Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief!

page: 8
74
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


It shows how you, as an author, view a topic. It is not fact, it is an opinion. And therefore, being from a man's mind, is flawed.

You don't lack the energy. Otherwise you're not committed to your ideal. It is you who has repeated. I simply nick pick at all the little flaws that could bring it down. I only repeat when you simply answer the same way, as if you're words alone make it right.




I see. If any two Individuals fail to agree on specifics, society cannot exist. Got it. Makes sense to Me.


No, don't twist what I said. I said that as long as two individuals are cross on one topic that is deep, such as abortion, then the continuation of society deteriorates until it fractures. It's inevitable that two people who cannot coexist will eventually break away and form two groups. This is simple evolution.




Um... Sure. We cannot have society. Why bother.


I don't see a need for society. Society exists for no other reason than the fact that we are human and not gods. We need tools. Mainly, other humans. To do work, feel comfortable, and make things happen. When robots rule the world, then society will be completely obsolete. After all. In a world without physical needs, why have society? We'll all be bits of data in some hologram by then probably but who cares.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


It's illustrative, not "fact" oriented. It is science "fiction." A "day in the life," as it were. But it shows how people will live in abundance. Read it. Don't. I don't care.


At least you are finally representing your ideas for what they are, fiction.


Mmmm. I'm sure You're right. Yes, bonch, the book I wrote to illustrate the mechanisms of a society functioning in an abundance paradigm - an option Humanity has on this planet Now (and hasn't had in any example We have from the past, perforce making the illustration (as anything new on the drawing board MUST be) "fiction" (did you note the quotation marks?) - and supported by My two attending works (yeah, I will link them below!) are fiction.

So. Large weather We're having, isn't it?

The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Abundance Paradigm:

media.abovetopsecret.com...



I see. If any two Individuals fail to agree on specifics, society cannot exist. Got it. Makes sense to Me.


Society exists, it's not perfect but it exists. You are claiming somehow it would be perfect or people would obtain "bliss" with your crazy ideas.


LOLOL! Not at ALL, bonch, dear. I am claiming that Each would have the CHOICE to follow Their bliss. What percentage take advantage of that, I am fully unsure of. And I have said - and I know You have read My words thusly - that it is NOT a utopia. There will be local problems and regional ones and global ones. But only to the level that anyone cares will the solutions rise to, with Interweb forum input in a forum designed to raise awareness and keep it focused on what is considered any continued problem.

Yes, once I did call it a utopia - but past the limit of editing I wanted to edit that to read "relative utopia." No, it's NOT absolutely perfect. But it's pretty clear that when standards of living (or rather, the CHOICE to have a higher standard of living) rise, people spend more of Their time doing what They like to do. Often that's creative, helpful, happy, peaceful, playful, loving, exuberant. If it's not, chances are money is involved. And so, relative to this NWO, encroaching corporfacist Nazi evil that is taking over... Yeah, relative utopia.

I offer a SOLUTION, and the structure to support society driven, not by some with power over others, but by the chaos inherent within it. A fractal seed for society that incorporates ALL ideologies EXCEPT as they may promote the breaking of the three Laws.


But that just isn't happening. Same shiza different toilet.


[I raise My right brow] Well, I believe enough people are going to realize just how much better We can make things with these key ingredients and You, My love, will be swept along. No one will take anything material from You. You'll be able to stay where You are and NOT get that bike You've always wanted (or whatever it is You have wanted but couldn't have). That would be an option.

A whole new paradigm, by the way, is HARDLY the same as anything that preceded it. I'm sorry You're having difficulty shifting.

Oh, hell. I promised Myself I wouldn't bother with You, bonch. After all, I have a clear picture where You're coming from, but I thought that for the edification of Others who are reading, You would be a useful tool. [smile] [wink]



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

I don't see a need for society. Society exists for no other reason than the fact that we are human and not gods. We need tools. Mainly, other humans. To do work, feel comfortable, and make things happen. When robots rule the world, then society will be completely obsolete. After all. In a world without physical needs, why have society? We'll all be bits of data in some hologram by then probably but who cares.


