zedvictor4

@Melcharaz

Oh dear oh dear....Where have I seen that immature nonsense before.

@Malcharaz.

A load of nonsense.

Well, you did ask us all to give you our thoughts.

Whosoever  thought up the first god hypothesis did and did so for a reason.

So what were their reasons?

I would suggest that some people deliberately overlook the obvious,  in pursuit of the spiritual.

Also, embellishing the hypothesis is probably just a case one-upmanship.

Our god was born of a virgin...Ah, but our god was born of a virgin and he died and rose again and we also have the biggest pointiest buildings in the world and the best songs and the smelliest incense...so there....Ah, ours is best and yours is rubbish and you do the praying thing all wrong...so we will cut off your f***ing head....Ah, but we sit about all day humming and contemplating....  D'oh!

@Malcharaz

Quite obviously, everything that you want can be achieved without marriage. 

Why do you think that these requirements can only be achieved within a marriage?.......Because that is how you have been conditioned to think.

Pair bonding is not exclusively human, though all the associated performance and expense of the "big day" is.

Marriage is yet another human contrived unnecessity....A bit like religion in fact.

@ Malcharaz

Assumed god assumed religion...no big deal either.

This sort of stuff is maybe loosely fact based information, though  based on tales and supposition it is now rendered to mythology,  you therefore shouldn't expect it to be either consistent or verifiable.

Genuine dialogue on Dart, especially when it comes to religion is a rare thing... That is to say that fixed ideas are what they are and intolerance  therefore abounds. 

Given the hypothetical nature and consequent uncertainties associated with  religion and the god principle, one might expect greater flexibility of thought amongst supposed rational debaters, but that is rarely the case.

I would therefore suggest that a conditioned brain is just that....Primarily a rigid operating system that we become reliant on and reluctant to stray away from despite our ability to understand and manipulate new  or contentious data input.

If this isn't the case, then why are we not all sceptics?

Unfortunately scepticism is somewhat de rigueur here on Dart at the moment.

Be over contentious and you will be  banned and refuse to thump the bible and you will be dismissed.

In other words we adapt but not within a Darwinian context.

The question is, would we adapt quickly enough to keep pace with a potentially increased rate the rate of environmental change. 

And  yes, climate alarmists will probably ignore Darwin, because Darwinian evolution is contextually irrelevant.

I would suggest that space exploration is ongoing.... But if you envisage trekkian type space adventures happening anytime soon then think again....Near Earth orbit is the best we've been able to achieve for some considerable time now...Extending that comfortably and sustainably beyond the limits of the solar system is a whole different ball game, certainly not achievable in the "Near-Term" and maybe never achievable.

The slow creep of labour automation is ongoing and has been for some time. On the one hand it's a utopian dream and on the other it's a dystopian nightmare. It all depends upon where the human is able to find it's niche, and if population continues to grows as it currently is, then niches are going to be harder to come by.

For me It's more about how humanity  fits into the future, bigger picture.

And as Faux suggests, will our overall purpose actually be the facilitation of the machine/technology and it's development, rather than about technology making our lives easier.

That is to ask, what is the real purpose of material development/evolution?

Things have become as things have become, so consequently things are as they are.

Do you think that things could have been done differently?...…. Or is that really just the futile question that it is?

Similarly, things will become as they will become and the duration of events will render what will have occurred, irreversible.

Does this not suggest that things were always going to occur in the way that  they did?

And therefore things will continue to occur in the way that they will?

Maybe everything is inevitable.....The god principle, without all the singing and dancing as it were.

 

Yep.  The change has been good....I've easily adjusted to the "new normal".

Hello.

I think that we have a somewhat circular debate going on here.

I would suggest that answers to all these questions  can be found within previous discourse.

Now, that's nice friendly debating.   LOL

@Malcharaz

A community is a community and getting rid of the people who don't agree with you....well that brings to mind names like Stalin,  Pol Pot etc etc. 

Are the robust of mind having to be the fall guys for the whims of the oversensitive.

Global pandemics are and for as long as we've been aware of the potential of a global pandemic,  global pandemics have therefore always been a foreseeable problem. 

Bill Gates stated an opinion based on something that we were already aware of.

Visions are aberrations suggestive of some type of mental dysfunction....There is no real conformity in visions....Though that is not to say that visions are not linked to strongly suggestive, social influences.

@Malcharaz

Yep you do.

What is a native species?

Homo Sapiens is the only species in question and Homo Sapiens has adapted to live in most regions of the earth.

Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.

No doubt it will continue to do so, for as long as environmental conditions remain tolerable and there are still sufficient resources available for it to adapt and utilise.

That's not evolutionary adaptation. 

Inuit's have adapted to successfully survive within the arctic circle, whereas Bedouin's have successfully adapted to survive within the Arabian Desert.

Yes, technically and therefore biologically they would be able to swap places, but that's not the point.

