It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Your Cell Phone Distracts You Even When You’re Not Using It

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: supergravity

Here is the fallacy with that. The people you fear that supposedly "rule the world" are all influenced by the SAME control mechanisms as us. They use the very SAME technology to do what they do. They aren't free from this coming paradigm shift, but rather are helping fuel it by designing newer and sleeker technology all the time.




posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
People allow it to distract them. They've allowed themselves to fall into a very bad habit or addiction. Pretty sad on a lot of levels.

Unless I'm on call for my job or the people I care about are away from home, I pretty much toss the phone aside and ignore it and check it on my time and terms.

And the person that mentioned people being on call 24/7? That's something they either allow to happen by being a pushover or something in them that makes them need to be needed and/or in control. I highly doubt anyone really expects it.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I have a flip phone that I bought at best buy for 39.99 for years now, and I remain quite functional as a human being, I only pick it up when I leave the house. the "app" hype is one of the biggest "P.T. Barnum" sales jobs in the last decade. I think that 95% of all people do not have a compelling reason to own a smart phone. the 5% that do, probably use it in time and informational functions, that facilitate their work.
edit on 16-12-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Rumor is IBM is firing a lot of top executives because they're either viewed as not savvy enough about or not willing to play in the social media arena 24/7. Creepy stuff.

Fact is already practically indiscernible from fiction. Soon we will all be entirely paralyzed and numbed by all the totally meaningless data flying around trying to capture our attention.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Alright. If you want to fight it, then go ahead. But go ahead and stop all posting on the internet, and you better encourage everyone else to do it as well, because your sole opinion is insignificant in the face of popular opinion, so your idea needs to go viral to enact any change. Good luck. Though I won't hold my breath that you'll succeed.


How would cutting ourselves off from the internet combat the downsides of this technological integration / transhumanism?
It would only make things worse! Currently the internet is our only large source of information that has not been silenced for the gain of private interests
(in most parts of the world).
We need the internet if we want people to be informed and unbiased. We also need people to think for themselves, and although the internet can lead a lot of people astray.. it can also do a pretty good job at teaching us how to think critically.

The internet can easily be independent from transhumanism,
just like it is right now.
It is also not a necessary precursor.
I'm sorry but i don't understand your reasoning on this.



Actually there is no such thing as "good" or "bad". Things just are. Humans invent their own morality, but in the grand scheme of things everything we do on this planet is insignificant. Our entire planet could be wiped out tomorrow by a gamma ray burst, and the universe wouldn't even notice.


So what? Since when is being a nihilist a valid point of defense?
Your'e not making a lot of sense here.
Of course morals are our invention! They are not magical powers given to us by space aliens.. They are part of common sense, given to us by ourselves / nature because morals make this life a life worth living.
I care about feelings, about us having the chance of being sincerely happy, about moral values.
And I'm pretty sure I am not the only one.

The human race isn't all that bad (oh right.. uninteresting?? I don't even..), come visit us any time you like.



They've already made the decision.


Well technically they didn't,
most have been led to that decision without giving it much thought.
And even today the circumstances already leave the people that will ''stay behind'' in a disadvantage.
There will probably never be a fair choice.



And you will fall behind. No big deal, you are free to live your life out behind, but the next generation will be THAT much more ok with it all. Then the next and so forth.


Of course they will be ''OK'' with it, they won't even know any better!
My parrot is perfectly happy living in his cage / my apartment, but if he knew what he was missing out on.. Flying through the Amazon making love to other birds, being an actual bird.. He would be probably be pretty damn grouchy stuck in that cage.

Is ignorance truly bliss?

Maybe, but let's give humanity another chance before we give up on it.
At least let a part of it stay true to it's nature, to what it is, and in my own personal opinion, what it is supposed to be.

Besides, having a portion of humanity survive alongside the ''transhumanists'' or ''post humans'' or whatever they will be called might not only leave us with the fair choice we deserve, it will probably also keep the post humans on the right path because they will have something to compare their civilization with.

I'm also not suggesting we should abandon technology.
Like i said the internet is one of many things that has helped our growth.

I am simply suggesting that once we reach that point of (actual) no return, we should keep the choice a fair one.

Who knows, it might not go as planned,
at least then we would have something to fall back on.
Let's keep a healthy backup just in case we need to format C humanity.
--------

Sorry for derailing.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Skaffa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa
How would cutting ourselves off from the internet combat the downsides of this technological integration / transhumanism?
It would only make things worse! Currently the internet is our only large source of information that has not been silenced for the gain of private interests (in most parts of the world).
We need the internet if we want people to be informed and unbiased. We also need people to think for themselves, and although the internet can lead a lot of people astray.. it can also do a pretty good job at teaching us how to think critically.


It's all or none man. If you want the internet for all the things above then you have to accept where it leads us as a society, but if you fear the homogenization that is arising because of it, the self absorption, and anything we have discussed here then you need to abandon the internet. As long as we use the internet and continue down this technological path, this is our destination.


The internet can easily be independent from transhumanism, just like it is right now.


That's because the technology doesn't exist yet to directly integrate us with it. You are aware that this technology is being developed right? Look at Google Glass. Google wanted us to wear a computer on our faces. It didn't take, but that may be more due to Google being a software company and not a hardware company. Other companies are trying.


It is also not a necessary precursor.
I'm sorry but i don't understand your reasoning on this.


It's tough to explain without the sources. I have to get them together, but once I do, I'll write a thread on it.


