[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil

In essence it just comes down to your moral laziness.  And apathy seems to be the greatest tool to keep everyone down in recent history.

And?

[wEvil]

The society you describe is probably more of an ultimate form of what we might evolve into - to be honest it looks rather too far into the future to be fully practical.

The model I describe can be determined as an interim step, although no less radical.

Plus there's the slightly alarming fact that total determinism is by definition impossible in a quantum universe - I don't beleive it Is possible to simulate something as complex as the universe without first having to create an identical copy.

Are your ideals fully applicable?  I don't think they are since they fail to embrace fallibility and take into account emotional states - both of which are very important in most peoples' definition of "being human".

If we were to evolve or redesign ourselves into something you described we would have turned into something entirely different - this is not something i'd be entirely happy with.


Blue Lion - if you don't have anything useful to say then don't bother spamming the thread.  You obviously dont care so why should you even make the huge effort to read this? let alone the heartbreakingly massive effort of managing to type four characters into your keyboard.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil

Blue Lion - if you don't have anything useful to say then don't bother spamming the thread.  You obviously dont care so why should you even make the huge effort to read this? let alone the heartbreakingly massive effort of managing to type four characters into your keyboard.

Because you're telling me it's my fault and I have a moral obligation to pay these poor people. I am telling you it is not. It's only useful if I rally behind your little flag? It's spam because my views are different?

[wEvil]

Because you're telling me it's my fault and I have a moral obligation to pay these poor people. I am telling you it is not. It's only useful if I rally behind your little flag? It's spam because my views are different?

Because by your warped concept of even having to PAY for anything.

You're not even thinking in different terms to the ones you've been brought up in, you're viewing my concepts through contaminated lenses.

And helping someone who's getting mugged or raped is rather different to paying 5 pounds, euros, dollars....whatever to some trust fund that may or may not be actually helping people.  In this respect your arguments have been consistently muddled.

If you don't have a moral obligation to do anything, why don't you find a nice metal box, weld yourself inside it and never do anything?  I'm not attacking your and my current way of life, although I wish I could, i'm attempting to point out feasable alternatives, whish is what I thought this thread was about.  If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.

and your use of laugh smilies...well, i really can't be bothered to argue with you if you're going to take down the tone of the conversation and make a joke out of it all.

On a personal level it shows you're a tosser (technical terminology) and on the level of this argument it shows you have nothing new to bring to the conversation.

[CP5670]

The society you describe is probably more of an ultimate form of what we might evolve into - to be honest it looks rather too far into the future to be fully practical.

Not all that far away actually; I would estimate it at a couple thousand years at most if we keep progressing at our current rate. But I am just giving that example to show that individuality and its implication, happiness, are meaningless.

The model I describe can be determined as an interim step, although no less radical.

We will certainly have interim steps (or more than that actually: a fully continuous change), but I do not think that morals will really be involved in there, since a truly moral society cannot exist for very long if independently-operating individuals are also involved.

Plus there's the slightly alarming fact that total determinism is by definition impossible in a quantum universe - I don't beleive it Is possible to simulate something as complex as the universe without first having to create an identical copy.

Of course, it is possible that anything will happen; as I said before in this thread, it is possible for Vasudans to come from space and take all our headz exactly two days from now, but that does not make it probable. What I am describing there seems to be one of the more probable outcomes, next to a few other possibilities, and therefore we can assume it to be true for the purposes of further deduction unless evidence comes up to the contrary. Also, one can indeed simulate the universe; granted, the simulation is not "perfect," but it is close enough that for all practical purposes, it can be considered perfect.

Are your ideals fully applicable?  I don't think they are since they fail to embrace fallibility and take into account emotional states - both of which are very important in most peoples' definition of "being human".

The emotional states are quite predictable on large scales, though and follow fairly simple rules, and these large sweeps are what determine human affairs in the whole.

If we were to evolve or redesign ourselves into something you described we would have turned into something entirely different - this is not something i'd be entirely happy with.

