[CP5670]

All you've done is prove a possible path, there's no way you can factor in all the possiblities and give me a probability on it. You've proved it is possible not it's the most likely

Are you another nihilist around here? Actually, recall that the purpose of this argument was to compare two distinct paths, and so all that needed to be shown was that one was more likely than the other. "Most likely" is indeed quite difficult to prove in theory due to the infinite number of possibilities, but it actually works out quite nicely in practice because the various possible paths can be factored into a small number of distinct groups and dealt with as large parts; if a contradiction is shown, then the whole group can be eliminated. Continue narrowing down this process until you only have one theory left, and then go argue with someone about it.

Forget it, just let the math nerd think he's won, arguing with him just takes too much energy. One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.

You will not, but your successors will.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by CP5670
You will not, but your successors will.

You do realise, that if you come into some sort of power, and that if you try to follow through with these plans of yours, you will be publicly lynched?

[CP5670]

Why would I need to do anything? Like I said, this will happen if things continue the way they are going; if some unpredictable thing happens (like, say, a dictator taking over the entire world), the theory would need to be modified accordingly. Look at the ideas and not the person.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by CP5670
But there is no "natural" state on which to revert (this was discussed at length in that "oh hell" thread a while ago), so that cannot really be used as evidence that the influence of sex will increase again; it is just as likely that any of the other "unnatural" events will occur if we try to determine conclusions from this information alone.

I think that there is a natural social state, one in which certain undesirable parts of the human nature are suppressed by law and common agreement, while other parts are given freedom and contribute to society - ie. like every other society not oppressed from above (by religion, or prudish monarchs or whatever).

Wait, how is the individual human more predictable than a human mob? This is another of the few points that modern sociologists and political scientists agree on; the human mobs can be views in the same way as elementary particles are, where an individual unit is very difficult to predict but when the units group into masses, previously unseen patterns begin to manifest themselves and these can then be analyzed by statistical methods.

As for the last part, that is because you are assuming the curve is linear and therefore the rate of change is constant; this is almost certainly not the case looking at the entire history of humanity, and an exponential growth system is more likely. (in terms of a function or functional, 200 could yield a higher result than 2000000 depending on where the displacement occurs)[/b]

Psychological evolution isn't something that can be sped up, nno matter how advanced your society becomes. The change you're talking about (the shift away from sex) is probably among the biggest changes in the way humans act that could possibly be imagined, and there is no way that you could speed that up, particularly not for all six billion people on this planet. I mean, your average 6 year old boy will run away from "girl germs' but give them another six or seven years, and they start running in the opposite direction, no matter how much they were afraid of/disliked the opposite sex. Doesn't that suggest it's preprogrammed to you? Doesn't it strike you as a major obstacle for your theory?

Same reason I gave with the morals earlier; they were at that time in the extreme minority as well, and look where they have gotten today. See what I responded to Styxx's post about the full analysis of events being necessary rather than just the interpretation of events.

There's a world of difference between having morals and having sex my friend.

Originally posted by Lt Narol
One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.

Here Here!

[CP5670]

I think that there is a natural social state, one in which certain undesirable parts of the human nature are suppressed by law and common agreement, while other parts are given freedom and contribute to society - ie. like every other society not oppressed from above (by religion, or prudish monarchs or whatever).

See if you can dig up that other thread; I gave a bunch of reasons there why everything that can possibly happen in the universe is equally natural (even, say, something like all of humanity nuking the planet and themselves) and no distinction can be made to have one event any more "natural" than the another as long as it exists in this reality. Hey, even Kellan agreed with me.

Psychological evolution isn't something that can be sped up, nno matter how advanced your society becomes. The change you're talking about (the shift away from sex) is probably among the biggest changes in the way humans act that could possibly be imagined, and there is no way that you could speed that up, particularly not for all six billion people on this planet. I mean, your average 6 year old boy will run away from "girl germs' but give them another six or seven years, and they start running in the opposite direction, no matter how much they were afraid of/disliked the opposite sex. Doesn't that suggest it's preprogrammed to you? Doesn't it strike you as a major obstacle for your theory?

