zedvictor4

And of course, they wouldn't do it for free.

As I suggested previously, trading brain cells for cash is a calculated but lucrative risk.

Hey McMieky.

Going soft at 58 is nothing to be ashamed of.

Ask FLRW.

Depending upon universal evolution and it's reasons and/or purposes.

AI, is likely to make most organic organisms redundant.

Whether or not it will abolish them completely, remains to be seen.

Though at this moment in time  over sexed male munchkins will need to evacuate their gametes when and wherever possible.

Ovulation is obviously a less expressive process.

Though the endocrinal need for the female to fuse, is similarly weighted with profound sexuality. 

For sure the process seems amazing, but nonetheless is what it is.

Though everything you explained is just a more technical and expanded version of my explanation.

Whereby incoming "stimuli" are processed internally, and also stored to short term memory.

Presumably any information can also be stored as long term data.

I hope that I will wake up.

I assume that I will wake up, based upon previous experience and confidence in my current health.

I don't believe that I will wake up.

In my opinion, based upon technological advancement, anyone could have been reasonably confident that man would eventually travel to the moon.

Belief wasn't necessary.

Based upon the rate of technological development since JFK's day, I would further suggest that man will venture further afield...But I don't believe this.

Yep, lovely poem fauxlaw.

And I had heard the same rumour.

Good to have you back.

Hope that you are well.

Do gooders think that they are socially righteous.

Whereas hormones are a fact of life.

Observation is the result of an internal process.

So if we take sight for example, what we see is an internal image reconstructed from incoming light signals.

Which for all intent and purposes does seem to be direct observation.

Everything that we experience is actually a simulation reconstructed in the brain from sensory input.

We assume accurately simulated.

Give me an example Mall.

I would say that I function according to knowledge.

But of course, we obviously cannot know outcomes in advance, so there is often an element of risk associated with a course of action.

Though coping with such situations and moving forwards ,means taking a calculated risk based upon experience and/or knowledge. 

Belief is not relevant.

I once saw a video of a guy who believed that if he prayed, he could swim safely in a crocodile infested river....He promptly disappeared never to be seen again.

This was the outcome of a belief based system.

If the guy had made a knowledge based assessment of the situation, his Mum would have been happier.

Wherein lies the illogic in my previous statement?

All barring those with significant developmental anomalies, everyone else is unalterably born one of two gamete producers.

OK, so we can chop things about and become a synthetic hormone drug dependant...Such is the evolution of the mind and sexual fantasy.

And perhaps over time the species will alter biologically...As mind clearly affects psychological systems, so it might also affect biological systems.

Though currently, I would suggest that there is still a distinction to be made between sexual fantasy and sexual reality.

So Mall, what is your logical take on the subject.

All our experiences are internal.

Self contained.

Electrochemically powered.

In my opinion, I fully engaged, albeit somewhat satirically.

What to do with your dick and all those endocrinal messages.

You're caught up in the world of socio-psychological recreational sexual fantasy. (Nothing new)

What to do with all those gametes.

The body says one thing and the mind says another.

So settle down with a partner, get a puppy and a new fitted kitchen and shoot your load from time to time.

You can always adopt or find a surrogate, if you want a child to call your own and your partner isn't the egg producing sort.

Grow older shoot your load once a month if you can get it up.

And eventually die.

One of the drawbacks of being a modern human, rather than a proper hunter gatherer.

Nope, that is not correct in my book.

If one doesn't know something, then that is that.

Believing that one knows something is a tad silly, isn't it?

And why would I need to believe in myself?

Within the limits of the self, I accept what I know.

Depends upon how you define the word I suppose.

For you... Is "belief" just a trivial word, with a hundred synonyms?

For me it has a specific meaning.

I always think that afterthoughts are pointless.

But, perhaps there was some nugget of knowledge that might have made a lasting difference.

I'm content enough to not need to worry about it now though.

Procreational sex is one thing.

And socio-psychologically inspired recreational sex is another thing.

If a cis male fucks a Kangaroo, does that make him a marsupial.

NO...He remains an organism that produces male gametes.

I do not believe anything.

One can either know or not know.

One can be hopeful or uncertain or assumptive etc.

Or have faith, even.

But to simply accept something without proof is futile in terms of knowledge gathering.

Which isn't to say that for some, belief does not produce positive electro-chemical reactions in their brain.

If I made a convincing argument for turnips, would that convince you to become a turnip.

You sound like me.

Country...Wales UK.

Occupation...Semi-retired, multi tasker.  Currently working part time for a Pharmacy Company.

Religion...None. Though The GOD principle is a sound enough hypothesis.

Priorities...Health and fitness and Immediate family.

Political ideology...Nothing that I can pinpoint. Eclectic but reasonably moderate.

You never know. 

Technology moves on apace.

Maybe one day we will be able to down load our conscious minds to an electronic device. And live for ever on line.

Does it have a middle, or is it just relative?

Still worried about my profile.

What is it that you need to know.

Correct.