This is happening constantly though, you see, even as we post here. You could say that the mega-organism I spoke of is not a human, but then again, how are we any more "human" than it is? In fact, people far in the future who have radically changed into something different would probably think of themselves as the "true" humans and would find it hard to believe that we were humans.

[wEvil]

All I can say is that i'm human at this point in time, and through the small 70-odd year window i'm alive thats what i would define as being human.

Obviously by the time we've diversified into a few different species and met a few aliens the term will become meaningless, being replaced by sentience.

anyway...i'll have to type more up later.

[CP5670]

Sure, but the guys in the future could say the same thing, even being completely different than you are today.

[Su-tehp]

I don't think I can effectively or intelligently respond to CP's posts about individuality, the evolution of society and all that other esoteric stuff. It confuses the hell out of me.

But then again, I've known CP for a while and when he gets started on an argument, it takes a looooooong time for him to wind down again. By that time he's usually won the argument by confusing everybody else.

Still, I think wEvil is giving CP a good run for his money here...

(BTW, CP, e-mail me right away, I have a way to give you the DatDB stuff, but you need to get in touch with me via e-mail ASAP.)

As for Blue Lion, I'm sorry to say that he seems utterly bereft of compassion or empathy. If all he cares about is himself, then I don't envy the life he is going to have. Yeah, maybe he's get married and have kids and make enough money to keep himself and his family happy, but in the end, when everyone gets judged about how they made the world a better place, Blue won't have anything to show for it.

If Blue can proudly state (or even claim with a non-comittal straight face) that he would watch a woman get raped outside his own house and not be moved to do anything, then he's going to wind up alone and unloved. Anyone that bereft of empathy is little more than a sociopath.

Blue Lion isn't human.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil

If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.

I never said being greedy or selfish was ok, that's why I'm laughing, at you completely missing the point. I think it's rather funny.

You're not even thinking in different terms to the ones you've been brought up in, you're viewing my concepts through contaminated lenses.

And you're viewing mine through yours, what's your point?

Because by your warped concept of even having to PAY for anything.

[/b]

Well what would you have me give? My moral backing? Will that help these people? The only things I can give are my time and money, and you already know where I stand on that.

If you don't have a moral obligation to do anything, why don't you find a nice metal box, weld yourself inside it and never do anything?

I am in a sense, it's called living my life

i'm attempting to point out feasable alternatives, which is what I thought this thread was about.

And I'm pointing out these attempts are not feasible. The average American, European, or the like, can give two things, time and money. Now most people do not have the time or money because they have thier own problems that are more pressing. Everyone here has their own problems to deal with, if people want the world to be a better place, solve your own problems. If all your problems are solved, then you've reached a higher point than I have.

If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.

[/b]

I've never said being greedy and selfish was ok, I said I will not help these people while their own governments **** them over. I disagree that these people need our help. I believe these governments can handle it themselves, but prefer to continue to abuse their own people for the power it gives them. If they can't do anything without our help, you have to ask yourself why.

[wEvil]

This hypothetical future "human" (lets call them that for the sake of argument) would have the benefit of hindsight.

Unfortunately i'm not prescient and can't see the future, and as I said before the nature of the universe is that its' not fully predictable.

All I have to extrapolate on is the paltry 6,000 years of current stored experience, and while you might think its' acceptable to overlay abritrary logic and calculations (a la Asimov "psychohistory"), I do not.   Of course there needs to be some method of self-determination, but that needs to come from the sum of individuals involved, not from a borg-like hive mentality that is so far removed from our current way of thinking it is hardly imaginable.

An individual does not have to be an unpredictable and dangerous thing - and until we reach a similar mathematical epiphany to the one you may have reached we aren't likely to transcend into some super-sentient gelitanous/crystalline mass.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Su-tehp

If Blue can proudly state (or even claim with a non-comittal straight face) that he would watch a woman get raped outside his own house and not be moved to do anything, then he's going to wind up alone and unloved. Anyone that bereft of empathy is little more than a sociopath.

