OGTEleven Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 One of my off-the-wall theories is that we exist as a species to propagate intelligence. Our technological advancement points to creation of self-thinking machines. Therefore, IMO ID is possible. We could well be the creation of some other species, ad infinitum. That being said, I do think evolution exists as Darwinism is proved every single day. 430521[/snapback] Quite a while back (5 years?) I read a review of a book. I never read the book, although I meant to pick it up. If memory serves the book was called "Robot". The basic gist (jist?) of the book was that since humans are indeed developing thinking machines at an advancing rate, that it is inevitable that one day, the machines will be able to out think us. Once this occurs, they will begin to re-design themselves and so on...... The book then exapnds on that theory to say, that if this is in fact true, it is more than likely based on time, that this has all already occured and that our existence is in fact just a simulation being run in one of the machines that was derived from our original "creation". Therefore evolution, ID and all other theories are bunk, as are we. I'm trying to simulate the simulation program right now to see when the Bills are going to "win the Super Bowl".
Mickey Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Quite a while back (5 years?) I read a review of a book. I never read the book, although I meant to pick it up. If memory serves the book was called "Robot". The basic gist (jist?) of the book was that since humans are indeed developing thinking machines at an advancing rate, that it is inevitable that one day, the machines will be able to out think us. Once this occurs, they will begin to re-design themselves and so on...... The book then exapnds on that theory to say, that if this is in fact true, it is more than likely based on time, that this has all already occured and that our existence is in fact just a simulation being run in one of the machines that was derived from our original "creation". Therefore evolution, ID and all other theories are bunk, as are we. I'm trying to simulate the simulation program right now to see when the Bills are going to "win the Super Bowl". 431229[/snapback] Duuuuude, step away from the bong maan.
SilverNRed Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Quite a while back (5 years?) I read a review of a book. I never read the book, although I meant to pick it up. If memory serves the book was called "Robot". The basic gist (jist?) of the book was that since humans are indeed developing thinking machines at an advancing rate, that it is inevitable that one day, the machines will be able to out think us. Once this occurs, they will begin to re-design themselves and so on...... The book then exapnds on that theory to say, that if this is in fact true, it is more than likely based on time, that this has all already occured and that our existence is in fact just a simulation being run in one of the machines that was derived from our original "creation". Therefore evolution, ID and all other theories are bunk, as are we. I'm trying to simulate the simulation program right now to see when the Bills are going to "win the Super Bowl". 431229[/snapback] So which one of us is Neo?
/dev/null Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 So which one of us is Neo? 431301[/snapback] there is no spoon
EC-Bills Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 there is no spoon 431304[/snapback] Only cowbell
EC-Bills Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 Picard > Kirk 431397[/snapback] Picard < Kirk
OGTEleven Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 I think this is it: Linky Someone tell one of them robot thingies to simulate Martina McBride in my direction. I'll take it from there.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 I think this is it: Linky Someone tell one of them robot thingies to simulate Martina McBride in my direction. I'll take it from there. 431432[/snapback] Moravec is one of the leading proponents of the "Singularity" theory that I ascribe to. I'll have to read that book.
finknottle Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 Evolution isn't a straight line path, it has many peaks and valleys. Natural selection tends to speed up when major environmental changes occur so that certain minor adaptations suddenly confer greater advantages than they did prior to the environmental upheval. Not all adaptations are equal, some are far more successful than others and so have an effect much faster than others. I don't think we have nullified natural selection. We have just slowed it down a bit aided by the lack of significant environmental changes and our own ability to protect ourselves from such changes. Still, there are environmental changes drastic enough to overcome our technology. An ice age perhaps. Volcanic eruptions. Plauges. An asteroid hit. That sort of thing. Think of the spanish language as a genetic nuance. Parents who speak it tend to have children who do thus it is almost as inheritable as any true genetic trait. Although it confers no direct reproductive advantage, it does rise and fall along with the reproductive rates of spanish speakers. Those rates show that spanish speakers are out-reproducing english speakers and accordingly, the number of spanish speakers in proportion to native english speakers is tipping in favor of spanish. In a relatively short time, we can see spanish spreading to the point where it may one day overcome english as the "native" language of the USA. Of something like language can spread through natural selection even without confering a direct reproductive benefit, how hard can it be to understand how a physical trait could go from rarity to dominance? 430830[/snapback] Might be splitting a semantical hair here, but natural selection doesn't speed up or slow down; what is statistically beneficial, detrimental, and irrelevent changes. That changes as quickly as the environment changes. The process of natural selection simply is. (By environment I don't just mean the climate; the societies we build around ourselves are also part of it.) So re our seeming to slow it down, what we've done is change the environment so that historically detrimental features in humans (bad eyesight, bad teeth, and peanut allergies) are no longer significant factors of fitness. They have been passed by other factors more influential in determining whether or not one is likely to pass their genes on. re the spanish analogy, that is akin to the phenomona (I forget the name) whereby a gene which otherwise carries no advantage (and indeed can even be detrimental) increases in the pool simply by virtue of being located very near a particularly beneficial gene on the same chromosone.
Rui Pereira Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 The older I get the less I believe in any supreme being or force or whatever. IMHO, we're all just stuck together on this big rock, at this point in evolution, hurling through space at 66,000 mph. Evolution is the only thing that makes sense (and certainly the only theory that should be taught in public schools). The rest of it is only there to give people something to feel secure in when they go to bed at night. 430099[/snapback] Yahweh created the universe! look for more natural disasters and I don't mean the upcoming Bills season!
lawnboy1977 Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 The older I get the less I believe in any supreme being or force or whatever. IMHO, we're all just stuck together on this big rock, at this point in evolution, hurling through space at 66,000 mph. Evolution is the only thing that makes sense (and certainly the only theory that should be taught in public schools). The rest of it is only there to give people something to feel secure in when they go to bed at night. 430099[/snapback] AMEN TO THAT!
Recommended Posts