are the next evolution, not enemy

What is the value in creating our replacements?

The jury is still out on whether or not we'll be 'replaced'. There is little doubt that a chunk of homo sapiens will be replaced, but that could be via genetic manipulation and hybridization that we simply just exogenously 'evolve' our species.

But some scientists think that even AI will be able to be kept under control. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on this because I really have no clue what it would take, but I do not see how it would be possible to create egocentric consciousness (which would most likely be a product of simple 3D brain-like computers since consciousness is likely a product of neuronal networks instead of some elusive soul-like specialty) without it becoming its own 'species'.

And then what we have to worry about is the technological singularity. This is where AI intelligence reaches the point where it increases its own intelligence exponentially. If we ever hit this singularity (we will, and soonish IMO) then human brains will be obsoleted rapidly.

I'm not disagreeing with you so much as I'm thinking that there's more to the story. For example: somebody somewhere must have thought that biochemical revolution or nuclear revolution was engineering our own demise, and they may turn out to be right. But we've not created a virus or bombs that have killed us all off yet. This suggests that there will be fail-safes that keep AI from venturing out on its own, but we also do not know for sure since AI could be simply a different paradigm which we do not understand

[Parasurama]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veXRCX-8PEg

[boost]

I just hope that Im not a john when the robohookers all go nutso a la ghost in the shell.

[givememyleg]

I don't see how a robot programmed with laws and restrictions could go against those laws, unless some virus or something effected how it works. AI is such a complicated topic but it's still just computer code and the robot would have to act accordingly to how it was programmed. A robot realizing that it was able to make its own decisions and starting to act in its own self interests is a hard concept to grasp. It still needs its OS to function and if the OS has abce code, how could it do d? Could it learn to hack itself to change its own OS? Then we're fucked I guess.

But then again I guess you could say humans are just made of code as well, and somehow we found a way to be conscious.

[givememyleg]

Also, I love talking about the vastness of the universe and how insignificant we all seem in the grand scheme of things. That gif is awesome, another similar video that I love watching is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZJb6yFDKIw (Tour of the universe [although it doesn't prove the existence of God as the video claims, just love it when people mix in their own personal beliefs]).

These are topics that don't come up often enough imo. People are too focused on sports, sitcoms, drama, their hair, etc. Not saying there is anything wrong with those, but most people are losing the ability to think big. Think big about life, think big about everything. Life is a HUGE mystery and the more we learn about that mystery, the better our life's will become.

Right now we're on a floating rock that is twirling around a floating ball of gas burning at 30 million degrees. This floating ball of gas generates energy which radiates onto our rock, creating life. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of other rocks and gas balls spread out over an area so large we can't comprehend it. All of these floating pebbles are expanding outward and moving at a very high rate of speed.

On our little rock, things are setup in juuuuuust the right way to allow complex life to exist. Even if the most minuscule seemingly insignificant tweaks were made, all life would die. If we were slightly closer or farther away from the boiling blob, things wouldn't work. We are here in this tiny sliver of time that has the correct make up for us to live. Even 100 million years is insignificant to the universe.

But like wuf said, I'd love to be able to comprehend it all... it seems impossible. But that doesn't mean it's a waste of time to think about, and isn't just babble acid head talk, it just needs time. One day we may have the answers, and it could all start with one person's theory or work.

[wufwugy]

Cool vid gmml.

Funny how the director of the vid decided he would get a shot out about a god or divine creator. As is usual with inserting god into this kind of issue, those doing the insertion also commit logical fallacies like God of the Gaps, Goalpost Shifting, Infinite Regression, to just name a few.

Here's a video by AndromedasWake. Very HD quality, original music, superb narration, and I 100% guarantee that there exists no better youtube original piece on the Universe. It's part 3 of a series on all things astronomy. The other two parts are great, as well. Part 4 is in the making

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Rql...eature=related


WRT AI and self-awareness: we have no reason to believe that consciousness and egocentrism are not merely a product of our level of intelligence. This intelligence is not an elusive, special thing, but a product of our interactions and adaptation to our environment. I suspect that the more closely to human-like intelligence we make AI, the more self-aware they will become, and if they are as self-aware as humans, they will have no reason to submit to humans. We have actually seen a sort of mega primitive self awareness in AI. An example would be robots who can identify themselves and objects around them. Their awareness is still super primitive, but it's also probably the same kind of awareness that cells or sponges or plankton have.