Blue Lion isn't human.

I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous. Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
And you're viewing mine through yours, what's your point?

Mine are more objective

Well what would you have me give? My moral backing? Will that help these people? The only things I can give are my time and money, and you already know where I stand on that.

Your moral backing and time are so hugely valuable to the point comparing them with money is almost insulting.

And I'm pointing out these attempts are not feasible. The average American, European, or the like, can give two things, time and money. Now most people do not have the time or money because they have thier own problems that are more pressing. Everyone here has their own problems to deal with, if people want the world to be a better place, solve your own problems. If all your problems are solved, then you've reached a higher point than I have.

My plan for world domination is that you eliminate the "average" person by grabbing them and making them aware of whats going on.

So you won't help them while their govornments continue to misgovorn them, well - eliminate the misgovornment.  

I feel you've missed my point because i've been simultaneously been arguing with CPS about something totally divorced from the near future.

The reconciliation between these two arguments is that the nation-state simply has to go - you cannot categorise the human race any longer because it would be species-wide suicide to do so.  Those people have the potential to do well if they were just given the life you've had - I'm not asking you to give them most of your pocket-money every week - I'm asking you to eliminate the inefficiencies in your own govornment.

Its about making sensible economies, not about living frugally.

Either way, I can't even be sure you're actually reading this and taking it in.  I'm not trying to say my way is better or that I, in any way, am superior to anyone else that might post in this thread - what I want is to find some way thats acceptable to everyone and is better.

But the greed (I.E money), has to go.  Its been a deadlock for the past 400 years with hardly any social progress....and it can't last much longer or the whole thing might turn degenerate (if it isn't already).

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Blue Lion


I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous. Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.

Chances were if you walked out there with a couple of broken bottles they'd all run away.

But heroics aside, its' the example and the intent behind it that counts.  

You have to ask - what kind of society produces people that want to do that?  Rape women, kidnap & murder children, generally wreck their environment and be cruel to animals?

For me that says barbaric - for all our technology and intelligence we still refuse to do anything objectively good.

And whats' good for our planet is good for us as a species and is good for you - whether you're out for yourself or a true philanthropist in the end your actions will be the same if you've thought it through.

[CP5670]

For everyone who is bashing BL for being "unjust," how is he any universally "worse" than the most moralistic guy in the world? (who is to judge?) They are all at the same level, that is, an indeterminate level.

Also, greed/selfishness have been one of the primary motivating forces for the formation of human civilization; it all came out of self-interest and that alone. Once people start to cohese into higher communal systems, these traits, along with all other personal emotions, will effectively become nullified.

This hypothetical future "human" (lets call them that for the sake of argument) would have the benefit of hindsight.

Even with that hindsight though, they will still find it very difficult to accept. The point I am trying to make is that, while people may not realize it, humanity is a constantly evolving, completely fluid unit, and the rate of change appears to be going in a constant direction in only one way: the progress of knowledge.

All I have to extrapolate on is the paltry 6,000 years of current stored experience, and while you might think its' acceptable to overlay abritrary logic and calculations (a la Asimov "psychohistory"), I do not.

So...what are you trying to say? That we should already assume that it is impossible to discover the principles on which reality works? If this is the case, what then is there left for us to do?

Of course there needs to be some method of self-determination, but that needs to come from the sum of individuals involved, not from a borg-like hive mentality that is so far removed from our current way of thinking it is hardly imaginable.

Hardly imaginable to you perhaps (along with most people today), but that is simply because you have grown up and lived in a certain type of society and thus it automatically seems the most natural. As I said, anyone who is a part of this hive-mind would consider our lifestyles hugely inferior and almost barbaric compared to theirs; it is just a matter of getting used to the new ideas and system. (as Planck said though, this can take more than one generation)

An individual does not have to be an unpredictable and dangerous thing - and until we reach a similar mathematical epiphany to the one you may have reached we aren't likely to transcend into some super-sentient gelitanous/crystalline mass.

