ALine

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that each cell has there owned unique memories of general experiences depending upon environmental interactions or environmental events that they have undergone? Or are you saying that when a new biological organism is born they inherit there the cells from there parents which cause those cells to have a "memory" of there parents actions which cause them to be more responsive to certain stimuli because they are "remembering" their previous interactions because they are passed down?

Because that would be fricken amazing if it were even remotely true. 

4 hours ago, Strange said:

There are forums and websites specific to this hobby; google “conlang”

Oh really, cool. Thanks for the reference Doc.

This is not a question, whereas it is an exercise. I would like to create a new language, one that is very simple and entirely based upon solely the English language. It has to be very simple and very efficient in informing another individual about what they are saying. It can use certain symbols but it must be able to be traced back to English words and terms. I do not have a name for it, just want to create it with people I have never met who are interested in the sciences and brain stuff.

Ok, I have a question. Is it possible to fully model the conversion and the transfer of energy using only mechanical waves propagating through matter? Like say you have an energy conversion path; Mechanical => Electrical => Chemical => Thermal => Mechanical. So from Mechanical to electrical, there would be a turning of a motor to transfer electricity right. So when an individual spins the motor they are actually sending small mechanical waves through the solid in order for them to rebound and reflect to create a turning motion. This, in turn, causes a rotation which induces an electrical current which is actually just the movement of electrons through a wire which can be seen as a free electrical wave propagating through the wire. Electrical to the chemical is just the reversing of a certain reaction, however, this, in turn, causes the chemical atoms and molecules to move together and from the outside can be seen as a propagation pattern. Chemical to thermal is just these chemical bonds breaking which creates a wave of fast-moving particles which creates heat and thermal energy. Finally, Thermal energy to mechanical energy would just be the propagating particles moving and hitting the other particle in a material transferring their energy thus creating mechanical waves from the beginning.

Also when I say Mechanical Wave I mean just modeling the energy as some form of wave being transferred.

You have made a claim or a statement that "A god does exist" and you are searching for evidence to support your claim that a God exists. However what lead you toward the conclusion that such a being would exist. One of the key hallmarks of science is questioning everything which includes questioning every step you take in order to make sure that your next step is observable and knowable through testing and observation. You are asking a question about an idea that has not been proven to either be true or false. Even though it is not proven you cannot take random steps into the darkness attempting to create new ideas and experiments from that said darkness. This is like trying to find a wall without a flashlight. The God hypothesis must be questioned first before you can even attempt to build on top of it in order to determine if you can build up from it. This is how science works. A building of continually tested ideas which sustain themselves against the tests of time by being consistently tested over and over again. With a concept like you God it requires you to throw away the scientific method thus removing science from the topic as a whole so asking for scientific reasoning for the existence of God is a fools errand on the account that you want to prove such a hypothetical God exists even though at the same time this hypothesis must through away the scientific method. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You must either throw away the concept of God because you cannot test it or throw away the concept of science because it is preventing you from believing in the concept of a God. One or the other; atheist or theist.

Hey, what up. Aline is here to draw lines between multiple fields of study. More into inventing verses science but science is the foundation of inventing to here I am.

I do not think that science is about the management of power intelligently. Power implies that you have something to wield again another person. Science "gives" you the ability to have power sure but once you introduce the concept of a power game then you are in turn doomed to fail. Power is for politicians, Science is for scientists.

1 hour ago, gwb said:

then I might suggest a society that values people, a society that also values the learning process, which includes the process of learning from our mistakes and failings, a society that values curiosity and a society that reminds us we do not know everything and we probably never will,

I might also suggest a society that values respect, not receiving respect as much as giving respect, a society that advocates kindness because kindness makes both the giver and the recipient a little happier

This...is actually the society I initially tried to explain at the beginning of this forum post. 