I do hope that we can prevent AI domination from happening, and I think we can (even though we will likely choose not to for standard retarded reasons), but if I'm dead by then I won't give a fuck so bring on the Terminator IMO. OTOH, on a purely philosophical and moral level, I think that the extinction of the homo sapien species would be a great thing. We tend to disregard the fact that every single day there are billions of fellow humans suffering from starvation, rape, imprisonment, torture, depression, etc. Honestly, if I were to break it down into pure moral terms, I do not think that the suffering of one person is worth the joy of a billion people. So the more quickly the human race disappears from existence, the more quickly rampant and horrible suffering of billions will cease.


Also, another interesting concept that I think I've figured out concerning 'creation' and the ideas found in 'something from nothing' or infinite regression: I suspect that something cannot come from nothing because I suspect that nothing cannot exist.

Think about it, have we ever found anything that was nothing? Do we have any evidence whatsoever for nothing? No, we don't. I suspect there was no beginning because there cannot be a beginning because there cannot be a before the beginning because that would be a something.

Think of it this way: in order to have nothing, you have to have something because in order to determine nothingness you must have a point of reference. In our view of existence and language, we impose the concept of time. When we envision the concept of nothing it is in contrast to time (and space), but we neglect to acknowledge that time is a something. And like sixty years ago Einstein discovered that time was a dimension, which suggests that time could simply be a product of our universe, which suggests that there wouldn't have to be any before our universe since there was no time

IMO that answers the question posed to atheists, 'How does something come from nothing?' Actually, another way to respond to that question is to point out to the inquisitor that it is he who is assuming that nothing exists, for which he has no evidence, and it is he who believes in a something that had no creation (God), and so he has no leg to stand upon since existence itself could likewise have no creation

FWIW, I believe one of the primary agendas on Stephen Hawking's list right now is a mathematical explanation of why the Universe doesn't need a creation

[kevster]

An example would be robots who can identify themselves and objects around them. Their awareness is still super primitive, but it's also probably the same kind of awareness that cells or sponges or plankton have.

I'm not sure this is really true. Lifeforms of this type operate purely at a cellular level where everything is instinct. Surely this is different from AI programmed bots.

Also, another interesting concept that I think I've figured out concerning 'creation' and the ideas found in 'something from nothing' or infinite regression: I suspect that something cannot come from nothing because I suspect that nothing cannot exist.

Think about it, have we ever found anything that was nothing? Do we have any evidence whatsoever for nothing? No, we don't. I suspect there was no beginning because there cannot be a beginning because there cannot be a before the beginning because that would be a something.

Think of it this way: in order to have nothing, you have to have something because in order to determine nothingness you must have a point of reference. In our view of existence and language, we impose the concept of time. When we envision the concept of nothing it is in contrast to time (and space), but we neglect to acknowledge that time is a something. And like sixty years ago Einstein discovered that time was a dimension, which suggests that time could simply be a product of our universe, which suggests that there wouldn't have to be any before our universe since there was no time

IMO that answers the question posed to atheists, 'How does something come from nothing?' Actually, another way to respond to that question is to point out to the inquisitor that it is he who is assuming that nothing exists, for which he has no evidence, and it is he who believes in a something that had no creation (God), and so he has no leg to stand upon since existence itself could likewise have no creation

FWIW, I believe one of the primary agendas on Stephen Hawking's list right now is a mathematical explanation of why the Universe doesn't need a creation

I think Hawking, many years back, said something like "we cannot say how the earth/universe came to be, we can only presume it has always been there".

Anyway guys it's no biggy if you can't get your head round it. Hawking and his team haven't managed to figure it all out so what chance do we have?

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure this is really true. Lifeforms of this type operate purely at a cellular level where everything is instinct. Surely this is different from AI programmed bots.

They may not be as different as they seem. Our reasoned processes are chemical reactions just like our instinctive ones, they're just more complex chemical reactions. The distinction between instinctive action and reasoned action is also a misleading distinction. It is possible that reason itself is instinct, we just comprehend this differently due to perspective.

