I'm back!
Hm, you're still thinking about a purely mathematical non-deterministic approach. You should think in terms of state machines (to point one of the simplest examples), or any construct that is able to model real events. Abstract mathematics don't have that capability.
Uh, yes it does. Even some of the most abtruse mathematics is finding applications in areas like cryptography and quantum theory; there is no clear line between abstract and applied mathematics. Any of the various branches of mathematics can model real-world events if necessary.
About the theorists, well, I'm sure they'd get mad - I'd be pointing to them the very fundamental flaw of their reasoning, and the truth often hurts. It would be like trying to argue that God doesn't exist with a fervorous priest.
So now you are telling me that the whole of number theory is meaningless, along with many other areas of abstract mathematics; I am beginning to wonder whether or not you are worth dealing with.
Also, if you have the patience and are good enough with arguing, you could debate for a while with this "fervorous priest" for a long time and at some point reach a logical contradiction; he will refuse to accept it of course and either get hung up on small points to mask the loss or start throwing insults, but it will be pretty obvious to both of you who won that.
Well, then yes - the most likely possibility is that society will indeed evolve. It is your own personal opinion, though, that it will "ban" (or lose interest) in such things as leisure (and sex, on the topic). You don't have anything to work on except your own conjectures about cloning - that must be, from your posts, heavily biased by the current outburst in cloning research.
What current outburst in cloning research? It has actually been going quite slowly recently, and besides, when you take the entire period of human existence into account (which can in theory last for trillions of years), it does not seem all that far-fetched anymore to talk about any technological advance given the timeframe.
Well, we all care about that. There is no way of predicting the human being of tomorrow with our current knowledge. In fact, most attempts at future predictions done up to now were proven to be complete (or almost complete) failures. Your thoughts are just as those of the "futurologists" (damn, I find it hard not to laugh when thinking of that) from the beginning of the century about cities crowded with flying cars and covered in electrical power transmission lines. As I said before (on another thread) you'll only be able to predict that with a perfect or quasi-perfect model, and the only perfect model is the system being observed itself - therefore, there is indeed no way of making accurate (or even reasonable, as it was observed) predictions. Not with our current knowledge.
The last statement there is critical. You are assuming that our knowledge will stay mostly the same over great periods of time in the future, and I am not quite sure what you are basing that on, seeing as just about every simple analysis of past events is pointing in the opposite direction. Like I said, these "futurologist" predictions will probably come to be true at some point as long as society does not degenerate, because the full period of human existence is quite long. Notice I have not given a very definite timeframe for my predictions, which I myself am not sure about. (500 years sounds reasonable but it could well be much longer) Are you trying to say that society will stay at its current system for the rest of humanity's existence?
Lastly, how is the only perfect model the observation itself? As I said earlier, a complete theory is equal to the observation. Think theoretically rather than practically, as the practical view usually disregards the extremely important concept of infinite processes that are crucial to this.
Well, that IS of importance because your own thoughts are clouded by this. You cannot escape this hardwiring, and it drives your very ideas. As I said before, this whole argument may just be your way of venting your "sexual drive". You certainly have no way of knowing it.
True enough, but as long as I can give logical evidence there it would not really make any difference either way. There are probably people today without this "hardwiring" (genetic flukes or otherwise), so if they or, say, a computer accepts the conclusion as likely, then I do not see how that would matter at all.
That still doesn't constitute a change of paradigm - it's just a change on the degree of importance of a subject. You're still wrong though, because even though it may not seem that sex was such an important subject 100 years ago, it was - just on a different level. Apply your own logic here - if every cell of an organism has its own will to move towards a certain direction, the organism will follow. And it was a very important issue to everyone, as much (if not more) than it is today. Taboos tend to attract people's attention, so I'm pretty confident of the second option. What do you think was the real reason behind Napoleon's campaign?
For the second time, I am not talking about how important the people thought it was to the civilization on a purely logical level, but how intimately it was tied in with the other aspects of society. Today, more of the popular culture is based around sex than anything else out there, and as any historian would tell you, that certainly could not be said of things a couple hundred years ago. And for the will part, every human in existence today by no means needs to "want" to cohese into larger units; all that matters is that some of them do. We then reach the point where we have one relatively large unit competing against many smaller and more primitive units, and even if they coexist, the small units will become of little importance compared to the large one over the course of history. For the final part, are you talking about Napoleon's military campaign? That was probably based on personal ambition, like that of the conquerors that came before him.
I'd point you to a good book, if it was in english. I only have books in portuguese, so you'll have to research by yourself. And no, I'm not saying that the entire concept of scientific theory is meaningless. I'm saying that it's valid, as long ast it's based on perception - something you seem to ignore. As far as I'm concerned, any perception outweigths any model in regards to a determined system. Think this way: you read a scientific description of what pain is. You think you know what pain is. Then you get stabbed in the hand. Now you really know what pain is.
