Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Yes, any branch of mathematics can model simple real-world events if necessary. They all require predictability, though, and assume that the conditions postulated will not change.
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Damn, can't you read? I'm saying that any theory that is built upon information gathered from perception is valid, and any theory that was not yet contradicted by perception has the benefit of the doubt. But if perception contradicts the theory, then the theory is
wrong. You seem to ignore that, and cling to theoretical models no matter what. Your loss.
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Huh, fairly slowly? Now you are seeing it as a local phenomena. Cloning had never existed throughout the entirety of human history, and in the last few years it was devised and practically made possible (even if there are severe limitations as of now), and you're saying that it's progressing slowly... right.
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Nope, you're missing my point completely. What I'm saying is that you don't have any basis to do accurate predictions because you don't have the knowledge. It might perfectly be that in a couple of years we make a breakthrough in applied psychology and sociology and become able to accurately predict the behaviour of a large mass of people (think psychohistory), or even individuals, but it's not possible as of now. And I'm not saying that society will remain the same, I'm saying that none of us can make even a far guess about what will happen. You don't know what technologies we will uncover, and you don't know what events will direct society - so you can't predict. Your theoretical model is based on the very notion that you spoke against - it's considering only a small section of the "curve", and therefore cannot be accurate - it's like finding a local maximum. The other flaw with this theoretical model you're "presenting" is that it disregards completely any future research or major event, as it disregards the fact that it's modelling over independent agents that may take any path in the future. Some research on AI would go well with the other fields we already recommended (psychology and sociology).
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Yes, if a completely unbiased person or computer (things that cannot be verified to exist, might I add) says that your prediction is right, based only on logical constructs, then it might be right. Or not, since you are not considering even a small fraction of all the factors involved. What they can attest to is that, if
everything goes the way you want, your prediction
might become true. Even a slight change on the scenario will throw it to the ground pretty quickly.
(it's still my opinion that your "model" won't get past such analysis, though, and that you are heavily biased by your own confidence in your knowledge to see that
)
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Hm, actually, sex was always intimately tied to all major aspects of society and culture. Check the behaviour of emperors and noblemen in the 1500s. Check the workings of the "behind the scenes" high society on the 1800s. Check the way landlords acted in the feudal times. You're seeing the macro events, and disregarding the smaller ones that led to those. Any historian would point that, and psychologist would point that, but you seem to believe that what you "think" happened is that actually happened.
And yes, humans don't need to aggregate into larger units. They will, though, if they sense that any of their liberties (in a psychological analysis, you'll notice that every human regards his personal freedom as one of the most important factors in decision making, and this reflect on the "mob" behaviour) threatened, no matter how subtly you seem to think it will happen - and sex is one of the most basic liberties any human considers. You fail to realize that this is what has driven society up to now, and what was responsible for the fall of every fallen regime in human history. There's also the fact that your own "relatively large, organized unit" will not come to exist, but debating this is pointless (you'll simply say "yes it will" over and over, changing words
).
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
No, it cannot be completely based on perception - it still
must be based on perception to a certain degree, though, or it's not valid (or it is as valid as any wild conjecture anyone can come up with). Any logic conclusion is just as good as the correctness of its premises, or else you get a GIGO system.
And no, my two descriptions are not even close to each other at a fundamental level. You're assuming too much, and providing little evidence. The first one will never provide you with complete and accurate information about the pain generation process, unless you have a perfectly modelled system - and as I said earlier, it is proved that any perfect model will be undistinguishable from the system being observed itself (therefore, you'll be feeling the pain anyway).
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Again, no. Did you ask any slave if they like working all day and night and being beaten up for no reason? Didn't think so.
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Actually, that's a completely useless analogy. We
know the limitations of current processor architectures, yet we don't know the limitations of natural birth (when improved), and we don't know the limitations of cloning processes. It might perfectly be that the natural process offers less limitations than cloning, and then your whole model falls apart. Check some Culture books for a few ideas on how to improve the natural conception methods.
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Ok, "up to a certain point" you say. You assume that human society will suffer a revolution when everyone is happy and having fun all day, because they have the "need" to evolve. This need you mention has as much basis as all the other arguments about the human being's "need" for sex - you're simply saying that, despite any other factors, society
must evolve/advance. You're assuming too much again, without any basis. You
believe that people will always have something to complain about, because that's the way they acted up to now. Well, I believe that people will always want to have sex, because that's the way they acted up to now. How is one belief better than the other?
Originally posted by CP5670
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")
I'll try to look into it, but since society didn't really change since the fifties, I already know that it didn't make any sociological and psychological predictions. What exactly did the guy predict?
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, that is how the current system works, which is actually one of the reasons that it or the society must fall.
See, there's your bias again. Society must fall. Breaking news for ya: it won't. You simply think that any system must evolve, without considering the simple factor that we never had any chance to analyse a system even remotely as complex as a planetwide human society. You're basing your ideas on a "local maximum" (to make an analogy), and failing to realize that we don't have the slightest idea of how the rest of the graph looks like.
Now, seriously, this is getting pointless. We can keep debating for the literal rest of our lives and won't reach any conclusions, because none of us will ever live to know what will actually happen to human society. Maybe we should agree to get cryogenically frozen and wake up in a thousand years or so just to see who was right.