Hold on, when did I say that psychological evolution would be "sped up?" I was talking about the technological progress there. That does influence the speed of psychological change quite a bit as well, but we do not really need to consider that for this argument since it would only become a significant factor much later. There is no such thing as this "preprogramming" (or rather, hardcoded preprogramming) - by which we then fall into the trap of religion - since like I said earlier, the entire universe is a contantly fluid and evolving unit, and if any constant quantities even exist, they have to do with physical constants and such things; unless you can trace the desire for sex to one of those things, it is much too specific to account for an assumption. And I am not sure what you mean by it being one of the "biggest changes" around; from a truly universal perspective, this is really a very insignificant change compared to what is to come after that.

The other thing I should mention is that, thinking intuitively only and letting the subconscious brain do all the work, I actually quite agree with all of you: I instinctively "feel" that sex is necessary and also one of the best things around, just as any of you do, but I constantly question such thoughts. Thing is, I have tried to examine this more closely and disregarded my emotions completely while doing so, and this is the conclusion I have reached by means of full rationality.

There's a world of difference between having morals and having sex my friend.

Actually, I was stating the methods in which they were brought into human affairs and using that as an analogy, not the morals themselves.

[icespeed]

hey cp, i don't get it.
why do you rely on logic to prove your ideas? if it can be called proof.
The thing is, life isn't logical. you think its logical because you're a creature of this universe, but it isn't. hasn't any weird coincidences, strange occurances, anything like that ever happened to you?
if life was logical, we wouldn't be humans. we'd be robots, pre-programmed to do... whatever.
in fact, if life was logical, it wouldn't exist. what would be the point? logic is not... a part of life, its an invention of humans who kid themselves that it is important.
go on, prove me wrong.

[JC Denton]

As I see it, all these arguments are putridified bull****.  How in the hell are we supposed to predict what the future shape of human society is going to be?  As if you can do anything to alter its ultimate result anyways.

The only reason I'm saying anything is that I'm intensely curious as to what that question Shrike alluded to at the beginning of the thread is, as I'm sure we all are.  To blazes with offense!  Ask away!

[Carl]

Originally posted by Shrike
I want to see if people can actually debate this topic in a vaguelly adult matter.

BOOBIES BOOBIE BOOBIES!!!!

sorry

btw, turn on the discovery channel. there's a show about sex inspiring inventions on.

[CP5670]

hey cp, i don't get it.
why do you rely on logic to prove your ideas? if it can be called proof.
The thing is, life isn't logical. you think its logical because you're a creature of this universe, but it isn't. hasn't any weird coincidences, strange occurances, anything like that ever happened to you?
if life was logical, we wouldn't be humans. we'd be robots, pre-programmed to do... whatever.
in fact, if life was logical, it wouldn't exist. what would be the point? logic is not... a part of life, its an invention of humans who kid themselves that it is important.
go on, prove me wrong.

Another nihilist...anyway, I rely on logic because there is no other comparable system out there; I know it is not too great, but it is the best thing we've got. And life is logical, or rather, it is logical alongside a multitude of other systems, but it can be described in terms of logic, which is essentially the first assumption of science. I have never had any "coincidences or strange occurrences" that could not be explained by logic in some way, so I am going to keep the consistency axioms as long as they are working well in practice. There is no fundamental difference between the human and the robot; they are both equally material parts of the universe. Life does not need to have a point; in fact, trying to give a purpose in the sense you are thinking of results in a contradiction. Although logic is an invention of humans, why is it that humans can predict real world events using it? (kinematic motion, for example) Statement disproved. (for more details, see the rest of this thread along with the "oh hell," "America, happy fourth...," and "ot: religion" threads)

As I see it, all these arguments are putridified bull****. How in the hell are we supposed to predict what the future shape of human society is going to be? As if you can do anything to alter its ultimate result anyways.  

