DescentBB

v4, meatbags. Yep, it's that time again.

Modal realism is the topic this time! Well, that and transhumanism. My audacity knows no bounds, apparently, and neither does my imagination. I've had a while to mull since the last thread, and have come up with more crackpot hypotheses in the interim. Hope you guys can keep up.

Now, I'm not an advocate of the Singularity, but I do think that as a (purportedly) intelligent species, there are two things we should do to help ensure our continued survival. One, take to the stars, and two, UPGRADE. That's right, augmentation. You all should know I like shiney metal robot things, and in my opinion shiney metal robot things that are a part of us are twice as awesome. We see more and more technological augmentation as time goes by, and it's only a matter of time before we trade in our ugly bags of mostly water for fancy metal chassis. I'm all for it, personally. Then again I'm all for a slew of off the wall stuff.

As for modal realism, well, here's a thought... if something is impossible, both in this universe and in every other (oh yeah, I'm bringing multiverse theory in as well!), then how can one even imagine it in the first place? What am I getting at, you ask? Why, that if it can be imagined, it must exist, because if it didn't, there would be nothing to imagine. Incidentally I'll also be tying set theory and the concept of infinity in with this (that's your cue, Foil). There is also another relevant matter to discuss, but I think for now I'll just leave off here and gauge your reactions.

Sorry, Thorne. Looks like you owe me an ass whoopin'.

*looks up from calibrating his EMP wristwatch* "oh... maybe later"

MD-1118, since you link imagination with reality, I imagine that you're out of your mind.

So MD, you are saying we should become like the Ultra's in a Alastair Reynolds novel?

MD-1118 wrote:Incidentally I'll also be tying set theory and the concept of infinity in with this (that's your cue, Foil).

As long as you're rigorous with your mathematical treatment (most discussions of this kind aren't).

Alright, let's see what we've got.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:*looks up from calibrating his EMP wristwatch* "oh... maybe later"

MD-1118, since you link imagination with reality, I imagine that you're out of your mind.

I'm almost definitely out of my mind, it's a bit cramped in there for me.

woodchip wrote:So MD, you are saying we should become like the Ultra's in a Alastair Reynolds novel?

Having never read any of his works, I had to wiki it to see what you were talking about... but yeah, it seems that way. From the descriptions, I'd also say elements of Inhibitor and Conjoiner, as well as a few other species/factions.

Foil wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Incidentally I'll also be tying set theory and the concept of infinity in with this (that's your cue, Foil).

As long as you're rigorous with your mathematical treatment (most discussions of this kind aren't).

Perhaps I should clarify. By "tying in" I don't mean I plan on using either for evidence supporting theories, but rather that I wish to bounce some ideas off of you as the resident maths expert and see what your educated opinion is. I'll try to give it a more structured approach than just Russell's teapot reworded, though.

Perfect example: regarding our previous discussions on infinite sets, specifically Cantor's diagonal argument, and including a relevant discussion I had on another BB... Say set a is "the set which contains all sets". The argument I get the most is that set a must contain all sets, including itself, but since it contains itself, it does not contain all sets. That's worded rather poorly, I realise, but I can't seem to find the discussion I mentioned. Now here's my proposition - set a contains all sets, including set n, which is a null set. Is it mathematically sound to posit that this null set is comprised of all sets which cannot logically exist, such as the self-contained set a, and does this "fix" the issue? The only mathematical counterpart I can come up with for this null set would be i or [undefined]. The physical counterpart would be quantum superposition. Is there any sound reasoning to this line of thought, or do I need to work on my homework some more?

MD-1118 wrote:Now here's my proposition - set a contains all sets, including set n, which is a null set. Is it mathematically sound to posit that this null set is comprised of all sets which cannot logically exist, such as the self-contained set a...?

No, by definition.

...Where are you going with this?

Foil wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Now here's my proposition - set a contains all sets, including set n, which is a null set. Is it mathematically sound to posit that this null set is comprised of all sets which cannot logically exist, such as the self-contained set a...?

No, by definition.

...Where are you going with this?