So what? Since when is being a nihilist a valid point of defense? Your'e not making any sense whatsoever.
Of course morals are our invention! They are not magical powers given to us by space aliens.. They are part of common sense, given to us by ourselves / nature because morals make this life a life worth living.
I care about feelings, about us having the chance of being sincerely happy, about moral values.
And I'm pretty sure I am not the only one.

The human race isn't all that bad (oh right.. uninteresting?? I don't even..), come visit us any time you like.


I haven't actually given my personal opinion on how I feel about any of this. I'm just trying to unemotionally analyze trends alongside human behavior and technological progress.


Well technically they didn't, most have been led to that decision without giving it much thought.
And even today the circumstances already leave the people that will ''stay behind'' in a disadvantage.
There will never be a fair choice.


That is their problem for not giving it much thought. Regardless, the die is cast. I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but critical thinking is hard. People don't like hard. They like easy and will do whatever they can to accomplish this. If that means turning their brain off, then so be it.


Of course they will be ''OK'' with it, they won't even know any better!
My parrot is perfectly happy living in his cage / my apartment, but if he knew what he was missing out on.. Flying through the Amazon making love to other birds, being an actual bird.. He would be probably be pretty damn grouchy stuck in that cage.


That's hard to say. The parrot never grew up in the conditions that would allow it to thrive in the jungle. It grew up in a cage. Could it even survive in the wild? Much less be happy about it?


Is ignorance truly bliss?


Humans seem to think so.


Maybe, but let's give humanity another chance before we give up on it.
At least let a part of it stay true to it's nature, to what it is, and in my own personal opinion, what it is supposed to be.


What is it supposed to be other than a product of the universe? We aren't the end of evolution. We are just the most recent step in it, but that stairwell continues MUCH further beyond us. If that stairwell causes us to become completely dependent on technology, then so be it. As humans on this planet, we are completely dependent on oxygen as opposed to being completely dependent on helium or something. That's just how we evolved.


Besides, having a portion of humanity survive alongside the ''transhumanists'' or ''post humans'' or whatever they will be called might not only leave us with the fair choice we deserve, it will probably also keep the post humans on the right path because they will have something to compare their civilization with.


Well I hope you guys can get off this planet because the transhumanists are going to consume the world. How is independent thought going to compete against a giant hive mind that spans the entire planet with eyes and ears through every human that is connected to it?


I'm also not suggesting we should abandon technology.
Like i said the internet is one of many things that has helped our growth.


Then why are you trying to shun the direction we are growing? Because it scares you? You appear to want to remain in stasis as we are now. Sorry, but the universe doesn't work that way.


I am simply suggesting that once we reach that point of (actual) no return, we should keep the choice a fair one.

Who knows, it might not go as planned.. at least then we would have something to fall back on.


Maybe. The s# could always hit the fan. Though I am becoming increasingly convinced that won't happen.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



It's all or none man. If you want the internet for all the things above then you have to accept where it leads us as a society, but if you fear the homogenization that is arising because of it, the self absorption, and anything we have discussed here then you need to abandon the internet. As long as we use the internet and continue down this technological path, this is our destination.


So there can only be one destination?
I'm not asking for a standstill of technological progress.
But i am suggesting it could be wise to let a part of humanity progress alongside instead of inside technology, if this can be peacefully possible.
It probably won't be, but i think we should at least consider it.



That's because the technology doesn't exist yet to directly integrate us with it. You are aware that this technology is being developed right? Look at Google Glass. Google wanted us to wear a computer on our faces. It didn't take, but that may be more due to Google being a software company and not a hardware company. Other companies are trying.


I think i am aware.
I also vaguely suspect this technology might be a bit more developed than we know,
and we are simply not ready for it yet.



It's tough to explain without the sources. I have to get them together, but once I do, I'll write a thread on it.


Looking forward to it.




I haven't actually given my personal opinion on how I feel about any of this. I'm just trying to unemotionally analyze trends alongside human behavior and technological progress.


I kinda figured, but do you mind stating your honest opinion on the concept?



That is their problem for not giving it much thought. Regardless, the die is cast. I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but critical thinking is hard. People don't like hard. They like easy and will do whatever they can to accomplish this. If that means turning their brain off, then so be it.


Well yeah, so be it.
If they have all the knowledge they need to make an informed decision easily available to them,
then it would be their choice to not consider it.



That's hard to say. The parrot never grew up in the conditions that would allow it to thrive in the jungle. It grew up in a cage. Could it even survive in the wild? Much less be happy about it?


Not that hard i think, at this moment he would not survive for an hour and it would probably be the scariest thing he has ever experienced.
But if he was born in the wild, he would survive for a good while, maybe be a bit happier but most of all be in tune with himself.

If I had the choice.. I would have never caged him (i inherited him).
Because although he might not survive in the wild as long as he would in a cage, he would at least be an actual bird instead of a confused little sexually deprived flightless being sitting on a stick all day, every day until he reaches a rotten age of 90.

I know he's become a bad analogy, since we are barely parrots.

But we will lose our essence, and giving that up should be our own well informed choice.




Humans seem to think so.


Not all of them.



What is it supposed to be other than a product of the universe? We aren't the end of evolution. We are just the most recent step in it, but that stairwell continues MUCH further beyond us. If that stairwell causes us to become completely dependent on technology, then so be it. As humans on this planet, we are completely dependent on oxygen as opposed to being completely dependent on helium or something. That's just how we evolved.