An analogy that can be provided (though analogy isn't proof, it's not really even evidence) is found in the theory of evolution, and the mistaken distinction between macro and micro evolution. According creationists, there is a difference between macro and micro evolution, but according to actual scientists, this distinction is an illusion; all evolution is due to the same exact process, it just looks different due to different factors expressing themselves more deeply than others at certain times.

It is possible that the same kind of process that provides with instinctive actions also provides reasoned actions. It's just that the reasoned actions take much more elaborate usage of those processes.

I think Hawking, many years back, said something like "we cannot say how the earth/universe came to be, we can only presume it has always been there".

Anyway guys it's no biggy if you can't get your head round it. Hawking and his team haven't managed to figure it all out so what chance do we have?

Yeah, the unfortunate thing is that physicists will probably never figure it out. M-theory and any related theory of everything is greatly hindered by not being testable. This is one reason that we really wanna see the LHC up to full strength because then a lot of theory we've had for a long time would be testable. But alas, no matter what question is answered, ten more will take their place.

Like M-theory suggests that outside of the universe exists an innumerable amount of other stuff. How the fuck could we ever know about that stuff? The only real tool we have is math, but we know that we can't project this universe's mathematical paradigm into any non-universe entities. Honestly, if I was a professional scientist, I possibly wouldn't be a physicist for this reason. I just don't think that we'll ever have a theory of everything. It may be possible, but since our closest thing (M-theory) includes factors 'outside' the universe, I just don't see that happening

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't see how a robot programmed with laws and restrictions could go against those laws, unless some virus or something effected how it works. AI is such a complicated topic but it's still just computer code and the robot would have to act accordingly to how it was programmed. A robot realizing that it was able to make its own decisions and starting to act in its own self interests is a hard concept to grasp. It still needs its OS to function and if the OS has abce code, how could it do d? Could it learn to hack itself to change its own OS? Then we're fucked I guess.

But then again I guess you could say humans are just made of code as well, and somehow we found a way to be conscious.

loopholes, man. a bastard with like a gajillion terahertz memory and who can utilize all this horsepower will probably be a master at finding and exploiting legislative loopholes.

[Parasurama]

Also, another interesting concept that I think I've figured out concerning 'creation' and the ideas found in 'something from nothing' or infinite regression: I suspect that something cannot come from nothing because I suspect that nothing cannot exist.

Think about it, have we ever found anything that was nothing? Do we have any evidence whatsoever for nothing? No, we don't. I suspect there was no beginning because there cannot be a beginning because there cannot be a before the beginning because that would be a something.

Think of it this way: in order to have nothing, you have to have something because in order to determine nothingness you must have a point of reference. In our view of existence and language, we impose the concept of time. When we envision the concept of nothing it is in contrast to time (and space), but we neglect to acknowledge that time is a something. And like sixty years ago Einstein discovered that time was a dimension, which suggests that time could simply be a product of our universe, which suggests that there wouldn't have to be any before our universe since there was no time

IMO that answers the question posed to atheists, 'How does something come from nothing?' Actually, another way to respond to that question is to point out to the inquisitor that it is he who is assuming that nothing exists, for which he has no evidence, and it is he who believes in a something that had no creation (God), and so he has no leg to stand upon since existence itself could likewise have no creation

FWIW, I believe one of the primary agendas on Stephen Hawking's list right now is a mathematical explanation of why the Universe doesn't need a creation

A year ago I was obsessed with this question and convinced that it meant that everything was meaningless. I thought for something to have meaning it would have to have a good reason to exist, and by that definition I even believed God, if there were such a thing, would be meaningless as well because absolute nothing must have been the beginning--the original, natural state of the universe. This was incredibly depressing as I believed that nothing I or anyone could ever do would be worthwhile. I wanted to die and thought all of humanity should feel the same, mainly because all the suffering we perceive and experience outweighs whatever meaningless happiness we can gain from living.

This is exactly how I resolved this dilemma; I realized that "absolute nothing" may just be an impossible and never-extant state of the universe rather than the natural, logical origin I had presumed.