Nowhere, apparently. I was just wondering if it was mathematically suitable to say that set a could be selfcontained within set n, which would also be within a. You know, since a cannot logically exist within itself, and thus cannot exist, and n comprises all sets which cannot exist, and is also a set, so it would fall in a as well. I mean, when you divide by zero you get [undefined], and the square root of -1 is i, since it can be neither 1 nor -1...

I guess the thought I had was, "n is not strictly speaking an 'empty' set, but rather more akin to a set of [undefined] sets". Sorry for the fustercluck, I don't know any other way to express what I was trying to convey.

No, I understood what you were thinking. But you went off base when you tried to equate an empty set with the set of all self-contradictory sets. You can't "fix" something self-contradictory by introducing something else self-contradictory into it.

Still not sure how that ties to your chatter about existence above.

Foil wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Incidentally I'll also be tying set theory and the concept of infinity in with this (that's your cue, Foil).

As long as you're rigorous with your mathematical treatment (most discussions of this kind aren't).

feck all, is there a quiz at the end?

Well I got as far as calculus in college but where MD wants to go I think is way beyond that.

MD-1118 wrote:...From existential solipsism to metaphysical nihilism. Behold, in all its inglorious convolution: the end of the philosophical road.

This is a quote from the link you posted. Heh.. the Greeks pretty much went down the same road of "reasoning" nearly 2 thousands years ago.

Shall I point you to Solomon's writings in Eccelesiates:

Eccl 1:2-11 wrote: “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

To paraphrase "There is nothing new under the sun".



Augmentation is a bad idea. This notion has been examined in Sci-Fi for generations and its moral long term implications. Life will be cheapened and devalued.

Duper, are not artificial limbs and organs not "augmentations"?

Foil wrote:No, I understood what you were thinking. But you went off base when you tried to equate an empty set with the set of all self-contradictory sets. You can't "fix" something self-contradictory by introducing something else self-contradictory into it.

Still not sure how that ties to your chatter about existence above.

It doesn't. When I said "I'll be tying set theory and the concept of infinity in with this", I meant with the post, as in multi-topic. That being said, it raises another question in my mind... could an algorithm or equation of some sort be formulated that would describe, mathematically, a multiverse (set a) that contains all other universes including a paradoxical multiverse (set n) that contains every universe that shouldn't or couldn't technically exist within multiverse a? I feel like maybe I'm asking the same thing using different words, but I know there are numbers that cannot be expressed in our universe normally, but can be expressed using algorithms (Graham's number comes to mind). So I was wondering if the same could be done to mathematically describe a paradoxical multiverse.

callmeslick wrote:feck all, is there a quiz at the end?

Yes. Yes there is. A pop quiz.

woodchip wrote:Well I got as far as calculus in college but where MD wants to go I think is way beyond that.

You are more right than you will ever know...

Duper wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:...From existential solipsism to metaphysical nihilism. Behold, in all its inglorious convolution: the end of the philosophical road.

This is a quote from the link you posted. Heh.. the Greeks pretty much went down the same road of "reasoning" nearly 2 thousands years ago.

Shall I point you to Solomon's writings in Eccelesiates:

Eccl 1:2-11 wrote: “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

To paraphrase "There is nothing new under the sun".



Augmentation is a bad idea. This notion has been examined in Sci-Fi for generations and its moral long term implications. Life will be cheapened and devalued.

Ah, Ecclesiastes... the Bible, for cynics.

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. And I half-believe the "there is nothing new under the sun" bit. But I don't think augmentation is a bad idea, and I don't think it cheapens or devalues life. Do organ transplants do the same? What about prosthetics? Cellphones and computers? Heck, technology in general? They are all augmentations. Are you a closet luddite or something?

At any rate, there's more to address here:

things we should do to help ensure our continued survival. One, take to the stars

I cannot stress this enough. If we don't get off this planet, we will eventually burn up in the sun and go extinct. If we don't get out of this galaxy, we'll get caught in the merger with Andromeda and at least be set back millenia, if not go extinct. If we don't get out of this universe, we'll meet the same end as everything else - entropic heat death, and by proxy, extinction. The self destruct sequence has activated, and we're just sitting on top of the reactor twiddling our thumbs instead of looking for the exit. "That's not for millions and billions and trillions of years (respectively)!" is no excuse, either. Lolligagging is what gets you killed in the mines. *nod*

if it can be imagined, it must exist, because if it didn't, there would be nothing to imagine

I'm sure this sounds like bad logic, but if something truly does not exist, then does it not follow that it could not even be imagined? And does it not follow that if something can be imagined, then it must exist in some form, even if only as an idea?