And I'm all for it.
Like i mentioned before, i used to be excited about it, and i still am actually,
but i don't think humanity as of now will know how to handle it.
We mainly learn by trail and error, but can we afford to make mistakes when changing the foundation of humanity?
Don't you think this technology could easily be used for nefarious purposes?
Garbage in.. garbage out right?

When it hits us, will we be truly ready? Will we be wise enough to not let it control us completely?
A premature birth is rarely a pretty thing to behold and it either dies or never recovers.

I know humanity might not ever be wise enough, but it seems like we are already on the verge of changing the way we think into something more sensible, maybe taking our time to do things right and taking a more careful approach could mean avoiding the ''growing pains'' completely.

If this is possible.. I'll happily join the movement.



Well I hope you guys can get off this planet because the transhumanists are going to consume the world. How is independent thought going to compete against a giant hive mind that spans the entire planet with eyes and ears through every human that is connected to it?


There won't be any competition.
If we could reach a mutual agreement to peacefully let each other be why would we ever compete?
The hive-mind would not need us, nor our resources.
It would be smart enough to find more fruitful resources, if not here then on some other planet.



Then why are you trying to shun the direction we are growing? Because it scares you? You appear to want to remain in stasis as we are now. Sorry, but the universe doesn't work that way.


Again, we don't need to shun it, we could keep progressing alongside it instead of integrating with it.
I don't want to stay in the dark ages, i simply don't want to make any stupid decisions when it comes to a monolithic one like this. I want to take my time and observe it before i take the dive, and i want others to have that same possibility.
I'm just trying to do what feels like the right thing to do. Fear could play a part in that.
But mostly i just do not like being duped.



Maybe. The s# could always hit the fan. Though I am becoming increasingly convinced that won't happen.


How can you even predict anything about this hypothetical future?
The ''singularity'' will turn everything upside down, if we could see it now.. we could never even try to understand it.

But i do suspect that it will not have many boundaries at first, and thus it might lose balance easily, and perhaps permanently, if we are not careful.

If we can manage it.. sign me up. But I'll need to see it to believe it.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa
So there can only be one destination?


It's not a destination. Destination implies direction and an end. It's just a never ending journey taking us where we go.



It probably won't be, but i think we should at least consider it.


I think you are starting to get on the right track. There is a lot of wishful thinking in your post, but we both know how humans really are. They are intolerant of differences. The only way to squash intolerance is to homogenize everything. Once the die is cast, there can be no going back short of a cataclysm.


I think i am aware.
I also vaguely suspect this technology might be a bit more developed than we know,
and we are simply not ready for it yet.


Throughout history the military tends to be in control of the absolute pinnacle of human technology, so what you say wouldn't be surprising since such technology would be classified. Though the reins of technology are starting to shift towards corporations, and they are more secretive than the government. So who knows?


I kinda figured, but do you mind stating your honest opinion on the concept?


It frightens me a bit from how overwhelming it is. I'd like to keep my individuality and feel there is some good to be gained from all the independent thought, but at the same time the idea of such a massive hive mind thinking as one would be AMAZING. Can you imagine the things that humans could accomplish if all minds were focused in one direction, willingly? Then the scientific concepts behind such a thing. Would you consider the mind a new life form? It's entire essence being smaller lifeforms. It is fascinating to think about.


Well yeah, so be it.
If they have all the knowledge they need to make an informed decision easily available to them,
then it would be their choice to not consider it.


Correct. But remember you can only lead the horse to water, you can't make it drink.


If I had the choice.. I would have never caged him (i inherited him).
Because although he might not survive in the wild as long as he would in a cage, he would at least be an actual bird instead of a confused little sexually deprived flightless being sitting on a stick all day, every day until he reaches a rotten age of 90.


Birds don't prioritize sex like we do, being sex deprived isn't really the end of the world to a bird, but I see your point. This brings me to another point. We complain about destroy all these natural environments through the building of society, but think on this, evolution helps life adapt to just about anything this planet can throw at it. Life is already adapting to human society. Look at city rats or pidgeons. We consider them pests, but they are really on the forefront of evolution. They are already learning to coexist with us. Dogs, cats, and other pets are another example. In this case of directed evolution.

The next stages of evolution are going to be organisms that can adapt to survive humans' destructive behavior. What will arise out of that will be just as incredible and beautiful as anything we've seen before.


I know he's become a bad analogy, since we are barely parrots.

But we will lose our essence, and giving that up should be our own well informed choice.


Essence sounds like a vague concept that again implies intent. Why can't things just be because they are natural or otherwise?



And I'm all for it.
Like i mentioned before, i used to be excited about it, and i still am actually,
but i don't think humanity as of now will know how to handle it.


It's not about being able to handle it like it is a responsibility being thrust on us. We just develop until it is the norm.


We mainly learn by trail and error, but can we afford to make mistakes when changing the foundation of humanity?
Don't you think this technology could easily be used for nefarious purposes?
Garbage in.. garbage out right?


Part of being a hive mind is that everyone thinks the same. There is no way nefariousness can be done to any of us. Right now, there are many influences on popular opinion throughout the internet, so you can't quite call any community on it a hive mind. But the beginnings of such are there. As a hive mind starts to take root, so too does homogenization of thought and behavior. Basically, everyone thinks the same and has the same goals and desires. How can someone abuse this if no one wants to willingly step out of line, even for personal gain?


When it hits us, will we be truly ready? Will we be wise enough to not let it control us completely?
A premature birth is rarely a pretty thing to behold and it either dies or never recovers.