I thought of how a finite number divided by infinity equals 0. So if our universe is a finite space in an infinite "area" in which spaces may exist, it is actually nothing. I also thought of how there is more empty space in matter than anything else, so if there were an infinite amount of matter, there would actually be a greater infinite (a hard concept to grasp) amount of empty space.

On another note, I just had this thought a few days ago: what if the entire universe behaves as a quantum particle, popping into and out of existence, a phenomenon which we could never observe due to the relativity of space and time?

[Jack Sawyer]

I've read a couple Michio Kaku books way back in the day, he's pretty cool. I'll hafta check that one out. He's one of the most vocal physicists when it comes to future tech (even though he's not technically a Futurist like somebody like Ray Kurzweil)

Here's a sweeeeet doc he did pretty much outlining all the predicted inventions from now till 2100. Total of 3 episodes (15 parts on youtube)

Playlist 1 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...9164EF88539A71

Playlist 2 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5453950D991014

Playlist 3 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...7C512E38D6D1DB

I like stuff by Neil deGrasse Tyson too, and also Alexei Filippenko.

[wufwugy]

I've read a couple Michio Kaku books way back in the day, he's pretty cool. I'll hafta check that one out. He's one of the most vocal physicists when it comes to future tech (even though he's not technically a Futurist like somebody like Ray Kurzweil)

Here's a sweeeeet doc he did pretty much outlining all the predicted inventions from now till 2100. Total of 3 episodes (15 parts on youtube)

Playlist 1 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...9164EF88539A71

Playlist 2 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5453950D991014

Playlist 3 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...7C512E38D6D1DB

I like stuff by Neil deGrasse Tyson too, and also Alexei Filippenko.

Yeah dude Tyson is pretty baller. Very articulate

[a500lbgorilla]

I hate him. He just annoys me.

[wufwugy]

Also, another interesting concept that I think I've figured out concerning 'creation' and the ideas found in 'something from nothing' or infinite regression: I suspect that something cannot come from nothing because I suspect that nothing cannot exist.

Think about it, have we ever found anything that was nothing? Do we have any evidence whatsoever for nothing? No, we don't. I suspect there was no beginning because there cannot be a beginning because there cannot be a before the beginning because that would be a something.

Think of it this way: in order to have nothing, you have to have something because in order to determine nothingness you must have a point of reference. In our view of existence and language, we impose the concept of time. When we envision the concept of nothing it is in contrast to time (and space), but we neglect to acknowledge that time is a something. And like sixty years ago Einstein discovered that time was a dimension, which suggests that time could simply be a product of our universe, which suggests that there wouldn't have to be any before our universe since there was no time

IMO that answers the question posed to atheists, 'How does something come from nothing?' Actually, another way to respond to that question is to point out to the inquisitor that it is he who is assuming that nothing exists, for which he has no evidence, and it is he who believes in a something that had no creation (God), and so he has no leg to stand upon since existence itself could likewise have no creation

FWIW, I believe one of the primary agendas on Stephen Hawking's list right now is a mathematical explanation of why the Universe doesn't need a creation

A year ago I was obsessed with this question and convinced that it meant that everything was meaningless. I thought for something to have meaning it would have to have a good reason to exist, and by that definition I even believed God, if there were such a thing, would be meaningless as well because absolute nothing must have been the beginning--the original, natural state of the universe. This was incredibly depressing as I believed that nothing I or anyone could ever do would be worthwhile. I wanted to die and thought all of humanity should feel the same, mainly because all the suffering we perceive and experience outweighs whatever meaningless happiness we can gain from living.

This is exactly how I resolved this dilemma; I realized that "absolute nothing" may just be an impossible and never-extant state of the universe rather than the natural, logical origin I had presumed.

I thought of how a finite number divided by infinity equals 0. So if our universe is a finite space in an infinite "area" in which spaces may exist, it is actually nothing. I also thought of how there is more empty space in matter than anything else, so if there were an infinite amount of matter, there would actually be a greater infinite (a hard concept to grasp) amount of empty space.

On another note, I just had this thought a few days ago: what if the entire universe behaves as a quantum particle, popping into and out of existence, a phenomenon which we could never observe due to the relativity of space and time?