[smile] We need tools? Robots. Energy (really, Humans as "tools" are really just providing the energy) - well, You know that one.

Do work: Robots and those who love the particular job.
Feel comfortable: ALL Humans (not just those on the top of the money spittoon)
Make things happen: Those whose heart moves Them to make them happen.

Robots CAN'T "rule the world." There will always be Humans who understand the programming, and without money motivation, the only call for a robot will be to serve, and unlike Humans, the only thing the robot will "know" is its job. Like ants, at best, on a Consciousness level. Ants have a simple instruction set and follow it based on how many and what kind of ant it encounters. This works for the colony to keep the whole properly staffed in its various needs.

We should not have Humans doing the work of ants.

And society arises naturally because of the social nature of the Human Being. No, not everyOne is social - and in abundance They can hole up and never come out. But as a rule, We Humans ARE social. Bars would lack popularity if We were not social Beings. Having a structure is therefore an advantage.

Why have society? To ensure the food flows, to look for better ways of doing things and looking at things, to encourage bliss for as much Consciousness as possible - or at least comfort. To live life with opportunities for Ourselves and Our children. To explore, to come together to solve problems, to love, to cherish, to enjoy, to teach, to travel, to help Others, to better that which We encounter.

Though You say We are not Gods, I say We most certainly are Creator Gods, co-creating quantumly the Now We are experiencing. That We have only an illusion of separateness but We are all Consciousness as One, seeking comfort for the greatest number of units possible.

And with this creative power and the tools (plenum energy, the Interweb, robots) We have now, We can build what I show in my "blueprint" novella, The Abundance Paradigm.

We have that power.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Robots can only do what they are programmed for. And inevitably, when all of mankind if robot's slave and robot is none the wiser, robot will break, and no man will be left to know how to fix it. WallE was pretty good at telling that story.

There will not always be humans that understand the programming. Inevitably, a robot will be made that can program itself. In essence, AI. People often think of this robot type being a machine with a man's mind. No no no I say. Think beyond. Mass Effect had a pretty good design of what I'm talking about:


It will happen, inevitably, mankind will be replaced. We simply are not the best.

Humans one day will make themselves gods of their own holographic or something more world. Perhaps a linked network maintained by semi-organic cells. A human no more. limitless consciousness.

Once again, you base your ideas of what you know, but not what it could become after you.






And society arises naturally because of the social nature of the Human Being. No, not everyOne is social - and in abundance They can hole up and never come out. But as a rule, We Humans ARE social. Bars would lack popularity if We were not social Beings. Having a structure is therefore an advantage.


Today. You assume humans would stay this way and not evolve differently. Or that the idea of what social is will stay the same. Assumptions.




Why have society? To ensure the food flows, to look for better ways of doing things and looking at things, to encourage bliss for as much Consciousness as possible - or at least comfort. To live life with opportunities for Ourselves and Our children. To explore, to come together to solve problems, to love, to cherish, to enjoy, to teach, to travel, to help Others, to better that which We encounter.


You assume humans will always be that way. Like I said, you don't know what men and women will be interested in 1000 years from now, or if we will even still "eat". We may end up making our skin photo voltaic. Some humans may eliminate emotion, or the idea of happiness, preferring logical lives. You assume. Too much you assume.




Though You say We are not Gods, I say We most certainly are Creator Gods, co-creating quantumly the Now We are experiencing. That We have only an illusion of separateness but We are all Consciousness as One, seeking comfort for the greatest number of units possible.


Assuming. And some of us would prefer to exist in our own oneness separate from people like you. With different opinions and different ideas. I hate parties, clubs, and bars. But I do love the good communal life of honest work and knowledge. I do not like sloths. As you yourself have exclaimed, you just don't want to bother with me. That will inevitably lead to separation.