The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.

A pair of snowmen perhaps....Or should I correctly say snow people....

Though, type the above ( include mixed race coupe if you like) into a general search engine (bing) and you get what you  expect....Couples displaying  various  features of ethnicity and religion.

Nonetheless it's interesting that you classify religion and ethnicity together....That is to say, that there is no definitive Muslim ethnicity.

So what's your point?

Some might argue that the human animal has adapted to just about all climatic conditions.

I would change myself back to how I was 40 years ago.

@Malcharaz.

Was always going to happen.

No more scary that a conventional gun that can punch through metal though.

The scary bit is when a weapon is aimed at you.

Notwithstanding what some might refer to as ad hominem.

What do you make of the above diatribe, faux?

Are they a genius or a troll?

I think the latter, but maybe I was nutritionally deficient as a child.

Well, I would suggest that if a god is a perfect, sentient omnipotent being...It's creation was therefore endowed with the ability to create and develop A.I.

Now, that's a god hypothesis I can happily run with.... So we therefore have to consider  to what extent and to what end's was humanity so predisposed.

Your overwhelming regard seems only to be for now though, rather than for the possibilities of the future.....Current A.I.  can only do what A.I. can currently do, just as humankind was only ever able to do what it could do at the time.....Though god always new what everything was for and what everything was capable of.

God....No singing or praying necessary though, because it already knows everything....However, if it helps.

Exactly.

Says you... inadvertently perhaps.

And says me and says everyone else who says it.

I would suggest that time is the same everywhere.

I would further suggest that what you refer to is a human consideration relative to a specific duration at a specific location.

But that's another debate.

And the Chinese Room is relative to 1986 Human Earth time.

My question is how can you be certain that the Chinese Room will still be applicable  1000 years from now.

Firstly I feel obliged  to point out that "The World" in question refers to a global society and not just a U.S. one.

Secondly, the ultimate fate of humanity may currently rest in our own hands... but for how long? 

I think that we should stop and consider the fact that, after such a short period of technological development so much of our day to day lives is now managed by  A.I.

So will this situation stay exactly the same for evermore or even reverse?....I would suggest that this is just not the way that things happen.

A.I...….Artificial Intelligence or Alternative intelligence?....I prefer the latter....After all, human or non-human,  intelligence is still intelligence.

Interestingly in my experience, it would seem that everyone will cherry pick to suit their requirements.

Cherry picking isn't an exclusive activity.

Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.

Time... Excellent song, incisive lyrics and also from Dark Side of the Moon...Perhaps your favourite album then?

The Wall...Comfortably Numb?

Malcharaz is intolerant of alternative opinion, seemingly misogynistic and  has a propensity to block rather than to discuss rationally and in an adult fashion.

As for the thread....Well, man or women it makes no difference...it's still the blind leading the blind irrespective of reproductive system and mammary glands.

Liberal is a Conservative assumption and vice versa.

Assumptions are only variable data output and therefore subject to variability.

How one aligns or votes politically is only indicative of how one chooses to align or vote politically.

Me....I'm a Liberal Conservative or maybe a Conservative Liberal or perhaps a Moderate or perhaps just a human being with variable and changeable points of view.

Yep.

Money is from The Dark Side of the Moon album, which is my favourite album.... Though Wish You Were Here is also excellent....Division Bell is a later favourite of mine.

Nonetheless, earlier stuff from the Syd Barrett era was far less appealing.

Well.

We can not be certain of anything I suppose and can only be fairly certain of what we think we know.

And we have lost or not developed the specialisms that other species possess... Nonetheless most species possess a governing mechanism of some sort, as such the human brain is not unique but just more advanced in terms of ability....A notion of uniqueness, is as far as we are able to know, just that.

I prefer to look at a bigger picture of material evolution, of which the organic and species phase is but one  part, and in this wider context I therefore think that it is fair to consider that humanity may  not necessarily be, the be all and end all of material development.

And it's only given,  that A.I. is currently dependant upon it's acquisition of raw data from humans....To assert otherwise is to be certain of the future.

Well.

Function dictates ability and therefore levels of achievement.

Nonetheless, just answer a question:

Do you think that money is  an integral part of society  or separate from society?

It's just interesting to see how  other discussions within this thread tend to disregard the human issue and solely focus upon the academic issues of monetarism. National debt and debt in general, seemingly become a mathematical and statistical  exercise rather than a social concern.

I personally cannot see how the perceived problem of debt can be addressed unless one also takes into account, perceptible social inequalities.

Nonetheless, I still hold that the monetary system mirrors human ability and therefore as such, is utilised as a stabilising and controlling mechanism that gives order and stability to society.

What you are basically saying is that human brain function is not the same as a computer's function, which in terms of structure, method and current capability is obviously correct,  but in terms of purpose and achievement and probably achievability, the capabilities of A.I (though I would take issue with the term A.I.) are as yet completely unknown.