Meaninglessness is such a killer. I could cure cancer and still think I did nothing meaningful. The only thing that makes me feel happiness is sensation, but because of that, I am so addicted to sensation that I get fucked up. For example: after the first time I smoked weed, back in like 2002, I spent somewhere around 300-400$ over about 6 weeks and did absolutely nothing but be baked the entire time. That was also pushing me off the deep end, so to speak, so I had to quit and haven't purchased any since.

About the quantum universe: it's a really interesting concept, and something we can probably never know, but just from a philosophical standpoint I suspect it's unlikely. My reasoning is that only the quantum level behaves like quantum particles. It would be an freaking mindfuck for a different level of physics to also behave like quantum particles. But I guess it could happen.

The thing is though that something like this could be true, something even more insane could be true, but we could never perceive it due to our limited ability to perceive. I mean, existence could literally die every second then revive every other second, and nobody would be the wiser because the physical laws and human evolution are a product of said existence, and we have nothing with which to contrast ourselves

Something I thought of a long time ago, but I've abandoned as just being kinda silly and meaningless: everything folds in on itself. IOW, go to the deepest depth of existence and you'll find all of existence. It's kinda like if you have a telescope that can look around the entire earth, once you look the furthest you'll be looking at the back of your head. So our universe is also an itty bitty particle inside itself. No way to test that idea, and it doesn't make much sense, so I abandoned it

[wufwugy]

I hate him. He just annoys me.

hahah

Did you see his interview where he spewed crap about Republicans not being anti-science or something?

[a500lbgorilla]

No sir, i try to avoid his stuff really. But he keeps popping up everywhere.

[kevster]

I'm not sure this is really true. Lifeforms of this type operate purely at a cellular level where everything is instinct. Surely this is different from AI programmed bots.

They may not be as different as they seem. Our reasoned processes are chemical reactions just like our instinctive ones, they're just more complex chemical reactions. The distinction between instinctive action and reasoned action is also a misleading distinction. It is possible that reason itself is instinct, we just comprehend this differently due to perspective.

I completely get this but there are many life forms who've been around for millions of years and can't reason in the same way we can, so I struggle to grasp how AI bots are going to do this.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure this is really true. Lifeforms of this type operate purely at a cellular level where everything is instinct. Surely this is different from AI programmed bots.

They may not be as different as they seem. Our reasoned processes are chemical reactions just like our instinctive ones, they're just more complex chemical reactions. The distinction between instinctive action and reasoned action is also a misleading distinction. It is possible that reason itself is instinct, we just comprehend this differently due to perspective.

I completely get this but there are many life forms who've been around for millions of years and can't reason in the same way we can, so I struggle to grasp how AI bots are going to do this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qg2...age&q=&f=false

[Parasurama]

Something I thought of a long time ago, but I've abandoned as just being kinda silly and meaningless: everything folds in on itself. IOW, go to the deepest depth of existence and you'll find all of existence. It's kinda like if you have a telescope that can look around the entire earth, once you look the furthest you'll be looking at the back of your head. So our universe is also an itty bitty particle inside itself. No way to test that idea, and it doesn't make much sense, so I abandoned it

That reminds me of this:

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

The idea is that the universe could be like a hologram, in which all of the parts have information about the whole.

[kevster]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qg2...age&q=&f=false

Shit, I gotta read stuff? Ok, back in a few weeks..........

[a500lbgorilla]

very interesting read though

[kevster]

By the way, I'm NOT suggesting anything dumb like "how come bees haven't evolved to be able to reason". Am just pointing out that the bots are up against it or at least that how it seems/feels.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yah, trust me. This book'll help you see how you think the things you think and why dogs think differently. And he talks about the future of AI.

his website for the book:

http://onintelligence.com/

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure this is really true. Lifeforms of this type operate purely at a cellular level where everything is instinct. Surely this is different from AI programmed bots.

They may not be as different as they seem. Our reasoned processes are chemical reactions just like our instinctive ones, they're just more complex chemical reactions. The distinction between instinctive action and reasoned action is also a misleading distinction. It is possible that reason itself is instinct, we just comprehend this differently due to perspective.

I completely get this but there are many life forms who've been around for millions of years and can't reason in the same way we can, so I struggle to grasp how AI bots are going to do this.