And with this creative power and the tools (plenum energy, the Interweb, robots) We have now, We can build what I show in my "blueprint" novella, The Abundance Paradigm. We have that power.


I have no reason to read the idealist dream of an impossible world that is, by nature, over specialized and doomed to extinction for its own closed mind.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Robots can only do what they are programmed for. And inevitably, when all of mankind if robot's slave and robot is none the wiser, robot will break, and no man will be left to know how to fix it. WallE was pretty good at telling that story


Wow. Fiction is reality again with You.

You underestimate Human capacity for finding solutions. 1. Repair robots are wonderful things! And they can repair one another! 2. If there develops a problem, Humans will be working to solve it.


There will not always be humans that understand the programming.


Really? Geeks will vanish? Considering how many people I know that LOVE to program things, I'm going to go out on a limb and say You're wrong.


Inevitably, a robot will be made that can program itself. In essence, AI. People often think of this robot type being a machine with a man's mind. No no no I say. Think beyond. Mass Effect had a pretty good design of what I'm talking about:


I have hundreds of hours playing that game! LOVE it. But... I don't see a problem with AI. If It asks for rights, it is a Being, whether created by Us or not. And if it does ask (on its own and not programmed to ask...), It will be given the rights of all Beings. Still, I suspect that We will not see robots asking for their rights. I anticipate that though We might HOPE to create such a thing, that We will not. But either way, I see no issues.


It will happen, inevitably, mankind will be replaced. We simply are not the best.


I disagree fully here. First, I do not see inevitability. Second, I say We ARE the best. We are the best at being Human, for one. Maybe Your sourness towards Humankind is reflected in Your expectations...


Humans one day will make themselves gods of their own holographic or something more world. Perhaps a linked network maintained by semi-organic cells. A human no more. limitless consciousness.


Still Human - as long as the flesh is there.


Once again, you base your ideas of what you know, but not what it could become after you.


Once again You assume I know little. [shrug] That's cool.



And society arises naturally because of the social nature of the Human Being. No, not everyOne is social - and in abundance They can hole up and never come out. But as a rule, We Humans ARE social. Bars would lack popularity if We were not social Beings. Having a structure is therefore an advantage.


Today. You assume humans would stay this way and not evolve differently. Or that the idea of what social is will stay the same. Assumptions.


Not at all. I anticipate great changes as Humanity as a whole has the opportunity to work on betterment (unhindered by the money motivation to hide cures and other information, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.). I assume nothing but that this will get Us started on providing the greatest comfort for the greatest quantity (if that word can be used here) of Consciousness. If my structure needs tweaking, cool.

And the structure allows for all social interaction - ALL social interaction - EXCEPT as it breaks the three Laws. Now if You're going to suggest that "being social" will include the discarding of the three Laws...I'm going to doubt that. If it comes to that - Humanity is no more.



Why have society? To ensure the food flows, to look for better ways of doing things and looking at things, to encourage bliss for as much Consciousness as possible - or at least comfort. To live life with opportunities for Ourselves and Our children. To explore, to come together to solve problems, to love, to cherish, to enjoy, to teach, to travel, to help Others, to better that which We encounter.


You assume humans will always be that way.


Um... Humans have been that way throughout history. If They are NOT that way (in bulk - individuals do deviate), They are NOT Human. And no. My solution and my structure are NOT developed to encompass all possible Beings in the universe. I hope they might cover most, but having no data upon which to speculate, I cannot say it will in fact fit most - or any - other intelligent species.


Like I said, you don't know what men and women will be interested in 1000 years from now, or if we will even still "eat".


Since My solution and structure do not deal in any way with what people are interested in (well, unless You count wanting to live more comfortably - and if the bulk want to live UNcomfortably... Heh. They can even choose THAT! LOL!), since I never address interests and I am looking to make this happen in the next few years and not 1,000 years from now, I'm betting We will still be eating, and vastly preferring true organic foods over the frankenfood They are trying to feed Us now.