Aliens can seemingly manipulate these "souls".

Now.

Is this knowledge?

Or wild speculation.

There are many things to be discovered, and I don't think this is one of them.

According to the aliens.

Which aliens specifically?

Fantastic.

Undoubtedly.

Compared to some peoples lives, the life that you described would sound like luxury.

Very special relativity, is very specially relative.

Effort is work.

Doesn't matter how we do it.

And effort requires input.

And input costs, no matter how we pay for it.

Presumably your parents currently fund your luxury lifestyle.

Would today also be the first time you heard of the Universal Doughnut of Jam and Custard?

So, other than fuck sex robots, what are we going to do the rest of the time.

Hours of endless leisure time will require very lucrative redundancy packages.

Either that or hunter gathering.

Though if humans aren't required to do anything.

Then humans are therefore not required.

Does his new plan also replace human Presidents with AI ones?

A coping strategy.

Unless you are being picky about who gets reincarnated.

Then I think, that statistically reincarnation is regarded as unlikely.

Because currently, the birth to death ratio favours birth.

In simple terms, if one person dies and two people are born, then only one can be a reincarnation.

Even so... If it were the other way around, not only would we become extinct, but there would always be a backlog of potential reincarnatees.

For it to work fairly, whereby everyone gets reincarnated, it would always have to be a one to one ratio.

Unless you are also factoring critters into the reincarnation equation, whereby we occasionally have a spell as a Tsetse fly or something.

Not sure how this works statistically though.

Nonetheless, I would suggest that like an afterlife, reincarnation is the wishful thinking of a mortal blob of matter.

Which certainly isn't to suggest that our component parts cannot be recycled.

And then there are gametes to consider.

Hmmmmmm.

I meant relative to the statement.

All events generate a duration.

It's a time and space thing.

So OK... Conceiving ideas is  eventful.

Well what is right and wrong?

Who decided.

It was decided by collective decision, and is maintained by collective decision. 

Though this is a generalisation.

Because we can obviously cite examples where the greater collective is oppressed by a smaller collective.

Even so, if we look at the global picture, killing each other is easily justified.

Which suggests to me that right and wrong are merely conceptual ideas rather than innate qualities.

Maybe.

At 65.

I am no longer in touch with any of my Schoolfriends.

We might rarely meet in the street and exchange pleasantries.

Though where I currently live, I have lots of good acquaintances; but I would not regard any as close friends.

Though looking back at my early years, I see that friends were nonetheless always competitive.

Always trying to gain one-upmanship.

In my opinion a group of friends/acquaintances, are a collective because of circumstance and commonality.

Though always subject to a naturally discriminatory survival instinct and pecking order.

Well, I suppose that what we know is going to seem normal.

But the existence and complexity of organic structures as we know them, is perhaps also an extreme.

The other extreme being nothing at all.

But hang on a mo... Was  there ever any middle ground, between A and B?

All that I was stating, was that old regional narratives would have been spoken or written in Hebrew or some other Semitic language and therefore not referred to as scripture. 

The word scripture wouldn't have been devised until some time after 1066.

As we get older I'm not sure that we make friends.

Acquaintances perhaps, with more or less levels of trust.

Depends upon how one chooses to differentiate between the concepts of friendship and acquaintance I suppose.

Which idea in particular?

It's logical.

So Jesus was a Roman Catholic then and not Hebrew.

Though the word scripture is actually a Middle English derivative, from the Latin.

So Jesus was Church of England then.

Well, what is a scripture?

Scripture essentially comes from the Latin, meaning written.

Though adopted to afford a written narrative a sort of gravitas.

In this context, the basis of scripture is probably derived of a spoken narrative.

Probably a spoken narrative of a spoken narrative, and so on.

Firstly spoken in some archaic Middle Eastern tongue.

Probably recounting hearsay myth and story.

It is what it is.

Neither reliability nor unreliability are pertinent considerations.

Well, I am of the opinion that everything we think we achieve, is the result of a subjective process.

We assume objectivity.

Is everything a simulation?

Yes and perhaps no.

A person does something, the right or wrong of it is an assumption based upon a set of collective criteria.

And if for you as an individual, murder is good. Then what am I to argue.

Though I would probably run with the collective ruling.

Thanks for that.

Though I would confidently state that there are no habitable stars in the Universe.

And just think, if the dinosaurs hadn't have been wiped out by an asteroid, then they would perhaps still be in control.

Giving some credence to the reptilian theory.

That's one theory.

But.

Let's just remember that you are quoting, or rather, paraphrasing human words.

Human words that have been transcribed, translated and paraphrased many times previously.

What does the Bible say about digital technology.

Well, I'm sure that we could make something up.

If GOD was truly a Universal agent, they would certainly have been conversant with such technology.

But I'm guessing that GODDO was also the creation of humans.

Peace and punish are made up human stuff.

The universe trundles on and stuff happens.

And the wild rabbit population over here is so afflicted by disease; making it an unattractive source of nutrition.

Why did Ruby shoot Oswald?