Look, a perfect utopia is a near absolute impossibility. You try to help one group of people and another group of people will be harmed or believe that they are not being looked at equally. This applies on the individual level along with the international stage. No matter what you do one group of persons will either be or feel oppressed. This eventually goes away as cultures combine and with enough time there can be enough of an equilibrium sustained that a coexistence can exist. However there will always be problems, they will always exist. To not have problems is to not be human. However, if you can predict these problems in order to mitigate there results then you can prevent them from ever occurring. This falls into the category of being "bad" because if you can predict then you, in essence, can guide them. If you can guide then it no longer becomes a free society. Your damned if you do" hope I can use profanity, I do not mean anything negative by it, simply using it for dramatic emphasis" and your damned if you don't. If you know too little then war will break out, if you know too much then war will break out.

However, this is also dependent upon who is within "power" and how they are. But the more knowledge a society has the more likely they are to remove that person in power from power unless they are treated with respect and information is made available and made free. But there are just going to be some people in that society that will simply want power. If they want power then they are going to get to the top and stay there with disregard for anyone at the bottom. No matter how much respect you try to teach them when they are younger, no matter how much you "love them" they will still simply want power and trying to do something against these people will cause you to go against the very foundations which your utopia is based upon. You are not respecting them because they are unique and they want to do whatever they want. 

1 hour ago, Bender said:

So everyone in the US agrees? I must have missed something...

I thought it was obvious that I dislike the idea of a hive mind, although I must admit anecdotes in fiction often describe the experience as blissful. 

Nope, no one agrees on anything. It would be basically the same thing except the society teaches there young to think for them selfs, to not think emotionally but to think rationally, and that is pretty much the difference.

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, the same left who currently controls zero branches of govt and minority of state legislators or governorships. I don't see how we can pursue this discussion while completely ignoring all the steps which would be required to make it a reality. 

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Right...

This is a discussion concerning UBI and not political viewpoints. That just starts un-needed emotional associations. How about we stick with UBI and consider it's possibilities of affecting future and current generations.

5 minutes ago, Bender said:

What is the difference between agreeing and reaching the same rational conclusion based on identical preferences? 

A hive mind is also democratic, btw.

So the united states and the rest of the world is headed toward a hive mind then. You are saying that every society and form of government is just destined to head toward a hive mind. That every form of law is just one hive mind.

You want everyone to eventually become a hive mind society then? 

Just now, Bender said:

You want everyone to agree about everything so the entire collective can make unanimous decisions in minutes. Personal preferences are out of the question, because with slightly different preferences, people will never reach the same rational conclusion.

Sounds like a description of a hive mind to me.

I do not want everyone to agree on everything, this would no longer be a democracy nor would it be a good place to live. What I said was that I want everyone to think rationally in respect to empirical evidence which keeps into consideration morality. It would be a hive mind if everyone just "confirmed" to new ideas. What I said was that every idea should be challenged and questioned and when I said that it would take 5 minutes I said not a few sentences before that was that as the intelligence of the society would increase the general IQ would slowly increase which would allow for people to reason faster and faster. This would not mean that they are agreeing faster but because they are becoming more efficient in there agreeing on a process ( Thinking empirically rationally and questioning everything/time). And again I did not say that I want everyone to agree on everything you are taking words out of context.

On 7/1/2018 at 10:26 PM, ALine said:

The idea is that in order for a new rule or regulation to be added to the main constitution then everyone needs to be in agreement for it. This is the reason for all of the examinations beforehand. Because you would want only individuals who are swayed by only rational empirical evidence instead of personal belief systems which are not based in reality to vote in order to make a society that they all would adhere to. Also, this process would take a long time yes, however it is not simply about voting "yes or no" on an idea. It is about making the idea available, having everyone come up with there own rationalities for why something should go through and then decide on there own to determine if it is in the best interest for the society. They also have to rationalize there vote onto why they made it so that everything is based upon reality and facts. So for example, if you were apart of this society and someone posed the idea to "kill everyone and end everything in a fiery hailstorm of fire and brimstone." You would want to know that your singular voice out of the masses is being considered and if you decide "hey I do not like that idea, let me pose a different solution" then you can. The system is designed to make you as an individual of that society less lazy or dependent upon others for making decisions for you. 