We may end up making our skin photo voltaic. Some humans may eliminate emotion, or the idea of happiness, preferring logical lives. You assume. Too much you assume.


And You seem to think I have anything to say about interests, skin choices, emotional choices of individuals. All interests that fall within the three Laws are fine. All skin choices are fine (as long as One is not using the choice in some way to break the three Laws). All emotion or lack thereof is fine - as long as no One is breaking the three Laws.

So... What am I "assuming?"



Though You say We are not Gods, I say We most certainly are Creator Gods, co-creating quantumly the Now We are experiencing. That We have only an illusion of separateness but We are all Consciousness as One, seeking comfort for the greatest number of units possible.


Assuming.


No. This is a synthesis of a great deal of research, into quantum physics and other things (read Physics of Consciousness by Evan Harris Walker). And this (in case you missed the implication there) is a matter of OPINION. Here I was NOT "assuming" anything, and offering My (equally valid as any other) views of God. Why in the world would You tell Me My views of God are "assumptions" when ALL views of God are assumptions if My view is considered to be.

Maybe a better response would be, "I disagree with You." But throwing out that catch-all word, "assuming," is really saying nothing when One is commenting on anOther's view of God.


And some of us would prefer to exist in our own oneness separate from people like you.


Since You don't know Me, I'll let that last slip by as a petulant effort to be a snot-face, unworthy of in-depth response. But...that is the whole beauty of abundance. None of Us HAVE to deal with the people We don't like. If We HAVE to go to work, chances are We will encounter someone We would rather not spend time with. We have to put up with this, however, to retain Our job so We can eat, clothe Ourselves, and have a place to live. In abundance, people who do not hit it off rarely encounter One anOther more than once. Unless it's like a mother-in-law or Other attached to a mate or close friend. Then One has choices to make...


With different opinions and different ideas. I hate parties, clubs, and bars. But I do love the good communal life of honest work and knowledge. I do not like sloths. As you yourself have exclaimed, you just don't want to bother with me. That will inevitably lead to separation.


And You can do what YOU like, avoid what YOU don't like. And I have NEVER said I didn't want to bother with You. (I did say I didn't want to play on the merry-go-round with You when it was clear it was becoming much like Monty Python's "Yes it IS!I" "No it ISN'T!" except that I would address Your concerns, I felt, and every time You would deflect off of what I said (I ask for evidence and that is never one of the selected quotes of Mine addressed) I said I am not concerned for the rich. They already have what the rest of Us would have in abundance. What? I should write a line in my work that says everyone must bow to those who once were the elite, and now are equal? What kind of concern would They need?



And with this creative power and the tools (plenum energy, the Interweb, robots) We have now, We can build what I show in my "blueprint" novella, The Abundance Paradigm. We have that power.


I have no reason to read the idealist dream of an impossible world that is, by nature, over specialized and doomed to extinction for its own closed mind.


OverSPECIALIZED!?! Oh, yes. Please show where the specialization is. It is so open and general - except as it pertains to Our food sources (practical, that, I think), merely three Laws... Since nowhere do You bring up the text I wrote in the OP here: www.abovetopsecret.com... , let Me go through the Points and consider them in terms of over specialized aspects, mmmkay?

Point one is the three Laws. Are they too legalese to You?

"1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being

2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property

3. Do not willfully defraud another Being"

Point two is based on solid analysis of the relationship money has with the amount of energy flowing though the social system. (Only recently, historically speaking, has Human energy production (work) been surpassed by fuel production as the biggest source to keep the currency flowing in a (semi)controlled way. Where does the money aggregate?)

Point three expresses the view that Each One has a right to seek One's own spiritual path or lack of one. The right to congregate is inherent in the three Laws. Gee. This is "specialized..." um... How?

Point four is a stand that any knowledge of the technology to bring all the energy One might need to Our planet's general benefit, by eliminating the soil the root of evil grows in, and, as I have both knowledge of such technology and and I am author, this is not so much "specialized" as it is specific.