More to come later, but right now I've got RL issues to suss with the roomies.

Heh, prosthetic and the like are hardly "augmentations". You draw that line where ever you will, by the time you realize that too far is too far it will be too late. Tech is the new religion so meh. It's a tool and nothing more. Right now our connectivity is exceeding our ability to morally handle it.

Ecclesiastics is hardly "the Bible for cynics" perhaps for those that don't understand what's being said or why, but then for those in that category, most of the Bible is going to seem like a downer.

MD-1118 wrote:I cannot stress this enough. If we don't get off this planet, we will eventually burn up in the sun and go extinct

sure, in maybe a couple hundred million years, which gives us ample time to explore the options. In the meantime, I really think humans might do well to focus on keeping this little rotating rock functional in the nearer term.

. If we don't get out of this galaxy, we'll get caught in the merger with Andromeda and at least be set back millenia, if not go extinct.

you speak as if this is going to happen next Thursday or something......

If we don't get out of this universe, we'll meet the same end as everything else - entropic heat death, and by proxy, extinction. The self destruct sequence has activated, and we're just sitting on top of the reactor twiddling our thumbs instead of looking for the exit. "That's not for millions and billions and trillions of years (respectively)!" is no excuse, either. Lolligagging is what gets you killed in the mines. *nod*

not putting an issue that is billions of years off onto the 'front burner' isn't lolligagging, IMO. Simply prudent time organization.

Duper wrote:Heh, prosthetic and the like are hardly "augmentations". You draw that line where ever you will, by the time you realize that too far is too far it will be too late. Tech is the new religion so meh. It's a tool and nothing more. Right now our connectivity is exceeding our ability to morally handle it.

Ecclesiastics is hardly "the Bible for cynics" perhaps for those that don't understand what's being said or why, but then for those in that category, most of the Bible is going to seem like a downer.

Duper, prosthetics and 'the like' ARE augmentations.

aug·ment
/ôgˈment/

Verb
Make (something) greater by adding to it; increase: "he augmented his income by painting houses".


Synonyms

verb.
increase - enlarge - enhance - grow - magnify - amplify

noun.
increase - augmentation - increment

"Tech is the new religion", you say?

re·li·gion
/riˈlijən/

Noun
2.Details of belief as taught or discussed.


Synonyms
faith - belief - creed - denomination

Correct. What's wrong with that? It's a tool, yes. That is exactly the point. All philosophies are religions in this sense, and in this sense, it is not a bad thing at all.

As for Ecclesiastes (which you have misspelled twice in two different ways, so I wonder how rigorously and thoroughly you are acquainted with it), it is cynical insofar as Solomon makes it very clear in the first half or so of the book that it's all pointless. There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose in life, and he shows all the signs of disillusionment. That says 'cynic' to me. And you're right again, most of the Bible does seem like a downer to me. If you wish to discuss it further, my inbox is open.

callmeslick wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:I cannot stress this enough. If we don't get off this planet, we will eventually burn up in the sun and go extinct

sure, in maybe a couple hundred million years, which gives us ample time to explore the options. In the meantime, I really think humans might do well to focus on keeping this little rotating rock functional in the nearer term.

. If we don't get out of this galaxy, we'll get caught in the merger with Andromeda and at least be set back millenia, if not go extinct.

you speak as if this is going to happen next Thursday or something......

If we don't get out of this universe, we'll meet the same end as everything else - entropic heat death, and by proxy, extinction. The self destruct sequence has activated, and we're just sitting on top of the reactor twiddling our thumbs instead of looking for the exit. "That's not for millions and billions and trillions of years (respectively)!" is no excuse, either. Lolligagging is what gets you killed in the mines. *nod*

not putting an issue that is billions of years off onto the 'front burner' isn't lolligagging, IMO. Simply prudent time organization.