It's not going to "hit" us. It's just going to slowly take over until we are it.


I know humanity might not ever be wise enough, but it seems like we are already on the verge of changing the way we think into something more sensible, maybe taking our time to do things right and taking a more careful approach could mean avoiding the ''growing pains'' completely.


That's the thing. The idea of sensible. Everyone is human. Everyone deserves to live. Everyone deserves rights. These are all concepts that are being taught into the youth who take their opinions on the internet and create communities around them like this one. This change is going to be a peaceful movement, not a violent one. It is also going to be entirely voluntary (but no one will be conscious of making the decision).



There won't be any competition.
If we could reach a mutual agreement to peacefully let each other be why would we ever compete?
The hive-mind would not need us, nor our resources.
It would be smart enough to find more fruitful resources, if not here then on some other planet.


First all life needs resources and while yes we may be peaceful towards ourselves, that doesn't mean this new mind would be peaceful to other life that isn't it.


How can you even predict anything about this hypothetical future?
The ''singularity'' will turn everything upside down, if we could see it now.. we could never even try to understand it.

But i do suspect that it will not have many boundaries at first, and thus it might lose balance easily, and perhaps permanently, if we are not careful.

If we can manage it.. sign me up. But I'll need to see it to believe it.


I don't think we'll see what I am predicting in my lifetime or possibly even our children's lifetime. The resistance to such an idea is still FAR too strong.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


It's not a destination. Destination implies direction and an end. It's just a never ending journey taking us where we go.


I used the word destinations since you mentioned it yourself.
''Paths'' would be more suitable, but you knew what i was trying to say.



I think you are starting to get on the right track. There is a lot of wishful thinking in your post,


I realize that, but i could say the same about yours.


but we both know how humans really are. They are intolerant of differences. The only way to squash intolerance is to homogenize everything. Once the die is cast, there can be no going back short of a cataclysm.


This is true, however these differences might be helpful, without them there would be a lack of balance.
Imagine growing up without a family, without any one else to raise you properly, would you still be a well adjusted citizen? Although you might have had fights and disagreements with your siblings or parents, they helped you form your perspective, morals and ideals.
If different countries did not have differences, we could've all been living under a single dictatorship.

And for all we know the hive mind wouldn't need to be intolerant, and the leftover society would be unable to fight it anyway, peace could be possible since there would be a complete new set of rules.



It frightens me a bit from how overwhelming it is. I'd like to keep my individuality and feel there is some good to be gained from all the independent thought, but at the same time the idea of such a massive hive mind thinking as one would be AMAZING. Can you imagine the things that humans could accomplish if all minds were focused in one direction, willingly? Then the scientific concepts behind such a thing. Would you consider the mind a new life form? It's entire essence being smaller lifeforms. It is fascinating to think about.


I completely agree, it would be quite amazing.
But I'm trying to figure out whether this is a realistic scenario or looking at it through rose-colored glasses.
Would the hive mind be smart and durable enough to be unable to go corrupt or become controlled by other forces?
It could set the world free, but it might also be able to enslave it. Now maybe that's the fear talking, but i still feel like it is something we should think about, because it is not that far fetched IMO.



Essence sounds like a vague concept that again implies intent. Why can't things just be because they are natural or otherwise?


I appreciate my essence, my nature.. I like what I am unlike most transhumanists.
Should we not be able to cherish that? If we would not have this choice, our nature would cease to be.
IMO this tells me your last sentence is contradictory to your views.

Do you really think nature would be able to adapt quickly enough?
I don't believe it will be, there would be quite a lot of unforeseen side effects, both in our bodies and the world around us.



It's not about being able to handle it like it is a responsibility being thrust on us.


But it IS a responsibility, pretty much EVERY human being would be subject to this uncharted territory, why should we not be responsible about it?



Part of being a hive mind is that everyone thinks the same. There is no way nefariousness can be done to any of us. Right now, there are many influences on popular opinion throughout the internet, so you can't quite call any community on it a hive mind. But the beginnings of such are there. As a hive mind starts to take root, so too does homogenization of thought and behavior. Basically, everyone thinks the same and has the same goals and desires. How can someone abuse this if no one wants to willingly step out of line, even for personal gain?


How can you be so sure?
Initially i think there would still be divisions, these could never be allowed to settle or one part of the hive mind may start to control the other.



We just develop until it is the norm.
It's not going to "hit" us. It's just going to slowly take over until we are it.


It will be a gradual process, but it will still happen quite fast and with increasing velocity.
Relatively speaking it would probably hit us like a ton of bricks.
Most likely it will happen too fast for us to thoroughly contemplate its effects.



That's the thing. The idea of sensible. Everyone is human. Everyone deserves to live. Everyone deserves rights. These are all concepts that are being taught into the youth who take their opinions on the internet and create communities around them like this one. This change is going to be a peaceful movement, not a violent one. It is also going to be entirely voluntary (but no one will be conscious of making the decision).


It would have to be very gradual to be completely peaceful but this is not possible when the singularity occurs since this will boost all technological capabilities at incomprehensible speeds.
The question is whether the singularity will come before or after we are already all thinking alike.
If it doesn't, there will probably be some resistance.



The next stages of evolution are going to be organisms that can adapt to survive humans' destructive behavior. What will arise out of that will be just as incredible and beautiful as anything we've seen before.



First all life needs resources and while yes we may be peaceful towards ourselves, that doesn't mean this new mind would be peaceful to other life that isn't it.