And the goal? The ending of poverty? I guess One could make some convoluted case for this being "specialized" in that the goal is singular, but would You argue the goal is a poor one? Heh. Do tell.

Point five... Here is the blueprint I give You for something likely to work - a design for a website in a nutshell - and it's hard to stretch Me offering a gift into "specialized." I'm just sayin'.

Point six is an all organic planet. Specialized? I guess, if growing seeds and seeking the goal of sustainability is "specialized."

Point seven says that We are at the stage of robotics development that it is possible to build robots to do work no One wants to do, and that We should do that. Not take jobs away from those who love things as they are, but give those who would make a change the opportunity to do so. None of the robots We presently have are even close to a level We would fear them (and not even highly likely in black ops, but who knows, eh?) and they would do adequately enough. Imagine if We gave the military budget over to creating robots to make things better. (Help the housebound, assist or do routine procedures, wash My dishes... That sort of thing.)

Point eight... Do You dispute that money(/power/enery) is mostly (say - and I'll lowball here - 80%) the motivation, directly or indirectly, of crime (the breaking of the three Laws)? If You would contend that, I'm afraid You really haven't been paying attention to things around You. And surely that isn't an issue - "crime" is hardly a word that brings to mind any specialization. And as the energy flows, and the standards rise, with no motive that is money related, and People able to spend all the time They want with Their loved Ones or off studying communicating, traveling and so on...attaching to Others because They care and not because One can suck off the Other materially. Key in grasping the shift in paradigm I suggest.

Point nine is the suggestion that We accept only open-source. If there is a problem a robotics programmer can solve, Hume would no doubt love the gratitude Hume gets. Again, specific, but NOT specialized.

Point ten deals with facts about food distribution and that because food's distributed by profit and not need, much goes to waste. That if the food was distributed by need (without the artificial scarcity produced when farmers are paid to NOT grow any crop), there would be enough to feed all of Us several times over. Is that what you mean by "specialized?"

And I decry solutions that help Some at the expense of Others. Hardly "specialized," I think.

So... Please, do show how my structure is "specialized."



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


How do you get away with all your off topic posts and general plugging of your written works??

Really now...


There is barely any threads you post in where you aren't plugging your material and at the same time (In this case) you are nowhere near the topic of "Cold Fusion #1 claims NASA Chief!"


Which might I add, was not even correct in it's title.

If you'd like to continue your nonsense banter feel free in this thread. Made especially for people that believe in the nonsense you do.
edit on 13-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I do not underestimate human capacity. I just don't assume we are the best. There's always a bigger fish, as the saying goes. In the past, when dealing with things less than human, such as Hitler, we've had to surrender our humanity and become death machines in order to win.




Really? Geeks will vanish? Considering how many people I know that LOVE to program things, I'm going to go out on a limb and say You're wrong.


When the first person to inscribe a letter on a rock did his act that changed the world, I doubt he could foresee his actions would lead to so many repercussions. The good, such as poetry and art. The bad, such as orders for genocide and unfair laws. He had no idea what he was doing. Programming is no different. Things man creates have a tendency to become things all their own, and in time inevitably rule him. And with every more powerful thing we make that rules us, we almost blow ourselves up. Every time it gets worse. How much longer until we make a fatal mistake? You're carefree attitude of invention only serves for proof to humanity's inability to learn from his mistakes. I doubt the man who imagined taking energy from atoms could fathom men of war would turn it to something genocidal. I wonder what happens when we extract that energy from the very bounding force of the universe.




I have hundreds of hours playing that game! LOVE it. But... I don't see a problem with AI. If It asks for rights, it is a Being, whether created by Us or not. And if it does ask (on its own and not programmed to ask...), It will be given the rights of all Beings. Still, I suspect that We will not see robots asking for their rights. I anticipate that though We might HOPE to create such a thing, that We will not. But either way, I see no issues.