We are talking thousands of years of development and refinement compared to less than 100 years of development and refinement, and as I see it all that we do, is manipulate  our only available structure and process (cognitive brain) to achieve greater leaps in technological development.

I would suggest that your faith in human ability, though admirable, is perhaps a tad too current and somewhat ignores the bigger picture.

@ Malcharaz……..  (Melcharaz blocks me for some unknown reason).

I find the notion of natural as opposed to unnatural as being somewhat contradictory. 

One universe, (as far as we can be aware) one process, one nature irrespective of form.

And my questions went unanswered.

Computer and brain both have a system and process of storing and utilising data....And let's say that for now one is more evolved and therefore more advanced than the other.

Nonetheless, which device is currently evolving and advancing most rapidly?

I don't think that it is unfair to suggest and nor am I fearful of suggesting that resting on one's laurels is a tad naïve.

And whether or not a computer currently cares, is only relevant because we do care.

Melcharaz…..Realism is what?....Other than what you assume that you know to be correct.

The "World" in this context is a metaphor for  material development/evolution,  which we are  very much a part of, rather than the be all and end all of.

And as for running our current world, I would suggest that we have become pretty reliant on computers to do that for us....So do you see this situation ever completely reversing?...Or is it more likely that this process will continue to develop?....Not just now in our lifetimes, but what about 200 or 2000 or 20,000 years from now...a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary and universal terms.

Well yes, I would have to admit that my comment was an assumed assumption of an assumption.

And I appreciate the candour of you comment.

Misogyny and submission were, and still are but to a lesser extent.

As such, religion is subject to the same conditions.

Nonetheless the futility of the argument is only indicative of the futility of religion.

So Van Gough was Van Gough and in my opinion not a particularly talented artist.... Sometimes one goes with the popular flow sometimes one chooses not to.

Nonetheless you are still unable to grasp the point I make.  Maybe you are struggling too much against the current.

So as you are such a confident swimmer,  let me ask you two very simple questions.

1. How exactly does the human brain acquire, store, modify and utilise data?

2. How exactly does the brain  differentiate ciphers?

I would suggest that the process is the same, irrespective of the available number of ciphers....  One cipher is one bit or one sequence of bits.... The construction of and the awareness of a differing array of ciphers is simply the outcome of a process rather than the process itself and the ongoing modification and utilisation of ciphers is simply a function of the same basic process.

In short, we may create a million ciphers but we only have one process.

Have I been swept out to sea or is the water to shallow for you to go any further?

Different places, different social structure and organisation, different families, different values and deep respect for one's parents extends way beyond something as trivial as Sunday School.

And as such my definition of testament and covenant is accurate.

And your assumption that you know better is simply your assumption that you know better.

 

You assume that the inseparable are separable. 

That is to say, you suggest that values are separate to function.

I would suggest that function dictates values.

Just as function dictates your desire to procreate with the large breasted woman.

I disagree.

Genetically defined natural ability defines the formation and structure of natural social hierarchy.  Subjectivity and the utilisation thereof is simply another manifestation of the same processes.

And obviously altruism can be achieved "among a species" hence the development of the word altruism, but this is not representative of the human species as a whole.

And the subject matter is the U.S.  national debt and therefore inevitably, it's purposes and reasons within a global context.

Ah.

Sunday School....That was where you were  sent  to get you out of the house for an hour or so.... I can remember it well, sitting in the pews at the back of the church drawing aeroplanes.

Nonetheless, I think that I adequately defined a testament or covenant and simultaneously described the process behind every human thought and consequent action.

We think and sometimes we tend to over think.... It's what you rightly refer to as imagination....Though that's not to say that it's not possible for imagination to be correct.

Nonetheless imagination and /or hypothesis remain so until proven to be otherwise....Though imagining that imagination is correct is just an extension of overthink until such times as imagination and/or hypothesis is proven to be otherwise etc.etc.

 

Once again, that is not the question.

The question is who is "we" and out of 7.6 billion, how many "we" are there and how many will there be in the future? 

It's the underlying question of purpose or not and the ability to achieve a purpose.

If there is no purpose then why do we continually strive to advance technology.

And other than a distraction for the masses, appreciating Van Gough is probably irrelevant.

A testament or a covenant is a human data construct, perhaps actually relative to something real or perhaps only relative to an assumed reality and/or hypothesis. 

Nice quote but didn't really address my question within the context of your assertion, namely "whereas we are not so limited".

Concerning the ongoing development of technology and how many "we" are not so limited.

And the possibility that we might actually run out of "we",  simply because the evolution of the  human species cannot keep apace with the evolution of technology.

Whereby technology will either have to do it for itself or perhaps material evolution will stall.

I suppose that is to ask, is organic development  the be all and end all of the evolutionary progress.

I currently think not.