Right.
So do you value the hive mind above all those other beautiful organisms? Will they really be able to adapt and survive?



I don't think we'll see what I am predicting in my lifetime or possibly even our children's lifetime. The resistance to such an idea is still FAR too strong.


Probably, but since it seems like a logical progression of technology, now should be the time to investigate it.
We also shouldn't underestimate Moore's law.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa

I realize that, but i could say the same about yours.


I don't really wish for this to happen. I just kind of acknowledge that we are heading in that path.


This is true, however these differences might be helpful, without them there would be a lack of balance.
Imagine growing up without a family, without any one else to raise you properly, would you still be a well adjusted citizen? Although you might have had fights and disagreements with your siblings or parents, they helped you form your perspective, morals and ideals.


You have trouble imagining it because you cannot think of a reality without those things.


And for all we know the hive mind wouldn't need to be intolerant, and the leftover society would be unable to fight it anyway, peace could be possible since there would be a complete new set of rules.


Well here is the thing. Since humans are emotional creatures, I'm pretty sure that we won't lose our emotions if my scenario played out. We may all think alike, but I'm sure that the hive mind would have an ego and emotional failings just like we do. How often do we see popular opinion favor something that is a bad idea? I don't see that changing with a hive mind, so the likelihood of the hive mind not accepting humans who don't submit is strong.


I completely agree, it would be quite amazing.
But I'm trying to figure out whether this is a realistic scenario or looking at it through rose-colored glasses.
Would the hive mind be smart and durable enough to be unable to go corrupt or become controlled by other forces?
It could set the world free, but it might also be able to enslave it. Now maybe that's the fear talking, but i still feel like it is something we should think about, because it is not that far fetched IMO.


Of course, the mind would be able to make mistakes. Trust the wrong things. Etc. That is how we learn, so a network of humans thinking the same way would probably learn the same ways that we do.


I appreciate my essence, my nature.. I like what I am unlike most transhumanists.
Should we not be able to cherish that? If we would not have this choice, our nature would cease to be.
IMO this tells me your last sentence is contradictory to your views.


In that case, I would be incompatible with the hive mind. There would be no hesitation in thought for the people who participate in this. I am too unique and cherish certain differences to the point that I would never be compatible with joining a hive mind. That is why I said such an entity won't appear for at least a few generations yet.


Do you really think nature would be able to adapt quickly enough?
I don't believe it will be, there would be quite a lot of unforeseen side effects, both in our bodies and the world around us.


Who says that it isn't? First off, punctuated equilibrium is a real thing where evolution speeds up to fill niches when holes in diversity appear (though it does still occur over millions of years). Second, how do you know that WE aren't being used by nature to push life into the cosmos? Think about this for a second. As it stands life cannot exist off world without some sort of technological help. What if we using technology is nature's way of evolving a means to escape this planet and continue to spread?


But it IS a responsibility, pretty much EVERY human being would be subject to this uncharted territory, why should we not be responsible about it?


What are we being responsible for? It would just be a change in the way we function. We would become parts of a whole. We would become the neurons in some brand new evolutionary superorganism. An organism that thinks biologically, but its body is made up of technology. Such a thing would be able to expand to all corners of the universe. What could stop it? It would just have to study a location, determine what needs to be done and created to expand there, then do it.


How can you be so sure?
Initially i think there would still be divisions, these could never be allowed to settle or one part of the hive mind may start to control the other.


Then it isn't a hive mind. It's just a collection of like minded individuals.


It will be a gradual process, but it will still happen quite fast and with increasing velocity.
Relatively speaking it would probably hit us like a ton of bricks.
Most likely it will happen too fast for us to thoroughly contemplate its effects.


More like it will happen and will be the norm before we even realize things are different. Even now, much of the world is incompatible with society of the past. We bathe regularly. We minimize bodily smells. We interact differently. If someone from present time went back in the past, he would be outed as a stranger, possibly even an alien, almost immediately. Yet we look around us at society like it is the norm.


It would have to be very gradual to be completely peaceful but this is not possible when the singularity occurs since this will boost all technological capabilities at incomprehensible speeds.
The question is whether the singularity will come before or after we are already all thinking alike.
If it doesn't, there will probably be some resistance.


Resistance is bred out of the population. Even if the singularity is imminent and there is much resistance, all that needs to be done is wait for the older generations to die out. Each subsequent generation will be that much more ok with it.


Right.
So do you value the hive mind above all those other beautiful organisms? Will they really be able to adapt and survive?


I see no reason why they couldn't. Evolution is about survival of the fittest. If the organism cannot compete with our intellect, then maybe an organism that can needs to evolve. That's how it works in nature.


Probably, but since it seems like a logical progression of technology, now should be the time to investigate it.
We also shouldn't underestimate Moore's law.


That is why I brought it up.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I don't really wish for this to happen. I just kind of acknowledge that we are heading in that path.


Please state this in your upcoming thread.
A lot of people are idealizing the concept, we should stay skeptical as long as we are not ready for it.



You have trouble imagining it because you cannot think of a reality without those things.


Perhaps, but it could be true.. As above, so below. The microcosm is as the macrocosm.
I see it more as a law of nature, everything needs something to give it balance.
There might be a way for the hive mind to balance itself out, but i haven't found one yet and this might not be so easy in the initial / transitional period.



Well here is the thing. Since humans are emotional creatures, I'm pretty sure that we won't lose our emotions if my scenario played out. We may all think alike, but I'm sure that the hive mind would have an ego and emotional failings just like we do. How often do we see popular opinion favor something that is a bad idea?