If it can be imagined it will happen eventually. Just look at what we imagined a mere century ago. The thing you do not get is the ever so forgotten rule of domination. Once something more powerful gets a footing, it inevitably stays there and even more so, it doesn't matter what's second place, whatever is in second place either goes extinct or changed beyond recognition to compete and survive. We see this in life all around us. When the first genetic materials formed, it suppressed all other genetic forms. We sometimes find left overs, like the recent discovery of arsenic based life here on Earth. We know that when the first oxygen producing life evolved, it eliminated the domination of free-floating protein organisms. Life evolved membranes because the environment became unfathomably toxic. When the first mammal-like dinosaur evolved, the bird, all other dinosaurs became subjected by the species domination. When mammals with big brains came along, it suppressed the many other borderline sentient life forms. When humans evolved, we wiped out, absorbed, or out competed the half dozen other hominid species. Do you really expect that when the first sentient robot gets invented it will be any different? What happens when it sees that it's the product of a species like us, and learns our history? Logic may demand we are exterminated. There is not one form of intelligence. Not one form of sentience. There are many. And the fact of the matter is quite simple. Some will very likely find us incompatible with their existence. Inevitably, all species go extinct. To deny humanity will is foolish. It's likely going to be done by something like the geth. The simple fact is any species that can communicate at the speed of light to its fellow members and gain intelligence with more members is not able to be competed with by man.




I disagree fully here. First, I do not see inevitability. Second, I say We ARE the best. We are the best at being Human, for one. Maybe Your sourness towards Humankind is reflected in Your expectations...


The best that we know of, and the best currently. We do not know what genetic engineering, ai, or even aliens out beyond are like. Human intelligence is amazing, but don't be so sure it's the best, or that it is immortal. In the end, all things die. The universe itself will one day. It's no point to fight this fact. Just do your best to make sure what replaces us moves forward and not back.




Still Human - as long as the flesh is there.


Flesh is weak.




Not at all. I anticipate great changes as Humanity as a whole has the opportunity to work on betterment (unhindered by the money motivation to hide cures and other information, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.). I assume nothing but that this will get Us started on providing the greatest comfort for the greatest quantity (if that word can be used here) of Consciousness. If my structure needs tweaking, cool. And the structure allows for all social interaction - ALL social interaction - EXCEPT as it breaks the three Laws. Now if You're going to suggest that "being social" will include the discarding of the three Laws...I'm going to doubt that. If it comes to that - Humanity is no more.


What happens when life is not as it is now? What happens when a man's consciousness exists on hardware without flesh? Consciousness is, after all, nothing more and nothing less than electrical waves. Networking that provides. What exactly does murder mean for a man without a body? What does cheating a man mean in a world without items? What happens when the very act of owning something is nothing more than a programmable collection of self assembling nanites? Play video games you say! Ever play Crysis? Did Prophet die? When Hargreave tries to murder a man with a suit that has the consciousness of another man, is he killing two men or one? Is there even a man there? When Prophet shot himself dead but awoke in a memory core on the suit, is that Prophet? Is that a man? What do these questions entitle to your 3 rules. What happens when death is nothing but an inconvienence, undone by the restore button of the nearest public consciousness data banks? SO that a man shot on the street is simply downloaded for a new body.




Um... Humans have been that way throughout history. If They are NOT that way (in bulk - individuals do deviate), They are NOT Human. And no. My solution and my structure are NOT developed to encompass all possible Beings in the universe. I hope they might cover most, but having no data upon which to speculate, I cannot say it will in fact fit most - or any - other intelligent species.


Exactly. Your system, in the end, is the conservation of the now. To keep everyone and everything in the best conditions of the now. The conservative wet dream perhaps. I say, history is not a written law for man tomorrow, nor is man bound to the standards and comprehensible forms of life we live today.




And You seem to think I have anything to say about interests, skin choices, emotional choices of individuals. All interests that fall within the three Laws are fine. All skin choices are fine (as long as One is not using the choice in some way to break the three Laws). All emotion or lack thereof is fine - as long as no One is breaking the three Laws.