Is everyone a nihilist around here or something? We assume it is possible to do that because it has worked wonderfully for tons of other predictions and to a smaller extent, because we have nothing to lose by searching for a truth. (actually, there is a much more complicated aspect to the second part but I won't get into the details) Lastly, we are not interested in altering the final result. (just yet, anyway)

[icespeed]

that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.

[JC Denton]

I dunno, but I find your insatiable desire to disprove everyone who disagrees with your patterns of thought and to convert the unconvinced to said thought patterns quite repugnant.

You seek to...oh, how should I say it?...dehumanize humanity.  Vat-grown replicants, pah!  To remove the basic humanistic urges is to destroy that which makes us human, what defines who we are.

And your attempts to model sociological evolution to a mathematical algorithm are some of the greatest exercises in futility I've seen to date.  I commend you, for being more machine than a computer could ever be.

[quantum waveform voice]He will make an excellent drone.[/quantum waveform voice]

And even if you aren't trying to convert everyone into believing what you say, you still cling like a child to the idea that you are right, and every one of us will be shown up in the end.  WHY?

[Nico]

not tired yet of talking about CP's total lack of life? of social life may I add to stay "politicaly correct"?

Originally posted by Borealis


[color=sky blue]I just hate to see nice guys wonder if it would be better to stop being nice.  Before I figured it out I thought the same.  One time I dated someone I worked with and pretended I didn't care.  It backfired in a big way.  He dumped me for the nastiest troll in the place.  It was a painful lesson.  I just didn't want anyone else here to make the same mistake.[/color]  

pfwah!
easy to say, dear resident blonde ( ). Anyway, when you're nice, you're nice, you can't turn bad just to "get more chicks" ( sorry for the terminology ). If you can, well, you weren't nice, you were an actor. So no real problem to fix there.
But anyway, to chicks, I guess "bad boys" are just more interesting, dunno. Some girls I know ( but don't like actually ) say I'm looking good ( they still have to prove that anyway ), but yet they go with the stupid dumbass who break the benches in public squares and stuff like that, the kind of guy you can find out the IQ just by looking at his face ( IQ that they can count on their fingers ) . Go wonder...

[vyper]

Originally posted by icespeed
that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.

Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life. How else do you develop new understand if not through discussing things with others?

Right, enough said on that: Now, no sex? Are you mad? (Or possibly taken a vow of celibacy? )

[Nico]

Originally posted by vyper


Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life.

Yeah, they did. For a few hours, not 7/7 24/24 ... you know, drinking wine and stuff like that, enjoying what they had already and trying to add stuff, not trying to replace everything with ****ing robots.

[vyper]

Is it a condition of this thread that people misinterpret what you write or is it just a growing infection of stupidity?

I was saying there's nothing wrong with discussing life. I wasn't advocating a 24/7 approach to it.

I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything anyone said (i.e. robots ) ... I just said you can't ban sex

[Shrike]

Originally posted by JC Denton
The only reason I'm saying anything is that I'm intensely curious as to what that question Shrike alluded to at the beginning of the thread is, as I'm sure we all are.  To blazes with offense!  Ask away!

It's a goodie all right.

Maybe tomorrow.

[CP5670]

that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.

I say it is a sad life when one does not "sit around theorizing." Besides, it can be shown that all other human pursuits in the whole are just means to knowledge in the end, and to do otherwise results in contradictions.

I dunno, but I find your insatiable desire to disprove everyone who disagrees with your patterns of thought and to convert the unconvinced to said thought patterns quite repugnant.

Actually, the objective of any argument is to narrow down the various theories in an attempt to end up with just one left. I couldn't care less what everyone else here thinks on the subject; I am trying to sharpen my own views, and what better way to do that than to argue?

You seek to...oh, how should I say it?...dehumanize humanity.  Vat-grown replicants, pah!  To remove the basic humanistic urges is to destroy that which makes us human, what defines who we are.