Of course, the mind would be able to make mistakes. Trust the wrong things. Etc. That is how we learn, so a network of humans thinking the same way would probably learn the same ways that we do.


Without balance, this could prove to be a problem.
As soon as the pendulum swings one way, it could stay there in stasis.
If everyone thought the war on drugs was a good idea, how long would it last if not forever?
Would it still be easy to notice our mistakes?



In that case, I would be incompatible with the hive mind. There would be no hesitation in thought for the people who participate in this. I am too unique and cherish certain differences to the point that I would never be compatible with joining a hive mind. That is why I said such an entity won't appear for at least a few generations yet.


I hope we will be that patient.



Who says that it isn't? First off, punctuated equilibrium is a real thing where evolution speeds up to fill niches when holes in diversity appear (though it does still occur over millions of years).


Does punctuated equilibrium account for large scale changes like these?
We will adapt, sure, but the first few generations should still be watchful.



Second, how do you know that WE aren't being used by nature to push life into the cosmos? Think about this for a second. As it stands life cannot exist off world without some sort of technological help. What if we using technology is nature's way of evolving a means to escape this planet and continue to spread?


I have thought about it, and i don't oppose it.
But nature makes mistakes too, that is a large part of how it evolves.
Nature creates many different varieties / mutations so that the best ones may procreate, and the ''mistakes'' fall behind.

We on the other hand are considering to go on as one single mutation, let's make sure it does not become a mistake.



What are we being responsible for? It would just be a change in the way we function. We would become parts of a whole. We would become the neurons in some brand new evolutionary superorganism. An organism that thinks biologically, but its body is made up of technology.


For ourselves, for the hive mind.
The transition could prove to be a delicate, fragile period, and it will set the course we head off to.

Any organism is most susceptible to lasting trauma in it's early life.



Then it isn't a hive mind. It's just a collection of like minded individuals.


Don't you think it is possible that certain groups will initially choose to close off their connection from the mass?
I'm mostly talking about the higher ups, TPTB whatever you want to call them.
I would be wary of them when this technology starts to gain traction.



More like it will happen and will be the norm before we even realize things are different. Even now, much of the world is incompatible with society of the past. We bathe regularly. We minimize bodily smells. We interact differently. If someone from present time went back in the past, he would be outed as a stranger, possibly even an alien, almost immediately. Yet we look around us at society like it is the norm.


Exactly, we will be unable to go back if even for an inch so we should choose our steps wisely.
This is what I'm trying to say, the promises are great, but that just makes it easier for us to get ahead of ourselves.



Resistance is bred out of the population. Even if the singularity is imminent and there is much resistance, all that needs to be done is wait for the older generations to die out. Each subsequent generation will be that much more ok with it.


Most likely, but i will remain wishfully thinking about the absence of resistance from both sides, and the availability of a fair choice.



I see no reason why they couldn't. Evolution is about survival of the fittest. If the organism cannot compete with our intellect, then maybe an organism that can needs to evolve. That's how it works in nature.


Nature can be cruel at times, should we really start thinking exactly like it?
We have already given ourselves the ability to thrive while ignoring some of natures drawbacks.
This could give us the power to ignore them completely and make better use of natures positive aspects, I think that is what we should be aiming for.
We could still evolve and survive just as fine because as you said it yourself, nothing could stop us anyway.



That is why I brought it up.


I'm glad you did.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa
Please state this in your upcoming thread.
A lot of people are idealizing the concept, we should stay skeptical as long as we are not ready for it.


Yes, such things aren't celebratory. Though it's not like anyone alive will see what I'm talking about, so what's the point of celebrating it anyways?


Without balance, this could prove to be a problem.
As soon as the pendulum swings one way, it could stay there in stasis.
If everyone thought the war on drugs was a good idea, how long would it last if not forever?
Would it still be easy to notice our mistakes?


The pendulum ALWAYS swings back. Our mistakes will still be recognizable.


I hope we will be that patient.


Yes, we could potentially destroy ourselves tomorrow. But that is another path that would turn out glorious. As long as we don't destroy all life on the planet, evolution will repopulate the earth with new and unique life. Good thing cockroaches are impervious to radiation.


Does punctuated equilibrium account for large scale changes like these?
We will adapt, sure, but the first few generations should still be watchful.


Actually, yes it does. For one it accounts for all scales. For two, it is only large because you have a limited scope. In the grand scheme of the universe, everything done on this planet is rather small scale.


I have thought about it, and i don't oppose it.
But nature makes mistakes too, that is a large part of how it evolves.
Nature creates many different varieties / mutations so that the best ones may procreate, and the ''mistakes'' fall behind.

We on the other hand are considering to go on as one single mutation, let's make sure it does not become a mistake.


No no no. We, as humans will continue to evolve. The evolution will look different, possibly directed by us, but it will definitely still be happening.


For ourselves, for the hive mind.
The transition could prove to be a delicate, fragile period, and it will set the course we head off to.

Any organism is most susceptible to lasting trauma in it's early life.


Fair enough.


Don't you think it is possible that certain groups will initially choose to close off their connection from the mass?
I'm mostly talking about the higher ups, TPTB whatever you want to call them.
I would be wary of them when this technology starts to gain traction.


Their loss then. There is no way that an individual mind would ever be able to compete with the hive mind. Its intelligence would just FAR surpass anything an individual could throw at it, even the ptb. Money and power would be useless in the face of such overwhelming intelligence.