Also the longer the society goes the more streamlined the process will become so, in the beginning, it would take say a 4-5 year to make a single vote, it will take 4-5 minutes for future generations. What is the rush to make changes to the constitution? If the basic rules are extremely grounded in reality and every idea no matter who it comes from is continuously tested into the ring then it would be equivalent to someone creating a scientific paper and having peer-reviewed by everyone in the society. It would not be good if something that is not proven by experimentation to be accepted as being absolute truth. This gives everyone a voice and gives everyone a chance to challenge it.

1

I cannot find that I want everyone to agree with everything in my previous posts.

Is it possible that you can search through and find where I might have mistakenly said this?

Just now, ALine said:

You want a hive mind

No, I do not, I have never made this claim nor have I ever stated that this was my primary objective. You are making general assumptions through comparisons made and then jumping to conclusions while also cementing those conclusions through the process of creating a meme. You are then further propagating this meme forward as your primary argument when there is little evidence that I am trying to "create a hive mind." I have not fully stated exactly how the society would run, however, I have only made a few key points on how the society would run. 

Just now, Bender said:

Unachievability is one of the defining features of a utopia.

My argument is that the utopia you advocate would be a horrible place, regardless of how realistic it is.

In what way would my eutopia, changed it to make it more plausible, would be a horrible place?

9 minutes ago, ALine said:

It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective.

How is it rational to kill people if they are not apart of the "collective." It would be irrational on the account of; they are people, they are conscious, they can maybe help us, why would we kill them? In what universe is it rational to kill someone?

2 minutes ago, Bender said:

You want a hive mind. Your "utopia" would seriously be a good start for the Borg collective. The only difference is that they replaced the test with forced assimilation, which is a lot more reliable. It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective.

You claim it would be based on morality, but morality is subjective. How can you expect to ever reach total agreement on subjective questions without total indoctrination? 

9 minutes ago, ALine said:

I'm starting to feel as if Utopia is an unachievable dream created by hippies who think everyone in the world can live in the same place regardless of who they are. And I feel it is also used to develop forms of government and it is a starting point to try and make everyone equal. I also feel as if the definition of the society I have given is defendable in a debatable situation. The question of "if this then that" kind of becomes irrelevant in a society that has the capabilities to land on the moon with a pencil and some paperclips due to its continued intellectual development. I am not saying the society would be free of any problems what so ever. This would be absolutely improbable on the account of human nature. What I am saying is that this society would know if something is going wrong and will fix it before anything worse begins to happen. And you all are correct, not everyone would be allowed in, this would be a form of border control. Those who are allowed in must undergo extreme analysis to determine if they would socially benefit the society as a whole. An argument can be made where because it based upon the first people who made the system then it is as immoral as them. This idea has some flaws being that there are real-world examples where the united states were founded on the principles of maintaining the rights and liberties of the individuals. And one could say that the founding fathers were moral people, well half or more of those founding fathers were slave owners at the time; I would not consider that being moral. So if the society is founded by individuals who are by the standards of humanity moral individuals then it can be said that the society will evolve over time to become moral. 

There are also billions of problems with the society besides the one of separating children, however, every form of government has billions of problems. There is even a problem with America right now separating families at the border. The society would not be free of problems, problems are a part of what it means to be human. It is how we address these problems which dictate how the society would evolve and grow.

I'm starting to feel as if Utopia is an unachievable dream created by hippies who think everyone in the world can live in the same place regardless of who they are. And I feel it is also used to develop forms of government and it is a starting point to try and make everyone equal. I also feel as if the definition of the society I have given is defendable in a debatable situation. The question of "if this then that" kind of becomes irrelevant in a society that has the capabilities to land on the moon with a pencil and some paperclips due to its continued intellectual development. I am not saying the society would be free of any problems what so ever. This would be absolutely improbable on the account of human nature. What I am saying is that this society would know if something is going wrong and will fix it before anything worse begins to happen. And you all are correct, not everyone would be allowed in, this would be a form of border control. Those who are allowed in must undergo extreme analysis to determine if they would socially benefit the society as a whole. An argument can be made where because it based upon the first people who made the system then it is as immoral as them. This idea has some flaws being that there are real-world examples where the united states were founded on the principles of maintaining the rights and liberties of the individuals. And one could say that the founding fathers were moral people, well half or more of those founding fathers were slave owners at the time; I would not consider that being moral. So if the society is founded by individuals who are by the standards of humanity moral individuals then it can be said that the society will evolve over time to become moral. 