Slick, this is the very attitude I'm talking about. These are issues we won't be able to just hand-wave away at the drop of a hat. We need that time to prepare if we are to have even a glimmer of hope. And I'm not saying we should devote 100% of our resources to it, because you are right about prudent time organisation. I just don't think we are devoting enough effort in the first place. I mean, look at NASA. A shell of its former glory. That's probably why my uncle stopped working at the KSC.

MD, I would argue that the groundwork that might pay off in a couple thousand generations(well before your fears would ever become reality) lie in what is today's basic research in the fields of physics, biology, astronomy and the like. A lot of what has become practical human knowledge is built upon research that was performed before any concept had been developed to apply such knowledge. Thus is it with the concept of long-distance, large-scale space travel. From the perspective of the here and now, it seems impossible. Twenty thousand years from now, it may seem obvious. Hell, we didn't even know that electriciy existed 300 years ago. Three HUNDRED!! So, for you to say we aren't doing enough to deal with a potential problem 300 MILLION years off shows both a lack of perspective into the trajectory of human learning, and a rather casual attitude towards the matter that several hundred other potential calamities, both known and unknowable, are likely to crop up in the very near term that make your fretting irrelevant. In other words, if humanity dies off due to any one of several plausible environmental debacles in the next couple hundred years, who the feck cares how far along the path to intergalactic travel we've made it?

funny aside, and lucky for your Uncle's career path.....I first read 'KSC' as 'KFC'........

callmeslick wrote:MD, I would argue that the groundwork that might pay off in a couple thousand generations(well before your fears would ever become reality) lie in what is today's basic research in the fields of physics, biology, astronomy and the like. A lot of what has become practical human knowledge is built upon research that was performed before any concept had been developed to apply such knowledge. Thus is it with the concept of long-distance, large-scale space travel. From the perspective of the here and now, it seems impossible. Twenty thousand years from now, it may seem obvious. Hell, we didn't even know that electriciy existed 300 years ago. Three HUNDRED!! So, for you to say we aren't doing enough to deal with a potential problem 300 MILLION years off shows both a lack of perspective into the trajectory of human learning, and a rather casual attitude towards the matter that several hundred other potential calamities, both known and unknowable, are likely to crop up in the very near term that make your fretting irrelevant. In other words, if humanity dies off due to any one of several plausible environmental debacles in the next couple hundred years, who the feck cares how far along the path to intergalactic travel we've made it?

I bet you put stock in Moore's law as well. And as far as the immediacy of the problem, what say you to six impacts in 105 years? And let's not forget the 180km-in-diameter crater, ~100 teraton blast ELE that wiped out the dinosaurs.

It's not so much about the travelling through space and time, it's about getting out while the getting is good. And it was never that good to begin with.

callmeslick wrote:funny aside, and lucky for your Uncle's career path.....I first read 'KSC' as 'KFC'........

Yeah, I noticed that myself after I posted it. *facepalm*

MD aren't you getting into Brane theory and universes being created along the membrane boundaries to encompass your multiverse ideas?

well, MD, if your fears lie in a meteor or other such impact event, you might have a valid fear(that wasn't the scenario you first used to justify your argument, basing that upon long term solar convergence). Then, you run up against the speed of human knowledge growth and application of that knowledge. What you propose is so far from current knowledge being able to address it as to make it completely unforseeable, no matter HOW MUCH in the way of resources you throw at it, as to be irrelevant. To get to large scale movement to another galaxy or even universe as you suggest requires a massive leap in our understanding of the physical properties of matter, energy, down to basic space-time constructs, etc, etc. As I stated, there is no doubt basic research working, slowly, towards understanding such things. As for belief in Moores Law, I suppose I accept it within the realms for which it was postulated, but I do wholeheartedly embrace the accelerating pace of human understanding in all fields. Still, I am pragmatic enough to see that the gap between where we are and where we need to be on this issue is cavernous.

