Phi for All

Did you want to discuss how biotechnology can improve individual performance, or did you want to talk about what impact this biotechnology will have on the evolutionary process? Also, I think it's wrong to assume that being able to "interface" with a computer will "multiply our intelligence by orders of magnitude". Technology has always had the effect of making some individuals smarter while actually dumbing down everyone else. Before the abacus, some folks did arithmetic in their heads, and afterwards more people could tackle it but perhaps with less understanding of it. Technology handles problems we used to have to painstakingly figure out, and while that seems a great thing, it means there are fewer people who have the knowledge and skills we invested in to begin with. Does technology make us more intelligent? It can certainly improve and extend our lives, it can take the place of learning skills, and it can magnify our existing abilities a great deal, but I'm not sure it makes us more intelligent.

! Moderator Note You say this as if nobody mentioned specific faults with your concept. It's not unwillingness when flaws in your equation are pointed out. It seems like you're unwilling to answer questions about the flaws, and instead claim the responses are simply hidebound denials. Help us all progress in understanding. You're trying to persuade us that your idea has merit, and others are asking about the points where your ideas and what we observe don't match. It's part of the process, and it's not helped by claiming these questions are merely denial. Nobody is claiming you're wrong just because. They've been very specific, so please drop this line of argument, and please answer the questions.

! Moderator Note Let me know if anyone still wants to talk about the OP without descending into personal attacks, otherwise it looks like closing time.

This doesn't match what happened in that thread. You could have offered explanations but you didn't. You talked about a lot of stuff, and promised to make things clear, but you never did. You strung us along claiming you had a point but never made it. Now you complain you weren't given the chance?! I don't think you understand what an explanation is.

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

And even if it did capture some pollutants, they make another claim that you can harvest biomass from this for use as a 3D printing medium. Why are we make everyday items out of polluted materials? If we don't want to breathe them, is touching them on the daily a good idea?

Anti-birth control spin? Claims like this are purposely nebulous so you fill in the blanks with either your beliefs or your fears.

Swudu Susuwu has been banned for continued soapboxing after repeated warnings. We talk about science here, after being lectured about it elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Please step off the soapbox and make your way to the door.

So "zombification" by AI is like this post, where you let AI software analyze my post and then answer for you with these tasteless, generic, mindless observations? "As we navigate the challenges" we have to remember to talk and act so the future will be better? Thanks, AI, for NOTHING.

We need to stop competing like OTHER animals, and use our competitive nature in ways that complement our high intelligence and our cooperative nature. Our current tribal hierarchies haven't worked for the vast majority for quite a while. But this probably doesn't relate to what the OP wants to talk about. I, for one, would like more clarification about what this speculation is about. Does anyone know what AI is heralding? Lately I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their emphasis on a paternal moral hierarchy. It could be that these religions are just more tools the wealthiest individuals use against us, but the generational abuse that's been inflicted on the world so an extremely small group could have more wealth than billions of their fellow humans has become part of the false fabric of so many lives. It's a form of slavery that is embraced by the slaves as their salvation.

Probably when we have no more actual books? I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor. Better education can help so many of the problems we face. Humans evolved for intelligence, and that takes educators. We've allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use EVER. Those few have been using this wealth to promote themselves to our own detriment. If we allow it to continue, then we probably deserve what happens to us.

I've experienced a few of these. My father preached that we shouldn't stick our noses in other people's business, which sounds reasonable and wise, but can also lead to ignoring the circumstances of others. It seems like an emotion all its own when you go against something your parents took pains to teach you, almost a guilty righteousness with a touch of anger. Torn between Don't waste food and Don't be a pig. And you could be in for an upset stomach just because you feel guilty about not cleaning your plate. Disgusted angry guilt? There's probably German words for these emotions. They love mashing a bunch of concepts together in a single word.

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently? I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted. It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

! Moderator Note This topic is in a mainstream section. Can you offer some support for this statement? It seems trivially false.

For reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w

To which the first retorts, "Easy for you to say, when your wife makes such good soup!"

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." -- Graham Chapman It's amazing that studying physics can make one an expert in biology and climate science too! Mainly, I dislike the casual way he makes claims, like in 100 years we'll be able to harness all the energy output of the planet. Real scientists don't need to be vividly misleading.

This is another strawman argument, masquerading as a tantrum. Nobody said you were entirely wrong. Nobody said there is no bias in science. It's just not the major problem you made it seem to be, and we're adapting to new worldviews just fine, thanks.

Classical physics was NOT replaced by anything, that's not the way to think about it. As you say, it's not wrong, it still works where it's applicable (which isn't the subatomic world). It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias. Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. What YOU are forgetting is we have methodology that includes peer discussion and review designed to strip away that baggage and explain a phenomenon objectively. YOU might forget out of habit, YOU might still carry baggage when you interpret new knowledge, but the scientific community does NOT. There are too many of them and the methods they use are strong. I think you're projecting your own ignorance onto the situation, which is easy to do when you you're not involved on a daily basis. I'm not a working scientist myself, but many members here are, and they're fantastic resources for filling in the gaps I have in my knowledge. Also, nobody is "affirming that science is pure". You made that up.

I thought it was clear. "What do you wish to discuss?" is pretty clear. Are you trying to sell your robotic arm to us, or are you interested in the processes you've encountered, or do you want to talk about new behaviors in interfaces? Your OP was anything but clear about what you wish to discuss.

Without downloading anything, I'm struck by the obvious, that you think a thesis and a theory are the same thing. You do NOT have a theory, not unless your paper has a lot of supportive evidence, or a mathematical model, or details on all the experiments you've run on various phenomena to test your explanations. Do we want "fresh insights into the fabric of reality", or is that particular pop-sci phraseology inherently stale? I've seen an awful lot of people thrown off by the whole "fabric" argument when it comes to space or reality. The whole tone seems very popular-science oriented. Did you study mainstream physics before you came up with this? Most of the folks who come here wanting to overturn Relativity or whatever haven't really studied the theories, and it becomes really obvious by the way they talk about information, time dilation, and entanglement. I'd suggest you paste the first part of your paper here so we can check it out and move on to the next if it looks good.

You call them "cultural" aspects, but other animals do have them. Is there much difference between lipstick and some of the stuff crabs and birds and insects decorate themselves with? I also disagree that gender roles have become "confused". I think they've changed and adapted the way animals are supposed to. Our society needs to move past the horrible Abrahamic patriarchy that continues to stifle so many intellectual and creative pursuits. I think the answer has always been to cooperate more with each other in every role, and compete less amongst ourselves overall. That should go double for how men and women work together. Having both masculine and feminine perspectives to draw from seems like brainy, human behavior.

! Moderator Note This isn't philosophy. If you think you can support your idea scientifically, I can move this to Speculations, but your premise is already over-generalized (brain = electronic device) and easy to poke holes in (chemical synapses have gaps that electric wiring doesn't).

! Moderator Note This isn't a section for "notions". This is a mainstream science section. If you have evidence to support this notion, or a way to test your hypothesis, I can move this to Speculations, otherwise it's just a wild guess.