Scientific theory
cannot be completely based on perception; it requires analysis, and the entire concept of theory is centered on that. (heck, even perception by itself without any theory requires analysis) And your two descriptions of gaining the knowledge of pain are actually exactly the same at a fundamental level. The first one might actually be
more accurate if taken to a certain point, because when you experience something your reasoning tends to get influenced in one of the directions. (the rule of experiential bias) The flaw can show itself after a thorough analysis of the logic procedure, but this can be difficult to do in practice.
Pfft, you're saying that you can make the person tolerate something. Ask any slave if they actually enjoy working all day, eating only what's needed to survive and being beaten almost to death for any "strange" behaviour.
Actually, if the guy has been doing it for a long time (i.e. most of his life) he would probably like it as long as he does not know otherwise. There are many examples of this throughout history.
Yes, it can be improved - but it's far easier to improve over the current model than to try to rework a whole new model for it. You're just dazzled by all the research on cloning that's popping everywhere right now (as is almost everyone else).
And I suppose you also think that continuing the current computer processor manufacturing process is better than researching new systems despite the fact that we know its limitations.
The key word here is "think". What you think it's gonna be. You have as much ground for predictions as anyone else here. In fact, a straight-to-the-point analysis of current western society will show that leisure activities will take more and more of a persons time as the basic production and work systems are automated. People seek to increase and improve their leisure time (and I speak of "people" as in "the whole society") and, if the current trend continues, we'll reach a point where we won't do anything besides "have fun". It's you that's failing to see that, trying to mask facts with a personal view. As I said earlier on this post, your own logic shows that the organism (the society, in this case) will move that way. You fail to realize that the vast majority of people doesn't think the way you do (or claim to), and therefore generalizing your own ideals as the whole society's trend won't work.
I do have as much ground for predictions as anyone else as long as they can back up their ideas; that's the whole point of argument.
I agree with you that people will continue to have more and more fun in the traditional sense, but only up to a certain point. You see, if everyone has fun all the time, everyone will be constantly happy, and because the rate of advance of the society is to a significant extent based on the wants of the masses (which in turn is based on how happy people are; for example, a completely happy person would not do anything at all during his life), this rate will slowly drop to zero. Once the zero point is reached people will find a cause to complain about and thus remove the system that brought them to that point, since like I said earlier, suffering in that sense is necessary to further development. See that
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy book I mentioned earlier; it has become pretty famous and addresses this issue quite thoroughly. (and this is one of those things that was published in the 1950s from which most of the predictions have turned out true so far; so much for there being "no way to make accurate predictions"
)
See, this proves my previous point. Every single person in this planet wants to have fun, each on his/her own way. Arguing like this is the way you have fun. Messing with you is the way I have fun (among several other things, of course, many of which take precedence).
Yes, that is how the current system works, which is actually one of the reasons that it or the society must fall.
Moving on to the next person...
Thoughts change, basic animal instincts don't. 3 billion years of Evolution has left a single goal ingrained into the deepest part of every organism on the planet, reproduce. For humans, and all other sexually reproducing animals, that means "go have sex". Do you honestly think that 3 billion years of evolution can just be pushed aside because something new comes along? It's a part of the Freudian Id, and the Id is unalterable by higher levels of the brain, merely suppressble (to a point). Sex will never die, or even be pushed into the background. It will remain, for the entire existence of the human race, the best and primary way to reproduce.
Yes they do, based on the needs of the animal for survival - simple fact of the evolution theory. Very, very few, if any, quantities in the universe are static in that sense, and they are all physical constants and such things; the universe is a continuously evolving unit, as are its constituent parts. You have given no reasons why sex is the "best" way to reproduce. And yes I do think just that, seeing as the same could be said about the space travel thing I was talking about with Styxx; no species in 3 billion years has been able to even light a fire, let alone launch space-capable vessels, and therefore, going by that method of thought, humans will not be able to do it either. You must look at other factors as well, such as what exactly causes animals (and humans) to retain these instincts.
That's simply not true I'm afraid, it's just that you don't live in the times, so you don't recognize it. 200 years ago, rape was as if not more common than it is today, and sex was still a major part of the human mindset. It just wasn't openly discussed. Do you really think that blokes 200 years ago didn't go home and have sex with their wives at least 3 or 4 times a week Of course they did...
I doubt that, as do most historians out there; maybe 200 years is a bit conservative, but go back in time some more (say, a thousand years) and things will have become even more pronounced in the opposite direction. Besides, if you agree that the issue "wasn't openly discussed," then that is all that matters, since this open discussion is what allows a topic to acquire a place in a cultural system.
Also, you're only talking about Western societies stance on sex, and not the far more open societies in other parts of the world.
Yes, but the Western society has in many ways become the dominant one of today's world; all the other nations are following in its footsteps not only in terms of technology but also of culture to a large extent. (possibly as a side effect)