Wait, when did I say that the individual is either unpredictable or dangerous? I merely said that the individual human is far from being the best solution to discovering knowledge due to flaws inherent in him (check out Koestler's ideas here), and it is thus irrational. A much better solution to the problem is the mega-organism.

It confuses the hell out of me.

and here I thought I was putting my ideas into plain words that others could understand...

But then again, I've known CP for a while and when he gets started on an argument, it takes a looooooong time for him to wind down again. By that time he's usually won the argument by confusing everybody else.

(BTW, CP, e-mail me right away, I have a way to give you the DatDB stuff, but you need to get in touch with me via e-mail ASAP.)

I would do that but it seems that I cannot get into the flairmail thing for some reason. (I stopped using that service because it was unreliable and logging in only sometimes worked) I would try to meet you on ICQ but there is the same thing with the stupid passwords again...

How big is this file? If you can upload it somewhere I can just get it from there.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
For everyone who is bashing BL for being "unjust," how is he any universally "worse" than the most moralistic guy in the world? They are all at the same level, that is, an indeterminate level.

I prefer the analogue scale myself

Even with that hindsight though, they will still find it very difficult to accept. The point I am trying to make is that, while people may not realize it, humanity is a constantly evolving, completely fluid unit, and the rate of change appears to be going in a constant direction in only one way: the progress of knowledge.

I understand this concept, and actually beleive in it - We live in a constantly changing universe, not a static one after all.

Being a pessimist, however, i'd say the progress is that of entropy.

So...what are you trying to say? That we should already assume that it is impossible to discover the principles on which reality works? If this is the case, what then is there left for us to do?

We can always keep trying

Hardly imaginable to you perhaps (along with most people today), but that is simply because you have grown up and lived in a certain type of society and thus it automatically seems the most natural. As I said, anyone who is a part of this hive-mind would consider our lifestyles hugely inferior and almost barbaric compared to theirs; it is just a matter of getting used to the new ideas and system. (as Planck said though, this can take more than one generation)

It'll take a helluva lot more than one generation - try upwards of a thousand.  I'm saying i'm not adverse to it happening eventually, i'm adverse to it happening tomorrow (relative to my interpretation of spacetime)

Wait, when did I say that the individual is either unpredictable or dangerous? I merely said that the individual human is far from being the best solution to discovering knowledge due to flaws inherent in him (check out Koestler's ideas here), and it is thus irrational. A much better solution to the problem is the mega-organism.

Or her

The mega-organism is the best solution, but for the moment, at least, its not the right solution.  We aren't ready for that yet.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous.

I can respect you not wanting to get killed. And since I've started law school, I've learned that there is no legal obligation for you to get involved; certainly you can't be prosecuted for doing nothing if you witness a crime.

But it's not ridiculous to condemn you for being apathetic when you're witnessing a felony.

Originally posted by Blue Lion
Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.

Let me tell you a story. I hope you have the time for this story, Blue. It might be a true story or it might be fiction, but we can consider it real enough for our purposes. Stuff like this goes on all over the world all the time. Hell, stuff like this goes on every 24 minutes here in the USA.

A young woman named Kitty Genovese was walking home through the streets of New York when she is grabbed by an unknown assailant and pulled into an alley. The assailant then raped her and murdered her by stabbing her at least 24 times. After the police began their investigation, it was discovered that at least 30 people heard her cries for help. Not a single one of those people yelled at the rapist from their window. Not a single one called the police. Not a single one did anything except close up their ears to stifle out Kitty's cries for help.

Tell me, Blue, can you honestly say that none of these people had an obligation to help this poor woman? Can you honestly tell me that you actually want to live in a world populated by such uncaring neighbors? This is in effect what you're saying: if you can't be bothered to care about other people, then those other people can't be bothered to help you when you get into trouble. It works both ways, Blue.