Now, if the bottom line with your argument is that we need to invest more in Space Science, both practical applications and core research, I'm right there with you. In fact, I feel that the most productive investment a government/society can make is around basic research. Private industry will never fund that type of work, as the payoffs are nebulous and far-off. Yet, every time we, or any other nation, have spent heavily on scientific R and D, it has paid economic dividends FAR in excess of the outlay. Now, go and try to talk 'fiscal' conservatives into that concept, as they seem unwilling to accept it, focusing on the many dead-ends and failed investments that, by necessity, result.

Wow, he actually found a way to drag politics into a discussion on metaphysics.

You expected discourse from slick to be anything other than what his one track mind is capable of?

sorry, boys, but it was pertinent to any discussion around funding of basic research. That is a governmental matter. Now, would you argue my point as not being correct?

... and I was looking forward to reading an interesting thread.

image missing, Fermo......

verified after I cleared out my history/cookies/cache.

Fixed.

woodchip wrote:You expected discourse from slick to be anything other than what his one track mind is capable of?

quit whining, he implied we should be spending much more time and money on space sciences. I both suggested no need for short-term panic, but also that it was going to be a political hard sell, and stated why. Don't like that fact? Too bad, but it WAS pertinent to the subject and the discussion, at least that between MD and I.

Clam down you guys. I'll reply to all of you, and I'll get us back on track, but my computer is down at the moment and I just can't reply to everything from my cell. By the end of the day though, promise. And Ferno? You'll get your interesting thread.

(After all, we haven't even touched on modal realism yet. )

MD-1118 wrote:from my cell.

what...

Ferno wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:from my cell.

what...

PHONE. Cell PHONE. Geez, Ferno...

I think if we could take a break from ****ing the economy over you might find conservatives to be much more liberal-minded when it comes to investing in the future. It's a disingenuous point you're driving at, I think. Politics in this country between conservatives and liberals is not a tug-of-war, it's more like two sled dogs trying to veer in different directions, and both fighting the efforts of the other while refusing to go forward for fear of advancing in the wrong direction. Basically the ideology with the majority in office is the one doing most of the straining, and the other is more on the defensive. The liberals say "we want to spend money!, and we want to do it on... scienceamongotherthings!", the conservatives, say "hell no", and you say "You're holding up scientific progress! You hate science!" I suppose a compromise from the liberals on this would be too much to ask?

Ferno wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:from my [padded] cell.

I knew it!!

callmeslick wrote:sorry, boys, but it was pertinent to any discussion around funding of basic research. That is a governmental matter. Now, would you argue my point as not being correct?

Seems you were the one to bring up funding. MD was merely looking at the broad scope of things.

Ferno wrote:


... and I was looking forward to reading an interesting thread.

And did you contribute anything to help it stay on topic?

Well, here we go. I had to dismantle my computer earlier so I couldn't reply in full, but I've got it cobbled back together now, so without further ado...

woodchip wrote:MD aren't you getting into Brane theory and universes being created along the membrane boundaries to encompass your multiverse ideas?

I certainly am, woodchip. I don't know a lot of the maths involved, which means I'm by no means an expert on the matter, but I do a lot of reading and I like to think I have the concepts down pretty well. I'm holding off on that side of the OT until Foil replies to my earlier question, though.

callmeslick wrote:well, MD, if your fears lie in a meteor or other such impact event, you might have a valid fear(that wasn't the scenario you first used to justify your argument, basing that upon long term solar convergence). Then, you run up against the speed of human knowledge growth and application of that knowledge. What you propose is so far from current knowledge being able to address it as to make it completely unforseeable, no matter HOW MUCH in the way of resources you throw at it, as to be irrelevant. To get to large scale movement to another galaxy or even universe as you suggest requires a massive leap in our understanding of the physical properties of matter, energy, down to basic space-time constructs, etc, etc. As I stated, there is no doubt basic research working, slowly, towards understanding such things. As for belief in Moores Law, I suppose I accept it within the realms for which it was postulated, but I do wholeheartedly embrace the accelerating pace of human understanding in all fields. Still, I am pragmatic enough to see that the gap between where we are and where we need to be on this issue is cavernous.

