S
science man
Guest
but being a singularitarian is limiting yourself. Yes you are expanding your mind but only to a certain extent. I'd much rather be a multitarian.
Will humans evolve further?
- Thread starter grazzhoppa
- Start date
but being a singularitarian is limiting yourself. Yes you are expanding your mind but only to a certain extent. I'd much rather be a multitarian.
Systems are corrupt because people are corrupt. And I see that corruption leads to destruction. So, I have faith in the weeding out process.
Singularitanism is not a unilateral philosophy.
All of human history is against your faith, corruption will be endemic as long as you have humans.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The responsibility for clear communication rests primarily with the one speaking or writing. I accept your admission that you cannot do this clearly (and indeed you clearly cannot do it).
Last edited:
S
science man
Guest
what do you mean?
I never made such an admission, rather its up to the listener to be able to correctly recognize the topic being spoken about and not to confuse it with irrelevant topics as you did, repeatedly. If you can't comprehend whats being said then it best you don't get involved.
you can hold a multitude of other beliefs and goals as well: singularitarians does not conflict with much.
S
science man
Guest
what? singularation doesn't mean that you focus on one thing only?
All Seeing Eye
Registered Member
Evolution is the process of living itself and will never stop. However, we may have reached the end of our physical evolution. Because of all the technology that exists takes care of anything we could accomplish with our bodies, the capacity of the mind the store and process information may be radically transformed. Maybe this will manifest itself in our consciousness being able to leave our body, maybe we will be able to speak to one another with a glance, maybe we will be able to project ourselves back and forth in time, who knows. The singlularity is near.
i doubt if we're aware of all of human history.
and why wouldn't negative, destructive traits be weeded out? it makes sense according to the very purpose of evolution. if these negative traits aren't weeded out, then we aren't really evolving are we?
according to my faith, the wages of sin is death. those of us who desire an existence without sin will take over once the rest of humanity destroys itself.
the whole story of the bible is about the perfection of the human race, and i believe it will happen.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Of course you didn't, but it was implicit when you continued to repeat nonsense.
Fundamental, absolute crap. You are writing. You have the idea. You have the concept you wish to communicate. It is your responsibility to phrase and structure your communication so that your audience understand you. Your reader, or listener, has the responsibility to apply due diligence in understanding the words, but this is not a primary responsibility. If you think it is then you have some serious problems.
Reply if you wish. I see little point in continuing a debate with someone who is so wrong on such an obvious point.
I'm not saying it wouldn't, there has been some progress in fact, we have managed to transfer the instinct of tribalism on to larger and large groups of people (Nations at our present level) thus getting people to cooperate as they would not have before, but if you want to rid the world of all hate, anger and anthropogenic suffering it simply can't be done in any near term with conventional Darwinian evolution.
Maybe you should read dawkins: a small but significant percentage of leechers/scumbags/crocks/conman will always be able to survive in society, more so the nature of the system prevents true altruist from becoming too common, everyone else is merely "I'll scratch your back you will scratch my back" ideologies, wither conscience of it or not. Your expected to give if you take, and everyone will take advantage of a free opportunity if they can, such as taking the charity of an altruist without giving back.
Theology is not a topic here.
Though I hope it is, I would nto be so presumptuous, near could easily turn out to be long after we are dead.
Last edited:
Its only nonsense to you due to your failure at comprehension.
Impossible in this case as my audience only desires to fight in argument rather than discuss anything of intellectual value. One simply can't convey to those that don't want to listen.
Yes find another place to pick fights.
Medical advances mean that many people who once would have died young now live to a ripe old age. This has led to a belief that natural selection no longer affects humans and, therefore, that we have stopped evolving.
"That's just plain false," says Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University. He says although differences in survival may no longer select "fitter" humans and their genes, differences in reproduction still can. The question is whether women who have more children have distinguishing traits which they pass on to their offspring.
"That's just plain false," says Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University. He says although differences in survival may no longer select "fitter" humans and their genes, differences in reproduction still can. The question is whether women who have more children have distinguishing traits which they pass on to their offspring.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17997-meet-future-woman-shorter-plumper-more-fertile.html
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It seems to me that one of the reasons people get the wrong idea about current evolution is a misunderstanding of the word 'fit'. Many associate this with fitness achieved through regular visits to the gym, healthy eating and a temperate lifestyle. Fitness in an evolutionary sense relates to how well an organisms fits into its environment. If this distinction were emphasised in teaching the subject we would see less nonsense bieng posted.
its impossible to devolve, we've made our environment less physically taxing and its affecting the course of our evolution. i understand what you mean though. i bet there were less people living beyond childhood with down syndrome etc. a few hundred years ago.
edit: spidergoat fielded this a few posts earlier
Fitness in an evolutionary sense only means the ability of genes to project copies of themselves into the future.