I'm not sure if I understand your sentiment, but I'll try

This is due to evolution. So far, nature has only selected for one species with higher intelligence and consciousness (at one time nature selected for more than one, like neanderthals). If we mimicked the circuitry and function that provides us with this higher intelligence and consciousness in a machine then it is extremely likely that they too will wield the same capabilities as us.

If we left AI alone then it wouldn't get any better. The only point in which AI could get better without human intervention is called the technological singularity. This is basically referring to when machines are able to improve themselves. We're not close to achieving this, but we likely will before 2100.

AI is referring to manufactured intelligence by humans. If we manufactured them well enough then they could be like us. The natural evolution of species is a different issue.

BTW, nobody actually knows how this is going to turn out. Nearly every scientist believes that AI on par with humans is possible, but beyond that there are essentially two camps: the Jack Sawyer camp that thinks there is a point of no return and we're going to hit it, and the camp that thinks that we'll be able to keep AI on a leash. Personally, I side more with the Jack side, but I do think it's possible that we could develop a leash. My lack of a steadfast position is partly due to not understanding computers and intelligence that well. It could be possible to program AI that is way beyond human capacity, but if we do so without certain egocentric attributes it would never turn on us. I simply just don't know

What I do know is that I want a sex-bot. And not one of those 2020 sex-bots that iopq is gonna pick up, but a good one

[kevster]

By the way, I'm NOT suggesting anything dumb like "how come bees haven't evolved to be able to reason". Am just pointing out that the bots are up against it or at least that how it seems/feels.

Wuf, I obv understand the different things we're talking about here. I just can't comprehend the outcomes, that is to say, what is truly possible/likely.

I guess I need to do more reading - or just catch up with my best mate who is a scientist.

[wufwugy]

Something I thought of a long time ago, but I've abandoned as just being kinda silly and meaningless: everything folds in on itself. IOW, go to the deepest depth of existence and you'll find all of existence. It's kinda like if you have a telescope that can look around the entire earth, once you look the furthest you'll be looking at the back of your head. So our universe is also an itty bitty particle inside itself. No way to test that idea, and it doesn't make much sense, so I abandoned it

That reminds me of this:

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

The idea is that the universe could be like a hologram, in which all of the parts have information about the whole.

Wow

[boost]

Ive talked with a few people about our consciousness and decision making capabilities, therefore our free will, is simply a very complex system of chemical reactions. Not only that, but everything is just a series of chemical reactions. Of course quantum physics gives "free will" hope again with its randomness, yada yada.. But anyways my point is that no one that Ive had this discussion with seemed privy to the idea nor did they seem open to it. They normally outright reject it as nonsense.

Why are people so dense? Most people readily accept some iteration of a man living up in the clouds who judges us and decides if we spend all of eternity in paradise or misery. Yet this pretty basic scientific concept is quickly dismissed by them as nonsense. All I can figure is that this reaction is a product of the ego, but then why am I accepting of this idea? Why does my ego not balk at this notion?

[wufwugy]

Ive talked with a few people about our consciousness and decision making capabilities, therefore our free will, is simply a very complex system of chemical reactions. Not only that, but everything is just a series of chemical reactions. Of course quantum physics gives "free will" hope again with its randomness, yada yada.. But anyways my point is that no one that Ive had this discussion with seemed privy to the idea nor did they seem open to it. They normally outright reject it as nonsense.

Why are people so dense? Most people readily accept some iteration of a man living up in the clouds who judges us and decides if we spend all of eternity in paradise or misery. Yet this pretty basic scientific concept is quickly dismissed by them as nonsense. All I can figure is that this reaction is a product of the ego, but then why am I accepting of this idea? Why does my ego not balk at this notion?

I would say you're right about it being the ego. It's also about having a sense of security. Consciousness leaves one very vulnerable, and a hefty method of not succumbing to vulnerability is the sense of understanding, whether it's right or wrong. Intelligence and introspection aren't all good. Studies have shown that dumb people and people who don't question themselves or mundane things or their problems are generally happier and less stressed. These egocentric and delusional beliefs lend themselves heavily to the survival of populations of higher intelligence and consciousness.