It's not fear, it's valid concern for the continued existence of the human species. And I didn't mention impactors initially because of all the attention they get, and people still don't seem to understand the gravity of the position we are in... immobilised on a rocky target, with at least three definite and unimaginably catastrophic ELEs, and countless smaller (yet just as final) possible ELEs, ahead.

callmeslick wrote:Now, if the bottom line with your argument is that we need to invest more in Space Science, both practical applications and core research, I'm right there with you. In fact, I feel that the most productive investment a government/society can make is around basic research. Private industry will never fund that type of work, as the payoffs are nebulous and far-off. Yet, every time we, or any other nation, have spent heavily on scientific R and D, it has paid economic dividends FAR in excess of the outlay. Now, go and try to talk 'fiscal' conservatives into that concept, as they seem unwilling to accept it, focusing on the many dead-ends and failed investments that, by necessity, result.

You're right about the bottom line. I just don't think enough attention or care is paid where it should be. I don't understand why people can't put their differences aside and work toward a common goal...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think if we could take a break from ****ing the economy over you might find conservatives to be much more liberal-minded when it comes to investing in the future. It's a disingenuous point you're driving at, I think. Politics in this country between conservatives and liberals is not a tug-of-war, it's more like two sled dogs trying to veer in different directions, and both fighting the efforts of the other while refusing to go forward for fear of advancing in the wrong direction. Basically the ideology with the majority in office is the one doing most of the straining, and the other is more on the defensive. The liberals say "we want to spend money!, and we want to do it on... scienceamongotherthings!", the conservatives, say "hell no", and you say "You're holding up scientific progress! You hate science!" I suppose a compromise from the liberals on this would be too much to ask?

I suppose a little perspective on matters would be too much to ask? Why are we fighting over who has the most oil or the biggest guns when it all amounts to jack **** in the end? Why does it matter so much who is right, or 'in power'? We're talking the continued existence of humanity here, and the excuse is "our petty squabbles are more important"?

Yes, I'm talking long term. You gotta be in it to win it, as they say.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Isaac wrote:from my [padded] cell.

I knew it!!

Since when am I Isaac?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:sorry, boys, but it was pertinent to any discussion around funding of basic research. That is a governmental matter. Now, would you argue my point as not being correct?

Seems you were the one to bring up funding. MD was merely looking at the broad scope of things.

Broad, yes. He's right though, it's at least partially about funding.

MD-1118 wrote:
I suppose a little perspective on matters would be too much to ask? Why are we fighting over who has the most oil or the biggest guns when it all amounts to jack **** in the end? Why does it matter so much who is right, or 'in power'? We're talking the continued existence of humanity here, and the excuse is "our petty squabbles are more important"?

It is the nature of humans to think short term. Supply of oil is short term in relation to your scope of thinking but more vital right now. Power is how the masses get controlled and thus desirable to some. OTOH we are working on things pertinant to your goal. I believe the people at CERN have discover the God Particle which might go a long way to figuring out how the universe (at least ours) and I see where people are working on a nuclear plasma engine which would reduce the trip to Mars to only a couple of months. So there is some hope for your goals

MD-1118 wrote:

Ferno wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:from my cell.

what...

PHONE. Cell PHONE. Geez, Ferno...

sorry, I refer to them as either a Celly or a mobile. Maybe you should have been more specific.

MD-Isaac wrote:I suppose a little perspective on matters would be too much to ask? Why are we fighting over who has the most oil or the biggest guns when it all amounts to jack **** in the end? Why does it matter so much who is right, or 'in power'? We're talking the continued existence of humanity here, and the excuse is "our petty squabbles are more important"?

Yes, I'm talking long term. You gotta be in it to win it, as they say.

I have heard a lot of stupid, and vacuous things in the last decade, but this takes the cake by a long shot. Say that ★■◆● to people who have been oppressed, or killed, throughout history because of the way power has shifted. If you want to concern yourself with scientific progress instead power, and just be an aloof brain, that's your choice. I think it's an unfortunate choice for you, ultimately, because it means you're not taking responsibility for what your situation may be, or the climate around you, but it is your choice, and I understand the desire--not wanting to divide your focus. Just say so, instead of pissing me off by claiming that the details and matters in the here-and-now don't matter. It could ****ing matter to you someday. That's just short-sighted.