You are sounding exactly like the Catholic church when people like Copernicus and Galileo made their theories public. First of all, I do not "seek" to do anything but find the truth and couldn't care less about humanity otherwise. Secondly, stop viewing the human society as something in itself; it is just another part of the universe, and as far as we know, irremovably tied to everything else in reality. Therefore, there is no clear distinction that defines who we are, since anything we possibly do will be equally "human." (like I said, nuking everyone on the planet is human) Also, a prehistoric man would have said that attempting to discover knowledge (science) would also "destroy that which makes us human."

And your attempts to model sociological evolution to a mathematical algorithm are some of the greatest exercises in futility I've seen to date.  I commend you, for being more machine than a computer could ever be.

There are a number of the experts in this field today who would scoff at that statement.

And even if you aren't trying to convert everyone into believing what you say, you still cling like a child to the idea that you are right, and every one of us will be shown up in the end.  WHY?

I will cling to whatever idea is logically correct; convince me that another idea is better, and I will switch to that immediately. Unless you can argue your points against other points, they are for all purposes, incorrect. As I said before, look at the idea and not the person.

Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life. How else do you develop new understand if not through discussing things with others?

Yes, that is still the best way of doing these things.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Hey, even Kellan agreed with me.

I did?? Zoinks! I've got to see this! (You see, I'm still catching up and therefore not entirely aware of what is going on).

However, I could be about to agree with you again: In all likelihood, you could bring about changes in large populations that now seem impossible. After all, abortion, suicide and euthanasia have all been view by various societies as unfathomable and abhorrent at one time or another, yet today they are subjects in the realm of public discourse or frequently practised. Although my rationale isn't mathematical, I can see how a campaign of coercion, propaganda and free exchanges of information plus erosion of retroactive forces such as religion could besuccessful in getting people to adopt or stop certain behaviours. It gets easier once people start doing it too, because of group conformity pressures and demystification.

However, getting people to adopt a behaviour is sometimes easier than getting them to give it up, as you may have noticed. Racism was relatively easy to instill, but getting rid of it is a tremendous challenge.

[Nico]

Originally posted by vyper
Is it a condition of this thread that people misinterpret what you write or is it just a growing infection of stupidity?

I was saying there's nothing wrong with discussing life. I wasn't advocating a 24/7 approach to it.

I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything anyone said (i.e. robots ) ... I just said you can't ban sex

calm down: I wasn't going against what you said, I just draw a line with what the others posted before, and the difference between the philosophers you mentionned and CP.

btw, CP:

Yes, that is still the best way of doing these things.

how can you say that, you who flee any single physical contact with other people? you who can't bear sunlight, who would surely suffocate if you had to leave your home ( agoraphobia?)? You sure have some nerves.
and I would never look at humanity as a little part of the universe, even if I know it's true, thanx. Why? coz I don't give a damn about the rest of the universe, I've never seen it, I don't even know about it, and I most likely never will, even if I'm blessed with 120 000 resurections. What I know? Humanity. I won't put it as the center of the universe, but as the only unit I know to compare other things with. So humanity is somethig in itself, and I don't care if you don't have enough self-confidence to think that you're nothing more than an helpless particle of dust in da great void of spaaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaace
Btw, your exemples are not very well chosen, Copernic, etc, they didn't change anything to humanity, they just moved humanity's place next to all the other things that exists. they don't replace anything, what changed is called evolution. and I'm wasting my time, damn, I have better to do.
And I prefer to talk about sex ( since talking about it is the only thing I seem to be able to do these days... )

[CP5670]

calm down: I wasn't going against what you said, I just draw a line with what the others posted before, and the difference between the philosophers you mentionned and CP.

Actually I am quite moderate compared to some of them.

how can you say that, you who flee any single physical contact with other people? you who can't bear sunlight, who would surely suffocate if you had to leave your home ( agoraphobia?)? You sure have some nerves.

I personally do not like being in contact with people, but that is of little importance; I am ready to do even that if I will get something out of it. (or else I would not even be posting here ) For the third time, look at the idea and not the person behind it. People usually look at the person when they cannot think of anything else to say against the idea, so that could be a partial victory.