There are also billions of problems with the society besides the one of separating children, however, every form of government has billions of problems. There is even a problem with America right now separating families at the border. The society would not be free of problems, problems are a part of what it means to be human. It is how we address these problems which dictate how the society would evolve and grow.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Plus, the water you drink contains recycled dinosaur pee

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Made of 18 kt gold and worth about $200000.

8 hours ago, DrP said:

No - it keeps it's pissy patina from champion to champion.

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

Almost certainly...  someone has probably pissed in it too.

 

I know that the Claret jug for the Open Golf has been pissed in. It does get drunk from also

Please tell me a new cup is created and not passed down. Please tell me this, I need to be deluded in this case. Please tell me it is also metal and not plastic.

Do they ever drink liquids from that cup? I bet someone somewhere has won a trophy like this just to pour wine into it and drink it with a grin of accomplishment.

1 minute ago, Scott of the Antares said:

A personified observation of the implicit dual nature of our human position within the universe.

We experience things as opposites of a whole. For example we have a quality of temperature which can be cold or hot (all relative positions). It is this perceived hot or cold that makes up the ‘battle’ between ‘light’ & ‘dark’. Many ancient systems noted this and it is easily observed in the Chinese philosophy of Yin & Yang.

Everyday is a matter of balancing opposites for human beings. Religions just added a rancid story telling layer, erroneously in my opinion.

I would not call it a balance, more like an equilibrium state of multiple forces but yeah make sense.

2 minutes ago, Tom O'Neil said:

Tell me what is a rational exploration of religion?  If it does not involve this eternal battle then define what you are suggesting!

What eternal battle? Religion does not simply comply with just Christian interpretations. There are multiple different religions spanning throughout the entirety of human existence. Christianity is fairly recent in terms of religious history. Like greek and Roman mythologies existed both it and so did Aztec and other religions. All of them, however, have a unique interpretation on how the world began and how it would end. Just saying that it is based upon a single God and a single Devil along with a Jesus fellow would have me assume that you are referring to a singular interpretation of the overall understanding of what religion is.

1 minute ago, Markus Hanke said:

As such the OP is completely off-topic, since it is in no way a rational exploration of religion.

I mean is there a rational explanation for the basis of religion? I mean I personally do not understand it.

Have you ever heard of Negative Temperature? That is a weird new one. It states that at near 0 Kelvin the closer and closer you get you may jump back up to infinite temperature. Like an infinite loop going from high temp to low temp and back to high temp. So in essence maybe one day when the universe has experienced full heat death then it will somehow gain an infinite amount of energy and will basically reset itself.  Here is a Wikipedia article about it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Just wanted to create a new thread to stop posting in a dedicated UBI thread. Sorry about that again by the way.

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This was my point regarding people having jobs today that did not exist 50yrs ago. Every job becomes obsolete. That has always been the case. 

As for the rest of your post I can not make heads or tails of it. Many industries come and go. Some die completely. Your inability to imagine what can come next is no barrier to what's coming next. Today you understand automation and the power of computing so are make arguments based on their perceived abilities. Tomorrows tech will have different limitations, abilities, and requirements. 

Did you not watch the videos? It explains that innovation does lead to new jobs but more jobs are being created and being taken by automation faster than anyone can come up with new innovations to prevent this from happening.

My job is to create new inventions and innovations and I am saying that I cannot even keep up. Once I come up with a new idea I think, " Hey you know what would be nice? Making this automated so I will not have to worry about paying anyone else to do this job for me." And I automate it and it is done. I do not think about trying to involve humans because they are slow, inefficient and cost too much. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Less people are living in poverty, not more. Where is the evidence of a turning pointing where automation diminishes human opportunity? 