Exactly, we will be unable to go back if even for an inch so we should choose our steps wisely.
This is what I'm trying to say, the promises are great, but that just makes it easier for us to get ahead of ourselves.


That's how all evolution works. At no point are we allowed to retrace our steps, we are always going forward into the unknown. So we should just embrace any changes that happen to us. No matter how crazy or outside our sensibilities they may be.


Nature can be cruel at times, should we really start thinking exactly like it?


We already do. Or do you think about the plight of growing veal or slaughterhouses? Even if you do think about them, what are you doing to fix it? Eating vegetarian isn't enough, it isn't changing anything. Human sympathy only extends to other humans, and even then that isn't really the case.


We have already given ourselves the ability to thrive while ignoring some of natures drawbacks.


The natural progress of technology is to eliminate ALL of nature's drawbacks.


This could give us the power to ignore them completely and make better use of natures positive aspects, I think that is what we should be aiming for.


Like controlling evolution?


We could still evolve and survive just as fine because as you said it yourself, nothing could stop us anyway.


Yes, correct.


I'm glad you did.


Fun thought experiment, no?

edit on 18-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes, such things aren't celebratory. Though it's not like anyone alive will see what I'm talking about, so what's the point of celebrating it anyways?


All big ideas start small.
Besides, anyone interested in these kinds of things has a chance of arriving at ATS sooner or later.
I know it doesn't really matter, but still.



The pendulum ALWAYS swings back. Our mistakes will still be recognizable.


Eventually, but it might start swinging higher and perhaps also slower, this technology could function as an amplifier of humanity, both the good and the bad.



Yes, we could potentially destroy ourselves tomorrow. But that is another path that would turn out glorious. As long as we don't destroy all life on the planet, evolution will repopulate the earth with new and unique life. Good thing cockroaches are impervious to radiation.


Sure, in the grand scheme of things, everything is as it should be.
Although, let's stay focused on humanity for now.



Actually, yes it does. For one it accounts for all scales.


Again, even small things can have large consequences.
When we're talking about applying changes to the human body, changes our immune systems are not able to deal with for example, it has a chance of starting a chain reaction.
And although our bodies are quite durable, they can sometimes be quite fragile too.
We're talking about ecosystems, it's not something to be reckless with.



No no no. We, as humans will continue to evolve. The evolution will look different, possibly directed by us, but it will definitely still be happening.


I wasn't implying our evolution would come to a halt, on the contrary, it would skyrocket.
But nature always has a plan B at hand and so it creates a steady and reliable progression.
We will only follow one path at a time, so once the pendulum swings the wrong way, how quickly can we change plans without anything else to go by?
I guess this is getting pretty vague, I was actually still talking about whether or not we could get stuck in our ways, without balance, without variety.



Their loss then. There is no way that an individual mind would ever be able to compete with the hive mind. Its intelligence would just FAR surpass anything an individual could throw at it, even the ptb. Money and power would be useless in the face of such overwhelming intelligence.


Well it depends, if they are the ones at the forefront of this technology, they could be able to find ways to use it to their advantage.
They could still be part of the rest of the hive mind, but the rest wouldn't have to be a part of them.
They could place limitations on it, i don't know, lots of things might be possible.



That's how all evolution works. At no point are we allowed to retrace our steps, we are always going forward into the unknown. So we should just embrace any changes that happen to us. No matter how crazy or outside our sensibilities they may be.


I'm perfectly willing to embrace evolution.
It's devolution I'm trying to avoid.



We already do. Or do you think about the plight of growing veal or slaughterhouses? Even if you do think about them, what are you doing to fix it? Eating vegetarian isn't enough, it isn't changing anything. Human sympathy only extends to other humans, and even then that isn't really the case.


I never suggested we should go against nature, that's why I'm not a vegetarian, I'm an omnivore after all.
But we should keep it civilized, not cause any suffering if it is not necessary, and use technology to help us do that, instead of returning to our primal state.

Sympathy is a funny thing, i wonder how it will evolve along with us.
And it doesn't only extend to other humans, it extends to anything we can relate with.

Hehe, maybe that answers it, maybe we will lose cats and dogs and start keeping ants and bees as pets.




Like controlling evolution?


Helping evolution.



Fun thought experiment, no?


Not bad, not bad at all
edit on 18-12-2014 by Skaffa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skaffa
All big ideas start small.
Besides, anyone interested in these kinds of things has a chance of arriving at ATS sooner or later.
I know it doesn't really matter, but still.


I'm here aren't I?



Eventually, but it might start swinging higher and perhaps also slower, this technology could function as an amplifier of humanity, both the good and the bad.


That's how pendulums work. The higher they swing, the slower they go; until they stop and swing in the other direction. Also, that is how technology does work. I took an ethics in computers class in college and we pretty much discussed that technology creates very few NEW problems, but it exacerbates most existing problems exponentially.


Sure, in the grand scheme of things, everything is as it should be.
Although, let's stay focused on humanity for now.


Ok, but keep in mind that focus on humanity is a flawed interpretation. We aren't the center of the universe nor the most important thing in it. Not even close. Such interpretations breed religion as it assumes that we have a destiny and such.


Again, even small things can have large consequences.
When we're talking about applying changes to the human body, changes our immune systems are not able to deal with for example, it has a chance of starting a chain reaction.
And although our bodies are quite durable, they can sometimes be quite fragile too.
We're talking about ecosystems, it's not something to be reckless with.