Take it from me, if you're going to be a dreamer, don't be haughty. It doesn't do you any good. A lot of other aspects of life serve an important purpose, and it doesn't do any good to scorn them.

To distill my feelings on the matter, if I were presented with a system to save the future, a self-destruct button for that system, and a picture of humanity enslaved under that system, I would say "★■◆● this choice!" *bzzzzt*. A wiser man than either of use once said "give me liberty or give me death". I think some people don't understand liberty, and rebel against any form of control, even self-control, or the control of conscience. Most people don't really understand just how important it is for a man to be responsible for his own life (can't speak for women, because I'm not one )--that's liberty.

woodchip wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:
I suppose a little perspective on matters would be too much to ask? Why are we fighting over who has the most oil or the biggest guns when it all amounts to jack **** in the end? Why does it matter so much who is right, or 'in power'? We're talking the continued existence of humanity here, and the excuse is "our petty squabbles are more important"?

It is the nature of humans to think short term. Supply of oil is short term in relation to your scope of thinking but more vital right now. Power is how the masses get controlled and thus desirable to some. OTOH we are working on things pertinant to your goal. I believe the people at CERN have discover the God Particle which might go a long way to figuring out how the universe (at least ours) and I see where people are working on a nuclear plasma engine which would reduce the trip to Mars to only a couple of months. So there is some hope for your goals

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on CERN for a while now, and they're pretty certain they found the particle in question. Haven't heard about the engine though, I don't think.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

MD-Isaac wrote:I suppose a little perspective on matters would be too much to ask? Why are we fighting over who has the most oil or the biggest guns when it all amounts to jack **** in the end? Why does it matter so much who is right, or 'in power'? We're talking the continued existence of humanity here, and the excuse is "our petty squabbles are more important"?

Yes, I'm talking long term. You gotta be in it to win it, as they say.

I have heard a lot of stupid, and vacuous things in the last decade, but this takes the cake by a long shot. Say that **** to people who have been oppressed, or killed, throughout history because of the way power has shifted. If you want to concern yourself with scientific progress instead power, and just be an aloof brain, that's your choice. I think it's an unfortunate choice for you, ultimately, because it means you're not taking responsibility for what your situation may be, or the climate around you, but it is your choice, and I understand the desire--not wanting to divide your focus. Just say so, instead of pissing me off by claiming that the details and matters in the here-and-now don't matter. It could ****ing matter to you someday. That's just short-sighted.

Take it from me, if you're going to be a dreamer, don't be haughty. It doesn't do you any good. A lot of other aspects of life serve an important purpose, and it doesn't do any good to scorn them.

To distill my feelings on the matter, if I were presented with a system to save the future, a self-destruct button for that system, and a picture of humanity enslaved under that system, I would say "**** this choice!" *bzzzzt*. A wiser man than either of use once said "give me liberty or give me death". I think some people don't understand liberty, and rebel against any form of control, even self-control, or the control of conscience. Most people don't really understand just how important it is for a man to be responsible for his own life (can't speak for women, because I'm not one )--that's liberty.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I was not saying that personal opinions or details in the here and now are unimportant. I was saying that I don't understand why people place so much importance on control/power/money/fame as a means and an end in and of itself. I wasn't being haughty or self righteous. I was stating my opinion on what I see as stupid and vacuous - the very people who would oppress and kill and maim and inflict suffering and destruction, all to make an extra buck, or control just one more hapless soul. That's what I was saying, because those people are on both sides of every issue, and I cannot for the life of me understand why that is so desirable.

And I don't see why you keep calling me Isaac. We are two separate individuals.

Oh... I agree with you. It's purely destructive at its core--there is no purpose in it for them, they're just too blinded to figure that out. All of these things are deceitful. I accept the reason given in the Bible.

1 John 5 wrote:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

The Devil (Satan) hates God, he hates his creation, and he hates us (even the people who claim to worship him).

MD-1118 wrote:And I don't see why you keep calling me Isaac. We are two separate individuals.

I know it. The first time was an honest mistake, the second was sort of half jab, half fooling around.