organic

we know that with emotions we get chemical rewards and penalties that affect our functioning. for example feeling depressed has been linked with a reduction in serotonin and dopamine and some even suggest brain toxicity. by contrast feeling happy releases dopamine and serotonin making everything function at a higher level and many argue creates a lower level of toxicity. of course one needs to contrast a healthy person being put in negative situations against another who may have a pathological imbalance in such chemicals.

exactly the same could be occuring with ethical alignment, meaning that if one is born subconsciously with a particular alignment and one consciously chooses to go against it, one may get chemical penalties and brain toxicity. over time this could lead to premature aging and "ghosting" of people and personalities.

:rofl:

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning_c

what's a dude?

---

:rofl:

:lol:

so some people get a chemical reward from torturing and even killing others and they are called sadists while others get chemical rewards from doing good such as protecting and educating ;)

it is also therefore possible that some people are born without a chemical reward one way or another, so called neutral alignment.

it could make for some interesting family interactions and situations.

you are realizing that you're making a monologue, right?

definition 'monologue':
one way communication

and I -- and many other people in this thread -- are the critics on the monologue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigB

you are realizing that you're making a monologue, right?

definition 'monologue':
one way communication

and I -- and many other people in this thread -- are the critics on the monologue

---

true, some are critics, which every good thread needs, others contribute when they can, while a further section stop by to say they are enjoying the thread immensely.

"Leela, please wake up"

so before we discuss computers, let's work with the hominid mind. over time if we let hominids evolve naturally, eventually there would come a time when there would be a lot of hominids who would have a significantly increased mental capacity as history has shown. alternatively with genetic engineering we can add everlasting life (which could theoretically happen with a genetic mutation too) in addition to an artificial increase in intellectual function and capacity. a certain portion of these people would have various alignments from bad/cruel to neutral to good alignment.

so we have an evolving hominid mind either naturally or artificially, and various ethical alignments. what happens if a strain of super intelligent hominids with bad ethical alignment develops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

so before we discuss computers, let's work with the hominid mind. over time if we let hominids evolve naturally, eventually there would come a time when there would be a lot of hominids who would have a significantly increased mental capacity as history has shown. alternatively with genetic engineering we can add everlasting life (which could theoretically happen with a genetic mutation too) in addition to an artificial increase in intellectual function and capacity. a certain portion of these people would have various alignments from bad/cruel to neutral to good alignment.

so we have an evolving hominid mind either naturally or artificially, and various ethical alignments. what happens if a strain of super intelligent hominids with bad ethical alignment develops?

---

Why do you think evolution will create more intelligent people? Is there some kind of adaptive advantage favoring this? Do smart people reproduce more? I would say the evidence for this is pretty meager. Evolution will only favor the traits that produce more reproduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Why do you think evolution will create more intelligent people? Is there some kind of adaptive advantage favoring this?

---

do you realise what you just said :)

Yeah, so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, so?

---

ok, well staying with the current paradigms, as always resources and reproduction go hand in hand, and supporting a large family requires resources, i guess it is possible on welfare, however, most people would not wish to struggle through life with 7 children on welfare meaning there is a disincentive to reproduce without resources. logically being able to create wealth requires intelligence particularly as time and technology advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

ok, well staying with the current paradigms, as always resources and reproduction go hand in hand, and supporting a large family requires resources, i guess it is possible on welfare, however, most people would not wish to struggle through life with 7 children on welfare meaning there is a disincentive to reproduce without resources. logically being able to create wealth requires intelligence particularly as time and technology advance.

---

Watch it, pretty amusing:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

Watch it, pretty amusing:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

---

lol i haven't smiled so broadly in a long time :D

When i first read this thread, i thought it would never reach the second page and will probably die by the end of the week to be later resurrected in 4 years time by someone with too much time on their hands... I'm surprised it has reached 11 pages...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew G

When i first read this thread, i thought it would never reach the second page and will probably die by the end of the week to be later resurrected in 4 years time by someone with too much time on their hands... I'm surprised it has reached 11 pages...

---

glad to have surprised you, and the thread has certainly covered some territory :D ;)

so what happens if we have super intelligent sadistic hominids that evolve or are intelligently designed?

well then you would likely have a society based on satisfying the chemical rewards of those people ie cruelty, injustice and slavery.

by contrast if we have super intelligent good hominids that evolve or are intelligently designed then we would get a society founded on health, justice and liberty.

even taken to extreme, if we have one super intelligent hominid with everlasting life who presides over everyone on earth as a benevolent ruler, what would happen in such a senario?

well absolute power would not corrupt absolutely as the chemical rewards would ensure the contrary. they may deviate from time to time by consciously overriding their chemical reward structure, however, in the longer term they would move towards their own equilibrium and society and its structure and laws with it.

Please note that the last four posts are yours, with no replies... we're tired of this thread. Let it die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

Please note that the last four posts are yours, with no replies... we're tired of this thread. Let it die.

---

nice to make another appearance TS, have you got anything else to contribute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

ok, well staying with the current paradigms, as always resources and reproduction go hand in hand, and supporting a large family requires resources, i guess it is possible on welfare, however, most people would not wish to struggle through life with 7 children on welfare meaning there is a disincentive to reproduce without resources. logically being able to create wealth requires intelligence particularly as time and technology advance.