Tell me the truth, Blue. What is your honest opinion about those neighbors who let Kitty Genovese bleed to death not 100 feet from their homes? Can you really say with a straight face that you wouldn't feel the least bit angry or upset at these people?

When you watch the world news at night, do you feel anything for the starving, the dead and the wounded on your TV screen?

Do you ever get moved to contribute to someone else just for the sake of giving or is your life just about keeping yourself happy?

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
I can respect you not wanting to get killed. And since I've started law school, I've learned that there is no legal obligation for you to get involved; certainly you can't be prosecuted for doing nothing if you witness a crime.

The pathetic thing is in the UK I could be prosecuted for attempting to apprehend an offender, beleive it or not.

A few months ago I cought some scum breaking into my shed.  I watched him throw a big chunk of concrete and break down the door.

I then proceeded downstairs (in my underwear, i might add) and opened the door and asked what the hell he was doing.

He then ran away.

After taking my statement, the police then told me had I attempted to apprehend him by anything other than tying him up (IE, hitting him over the head with something) i would have been prosecuted myself.

But this is a whole new can of worms (one that shouldnt exist) about the right to defend ones property.

Overlaying it on Su-tehps' story one might ask had I, in my vigilante role, have damaged the assailant would I be next up?  

This highlights a major failing in our society, however nobody seems to agree on how to deal with offenders.

[CP5670]

I prefer the analogue scale myself

eh?

We can always keep trying

Exactly...and so it also applies to predicting the actions of humans.

It'll take a helluva lot more than one generation - try upwards of a thousand.  I'm saying i'm not adverse to it happening eventually, i'm adverse to it happening tomorrow (relative to my interpretation of spacetime)

Nah, two should probably be enough; all that needs to happen is that the people of the new generation should start up in the new lifestyle as soon as they are born, and then they will find it fully natural and consider their parents' existence very strange. I would like it to happen tomorrow, but that is of course next to impossible.

Or her

Alright, I will put in him/her/it instead from now on.

The mega-organism is the best solution, but for the moment, at least, its not the right solution.  We aren't ready for that yet.

uh...what's the difference? The best is the right one, even at the moment I would say, if it was somehow hypothetically possible to bring it about immediately.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
Nah, two should probably be enough; all that needs to happen is that the people of the new generation should start up in the new lifestyle as soon as they are born, and then they will find it fully natural and consider their parents' existence very strange. I would like it to happen tomorrow, but that is of course next to impossible.

To practise that would cause intolerable friction and probably a number of extremely violent outburst, possibly a sustained rebellion.  And thats' If it was even a practical suggestion given current social trends and technologies.  

How about turning it around - you had a bunch of inefficient bipeds attempting to reverse-engineer your macro organism into something like them?  I dont think the MO would like it much! (this is, of course, assuming the bipeds had way superior technology)

Certainly any practical and realistic shift will be over a long amount of time.

uh...what's the difference? The best is the right one, even at the moment I would say, if it was somehow hypothetically possible to bring it about immediately. [/B]

I'm talking about something at least marginally possible.

[CP5670]

To practise that would cause intolerable friction and probably a number of extremely violent outburst, possibly a sustained rebellion. And thats' If it was even a practical suggestion given current social trends and technologies.

Sure, but who would emerge the victor? These hordes of disorganized individuals would not really be able to compete with the super-organism, since it could think, build and progress faster by several orders of magnitude.

How about turning it around - you had a bunch of inefficient bipeds attempting to reverse-engineer your macro organism into something like them? I dont think the MO would like it much! (this is, of course, assuming the bipeds had way superior technology)

Well, if they have the intelligence to make all the great technology, they would also be sensible enough to see that MO is the best solution possible to the problem, and even if it was not, attacking it would a futile effort.

After taking my statement, the police then told me had I attempted to apprehend him by anything other than tying him up (IE, hitting him over the head with something) i would have been prosecuted myself.

you serious? But that is more of a prblem with current laws...