One of my videos shows an example of this happening. I would suggest watching it, it is a good watch.

Also sorry, did it again. I will not respond anymore and will create a new thread.

But no, let's be honest here Bender.

1. Thinking for one's self and rationalizing everything around them is no "indoctrination." Based upon your given definition then that would mean that all of science is just a form of religion that has no basis or meaning in reality. So why even come here to talk about science or logical debate or rationality if you are going to say that the same rationality you are using is irrational. 

2. Ok, so I am assuming that you are a perfectly rational person who may or may not have a child. What would you do if you have passed the rationality examination, which based upon your responses you would have most likely have done so? I am assuming that you would leave your kid outside of a new world just because he did not want to? NO, He is a child, not an adult. He cannot make fully rationalized decisions yet. If he is a rebellious child then treat him as a rebellious child and tell him to "come on." 

(3) The percentage of the human population which is a sociopath is literally so small, around 3% and 1% for psychopaths,  I am pretty sure we will not see one anytime soon. And when we do see one then our technology would be so advanced then it would be able to detect one. And if it cannot then we will focus our research on detecting them. Also because data is constantly being obtained how would they be able to kill anyone? If they ever come outside with a gun and are headed to an apartment or residential area, by the way, it would not really matter because we could just stop the gun from firing, then we would know when he was coming and just divert him from trying to kill someone.

Also if a child rebels then let a child rebel, he will just need to wait until he gets old enough to make a change to the system. Why are we automatically assuming that freedom of speech is instantly out the window? Naw man, all he would have to do is simply wait for when he is an adult and if he still finds problems all he would need to do is rationalize what is wrong with the system, and yes emotions and morality would be taken into account; this system is built on the very foundations of morality. If a large number of people agree with him then it gets added or removed from the rules and regulations. If someone who is old has a problem then they can make an argument against it. The system is designed so that EVERYONE has the potential and actual ability to change rules and regulations at any time no matter who they are. That process just takes a very long time because it is designed to make everyone THINK together as a collective versus everything thinking by themselves.

Also, no one would have access to your personal data except for you. So if you have sex with someone and someone else is trying to look at you have sex with someone else then that person watching is in the wrong, unless he receives permission to do so.

36 minutes ago, Bender said:

So you agree that you Utopia is a horrible place?

Nope, better there than here where you can get your life ruined by looking at a woman the wrong way or can die of literal starvation while people walk past you like it is nothing. Or you can get raped in jails by people twice your size for no reason other than saying something impolitely. I mean come on, I would rather spend my time doing what it was that I wanted to do while being watched vs Being constantly in fear of everything around me while not being watched. I would want to know that my child was safe going to and from school without having to worry about some rapist trying to pick them up. I would want to leave my door unlocked at night without having to worry about being robbed.

Why live in a system that if you stop working for only a single day you could possibly die. Sure everyone has a different story, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of the world would agree with me.

36 minutes ago, Bender said:

Yes, and our justice system can still use improvement. We should stop training criminals and terrorists in prisons.

Yep, you are right but why not start training them at birth to think for themselves that it is not ok to kill someone and to treat everyone with respect. Why let it get to that point where they already are in prisons. Besides that is not going to solve the problem. In prison's, you are combining people who are not normal and would murder people vs. people who are normal and would not kill anyone. What do you think is going to happen if there are "weak" people vs "strong" people? The weak ones are going to get raped, killed, murdered and made an example of. So the only thing the weak people can do is to become strong. So they become strong, but because they have been like that for such a long time then it does not matter once they get out because you have just created a murderer. In your quest to become such a "free" society you have stripped away what it means to be free. No amount of training will change and or fix that and just say that it will is just purely irrational, to say the least. This is simply because it would not be grounded in reality.

This entire society is simply asking the question, " would you kill your own family" would you rape your own family member? Everyone in this society would be considered a family would try to rationalize and reason everything in order to prevent conflict.