---

Gee, and all the evidence is against you. It is generally well known that if you educate women, and give them more control over their bodies, they have fewer children, and have them later in life, both of which tend to drive down their reproduction. Of course, education and options are not the same as intelligence, but it argues against intelligence being favored by evolution. If intelligence allows you to "get ahead in life", but that same advancement means that you will tend to have fewer children (why don't you survey THIS group: Highly intelligent, but not highly prolific), so intelligence would tend to mean fewer children, which means the selection is against it.

In more or less words, you're preaching a neurological, chemical-induced communism mixed with a time-elapsed genocide of independance.

It won't happen. Give it up. Human's by nature have always had two basic instincts - dominate and survive. Since the dawn of man (regardless of whether you beleive evolution or creationism) - those are the two banes in which we exist.

We are incapable of "bettering" ourselves because we have never existed without these perceived "evils."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Gee, and all the evidence is against you. It is generally well known that if you educate women, and give them more control over their bodies, they have fewer children, and have them later in life

---

:D let's entertain that supposition for a second, so where is the cause and effect for that realtionship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

In more or less words, you're preaching a neurological, chemical-induced communism mixed with a time-elapsed genocide of independance.

---

at the moment i am examining ethical alignment and its impact on society's development once increased intellect is accounted for. as far as genocide goes that would most likely fit in the bad/cruel ethical alignment category.

so rather than focusing on political ideologies i would focus on the fundamental principles outlined such as:

mistreatment
injustice
slavery

against

health
justice
liberty

for example even democracy is merely a system of parliment, it doesn't make the country healthy, just and free. look up illiberal democracies for example. so if someone says go and fight for democracy that means go and fight for a system of parliment nothing more. same applies to facism, communism or capitalism; they don't necessarily create health, justice and liberty as you can create cruel and unjust societies out of all three ideologies. if someone said go to war to defend health, justice and liberty then that is a completely different perspective, for that to happen, a country's constitution would have to ensure such concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

It won't happen. Give it up. Human's by nature have always had two basic instincts - dominate and survive. Since the dawn of man (regardless of whether you beleive evolution or creationism) - those are the two banes in which we exist.

---

dominate and survive? that sounds like a very limited perspective. i think hominds are inherently capable of significantly less restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

We are incapable of "bettering" ourselves because we have never existed without these perceived "evils."

---

you are assuming that anyone who is of good alignment is incapable of defending themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

Please note that the last four posts are yours, with no replies... we're tired of this thread. Let it die.

---

i told you... :rolleyes:

in a month or so, i think this thread will be serious competition for the posts race
:afrog:

May God help us all...

I'm not a religious man, but if it gives any hope... :D

http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2007/04/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

at the moment i am examining ethical alignment and its impact on society's development once increased intellect is accounted for. as far as genocide goes that would most likely fit in the bad/cruel ethical alignment category.

so rather than focusing on political ideologies i would focus on the fundamental principles outlined such as:

mistreatment
injustice
slavery

against

health
justice
liberty

for example even democracy is merely a system of parliment, it doesn't make the country healthy, just and free. look up illiberal democracies for example. so if someone says go and fight for democracy that means go and fight for a system of parliment nothing more. same applies to facism, communism or capitalism; they don't necessarily create health, justice and liberty as you can create cruel and unjust societies out of all three ideologies. if someone said go to war to defend health, justice and liberty then that is a completely different perspective, for that to happen, a country's constitution would have to ensure such concepts.



dominate and survive? that sounds like a very limited perspective. i think hominds are inherently capable of significantly less restrictions.



you are assuming that anyone who is of good alignment is incapable of defending themselves.

---

Dude, this is chit chat, not "Let's hand in a friggin essay" forums. That's over here

learning_c?
I've got a nice link for you.
This might clear things up for you
AI

And never forget to mark a thread resolved ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigB

learning_c?
I've got a nice link for you.
This might clear things up for you
AI

And never forget to mark a thread resolved ;)

---

Quote:

---

Why yes, yes it is. How did you know that? Did my sexual orientation and interest in cryptography give it away?

---

Heh. Cryptography is fun. Also sex.

i agree wName, everyone should be able to write their own cryptography or at least use open source ;)

thanks kregg for the link :)

so that covers bad and good alignments now we get to neutral alignment. does anyone have a prediction on what would happen to society if a super intelligent group of neutral alignment hominids developed?

I'm neutral.

And I think you're stupid.

End of conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

I'm neutral.

And I think you're stupid.

End of conversation.

---

lol :D are you really neutral or just bad pretending to be neutral to link with good under false pretenses? ;)

I'm neutral in the vast majority of things. I can take almost any viewpoint on any issue because I openly listen to all sides. If I wanted to, I could take part in your side of the arguement. i understand completely where you are coming from. I still think you're stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

I'm neutral in the vast majority of things. I can take almost any viewpoint on any issue because I openly listen to all sides. If I wanted to, I could take part in your side of the arguement. i understand completely where you are coming from. I still think you're stupid.

---

however as we shall see, neutral isn't really neutral is it? Do you want to show how smart you are by proving that to be true or false?

Even a fool will look wise if he keeps his mouth shut.