Well that is a good point. Looking at federal regulations, they are only increasing as far as experimenting on humans is concerned. I work for a medium sized pharmaceutical manufacturing company. FDA likes to regularly come here with a fine toothed comb and make sure we are following everything by the book (yes, there is a book; that isn't a metaphor). We also sell in Europe so the EMA likes coming here too.

Speaking of my company, we get classes on the direction of the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine is plateauing. There are only so many chemical combinations that we can create out of the table of elements, and something like 95%+ of them are rejected by the FDA. Coupled with the generic market, pharmaceutical industries are looking to new horizons to keep making profits. Namely, biotechnology. This stuff is at our doorstep.


I wasn't implying our evolution would come to a halt, on the contrary, it would skyrocket.
But nature always has a plan B at hand and so it creates a steady and reliable progression.
We will only follow one path at a time, so once the pendulum swings the wrong way, how quickly can we change plans without anything else to go by?
I guess this is getting pretty vague, I was actually still talking about whether or not we could get stuck in our ways, without balance, without variety.


Humans would lose their variety so to speak, but in the process would create a new organism that would share ALL of humanity's uniqueness compared to any other life form in the universe. If I were to guess, I'd say that all the life that has ever lived on this planet makes up less than 1% of the total life in the universe. All it would take is one other planet being seeded with life and the diversity there would be incredible as well. Keep doing that for every habitable planet that gets seeded, and that leaves QUITE a bit of room for diversity for humans even if we lose our individual diversity.


Well it depends, if they are the ones at the forefront of this technology, they could be able to find ways to use it to their advantage.
They could still be part of the rest of the hive mind, but the rest wouldn't have to be a part of them.
They could place limitations on it, i don't know, lots of things might be possible.


Fair enough. Thinking along those lines, the ptb would end up splitting the human species into two species. Because the ptb, staying out of the hive mind, but manipulating it would follow a different evolutionary path while the rest of the population would follow their path of being all connected at all times. Eventually the hive mind would grow smart enough and outgrow the ptb, and they'd either have to separate or face annihilation. I just don't see them being compatible for many generations.


I'm perfectly willing to embrace evolution.
It's devolution I'm trying to avoid.


Devolution doesn't exist.


I never suggested we should go against nature, that's why I'm not a vegetarian, I'm an omnivore after all.
But we should keep it civilized, not cause any suffering if it is not necessary, and use technology to help us do that, instead of returning to our primal state.


Technology is just a race to decouple ourselves from nature, so you don't have to worry about returning to a primal state.


Sympathy is a funny thing, i wonder how it will evolve along with us.
And it doesn't only extend to other humans, it extends to anything we can relate with.


That's why dogs, cats, and many other pets that we bond with are some of the forerunners of evolution. They have evolved the ability to coexist happily with humans, while we mostly tolerate them by loving them.


Hehe, maybe that answers it, maybe we will lose cats and dogs and start keeping ants and bees as pets.


Nah, but insects, especially hive insects, would make GREAT biotech workers.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I don't know if such 'zones' would help, but I watch the whole smartphone phenomenon with slight amazement. How often didn't it happen that there'd be a group of people together in a place where they could just talk, but instead starting whatsapping each other! In public transportation and other public places people are glued to these silly devices but I rarely catch anyone reading a book anymore
Or just looking out the window, being in the here and now, looking at the birds or watch the squirrels outside play and chase each other.

I don't think we can do much about it at this point. However, quite often it's rather impolite how people use a smartphone. Maybe smartphone etiquette needs to become more widely accepted as the norm of how one should behave but I wouldn't hope for too much at least in the coming years. If there's a stronger etiquette you actually have a chance to NOT see one of these things for a while...

I admit I like mine too, I for instance use it to read a bit on ATS and other sites. Still I like to think that I'm not as disconnected from my surroundings as many people of my age, who seem disconnected in general. I watch myself.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Ok, but keep in mind that focus on humanity is a flawed interpretation. We aren't the center of the universe nor the most important thing in it. Not even close. Such interpretations breed religion as it assumes that we have a destiny and such.


Of course, but we shouldn't let that stop us from taking care of ourselves.
We're not the center of the universe, but we are still the center of our experience.



Fair enough. Thinking along those lines, the ptb would end up splitting the human species into two species. Because the ptb, staying out of the hive mind, but manipulating it would follow a different evolutionary path while the rest of the population would follow their path of being all connected at all times. Eventually the hive mind would grow smart enough and outgrow the ptb, and they'd either have to separate or face annihilation. I just don't see them being compatible for many generations.


We'll probably be seeing less and less of them as the hive mind matures, although they could still do some damage at first, we should still be keeping an eye on them.

And what would be the longevity of a generation in this scenario?
Humans are already getting older each generation, but with this technology immortality could become possible.
Would we still procreate the way we do now?
Would we still fall In love or would ''making babies'' become nothing more than a necessity?



Devolution doesn't exist.

Technology is just a race to decouple ourselves from nature, so you don't have to worry about returning to a primal state.


Well, we will probably start thinking quite differently, and although some of our human qualities will probably remain, a lot of them will cease because they will lose their foundation.

Our morals could vanish completely simply because we don't need them anymore.

To me, losing these things means degeneration / devolution.



Nah, but insects, especially hive insects, would make GREAT biotech workers.


Call me intrigued, how would this work?

I guess we would be able to create our own robotic ''insects'', we're already seeing the emergence of biorobotics.
This seems more likely in my opinion, unless we learn how to direct and control living insects.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join