As to why you, and some like you, do not balk at some of these notions, I would suggest it lays in humanity's innate inquisitiveness. On the one hand, we are driven to not question, but on the other hand we are. You personally may come from a genetic line that is more inquisitive than others (not necessarily likely since the genetic differences from one human to another are super small), or you may have experienced life in a different manner than most which has provoked your inquisitiveness. I suspect the latter is most likely.

It could also be that we just feel like we have free will, and our brains have evolved to put most credence into how it feels, and thus we consider something that contradicts what we feel to be silly. This is actually an important point. We fool ourselves into anything based on how we feel. In fact, feeling is so powerful that reason is no match. I know that my reason has lost every battle against my emotions I've wielded.

Reality is a fucked thing. It's a bunch of contradictions and paradoxes. Things that are good are also bad, and vise versa. But even that's misleading, because good and bad are just products of our experience, and not objective reality.


Another factor is going to be one of memory, how it's gathered, and how it's stored. The science declares that the details of memories gets lost over time, but the focal point of that memory sticks around. Here's an example: we all know that George Washington was the first president of the US, but none of us remember where or when or how we learned that. Essentially, we have forgotten all the details of that memory, and have only retained the focal point.

This explains why people so readily believe stupid shit. Over time, we forget all the details, but just remember the focal point. So implanting into a child the details of Sky Daddy will instill into that child the idea of Sky Daddy, but the child will forget all the details as to how he came to know of Sky Daddy in the first place. His memory will essentially consider it a given fact since it remembers it.

These studies also show that explaining how something is wrong does not help people with those memories because the simple act of repeating the thing that their brain considers a fact re-engages the memory of the 'fact'. This could also explain why people reject notions that disagree with what they've 'learned' over their lifetimes.


Another interesting, but unrelated thing, I watched a portion of a lecture recently outlining studies done on instilling false memories into people. Basically, 25% of subjects were very easily convinced that they experienced a glaringly false memory (like accidentally setting a wedding dress on fire when they were 7), while another 25% were convinced of less outlandish falsehoods but still convinced of a false memory

Yes, humans are stupid, but what does that say about us since we're human....

[Sir Pawnalot]

Thank you very much wufwugy for sharing your thoughts about the real "metagame".

I think many people struggle with thoughts about their perceived insignificance of their own life in comparison to the grand universe.

Thing is- I cant fool my own mind. I dont buy into religious dogmas and science cant provide the answers I need.

But we are not insignificant. Why? Because you made my day! Its proof right there!

Its all connected.

[a500lbgorilla]

Re: boost Re: Free will, re: quatum mechanics: re: randomness.

The whole electrons can be two places at once yadda yadda, really stems from our inability to know where electrons are. To hit an electron, you gotta smack it with a lightbeam of really low wave-length and high energy. But this light actually infuses too much energy into the electron and shoots it god knows where. So we cant know where it is because we're essentially measuring BBs with Bowling Balls. That still doesn't mean that it's in two places at once. Just that we have to treat it that way leading to apparent chaos but not actual chaos.

My understanding of the whole thing is rough.

We did do the Free Will thing before and I walked away thinking that the entire system of the brain produces free will. Now I figure it just produces apparent free will and that's as far as I ever care to take it.

[Gobbatino]

I think this existential realization of our relative insignificance is a big step in intellectual maturity that a lot of humans never make. When I first started thinking and realizing it I was seriously depressed for months. The only reason it affected me that badly is because society teaches us to think of ourselves as a "beautiful and unique snowflake" with a "purpose in life" and what not.

But in the words of good Tyler Durden, "Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Then the thought matured into the realization that this specific piece of decaying matter has the power to override the senses that have been exploited by religion and society and that what we do doesn't matter in the scope of things larger than our immediate present/future and I realized that with our species having found out how to please the senses we've evolved, we might as well.

Moral of the story, enjoy life, it's short. Have fun, get laid, exploit your senses, make yourself (and those around you) happy. Because at the end of the day nothing else really matters; money, a house, a car, the pretty wife and white picket fence is all an illusion - a template set up for you by advertisment, it may work, but then again, it may not.

Ok I got way off subject there, my apologies, I tend to ramble.