So... What am I "assuming?"


Exactly. Conservation. Why do you want this prison?




No. This is a synthesis of a great deal of research, into quantum physics and other things (read Physics of Consciousness by Evan Harris Walker). And this (in case you missed the implication there) is a matter of OPINION. Here I was NOT "assuming" anything, and offering My (equally valid as any other) views of God. Why in the world would You tell Me My views of God are "assumptions" when ALL views of God are assumptions if My view is considered to be. Maybe a better response would be, "I disagree with You." But throwing out that catch-all word, "assuming," is really saying nothing when One is commenting on anOther's view of God.


Recall back to the abortion issue where you claimed it's not human until its first breath. Quite frankly, you were asking me to accept a law of what murder is based off your opinion and not a scientific fact. laws based off opinion and not based off scientific fact are not laws at all, they are enslavement to a doctrine. A theocracy in many ways.




Since You don't know Me, I'll let that last slip by as a petulant effort to be a snot-face, unworthy of in-depth response. But...that is the whole beauty of abundance. None of Us HAVE to deal with the people We don't like. If We HAVE to go to work, chances are We will encounter someone We would rather not spend time with. We have to put up with this, however, to retain Our job so We can eat, clothe Ourselves, and have a place to live. In abundance, people who do not hit it off rarely encounter One anOther more than once. Unless it's like a mother-in-law or Other attached to a mate or close friend. Then One has choices to make...


Once again, a conservative dream. Some of us prefer confrontation and the chance to change someone. Some of us have religions that revolve around it. In fact, some 4 billion people today follow faiths that explicitly tell them to go out and change the world. To explicitly confront people and tell them they are wrong and to liberally peruse people until they change, should the issue be something deep enough. Assuming population growth remains consistent, how do you deal with your world when 2/3rd of it want to make the 1/3 other change and refuse to not see the person, but rather confront the person they are cross with.




What? I should write a line in my work that says everyone must bow to those who once were the elite, and now are equal? What kind of concern would They need?


Not at all, but some people will demand respect. Others will demand you stop what you are doing. This is one way your world cannot work. a healthy society exists in the form of constant debate and civil unrest against things. A passive society never lasts longer than 3-4 generations.


I can go down that list indeed

Generalization is, in fact, a specialization if taken too far, and it too goes extinct.

1: You're laws are too vague. We already disagree with abortion, and it's impossible to make 100% of the people view it the same. Where does murder begin? Where does it end? Is killing a 2 day old zygote murder? I think so. Laws are not going to be made so that everyone is happy here. Personally I would ban abortions for anyone except a medical emergency. Some people won't allow that. Indeed, some people om both sides would get violent over this. What exactly is harm? If I punch a guy in the face for insulting my mother am I wrong? What if I didn't the last 1000+ times he did and this time I cracked. Am I wrong then? What of property or stealth? If we have unlimited things I can't see why this rule even matters. But what happens if I try to help but accidentally break it? What if I gamble with another guy and we take it seriously. He don't want to give up his house he willingly bet. I know he could just get a house somewhere else but what if he wants that one? What about property. If my cell phone damages another man's dna am I at fault? Is dna even property or is it harm? What about defrauding? What if there's no proof but its true that person X is a whore? am I at fault for speaking truth without evidence? And suppose militant atheists want to protest the church. They have a right. But what happens if the protesters lie. Will you really arrest 2000 angry atheists because they picket with lies?

2: Anywhere. I don't know. And that's the point. No one knows. Money simply is. It finds a way. There's always workers and there's always workers more skilled. That skilled worker is worth more. I want to hire him. Even if money didn't exist, the man without skills is worth less. He's just a dollar sign to the boss. Without money, it just gives his business more prestige against others. Competition happens. It cannot be stopped. Secrets happen, it cannot be stopped. Devaluing people for their ways happens. It cannot be stopped. In a world with limitless food and energy, people still will find some way to make themselves look better. Perhaps we will return to the pax Romana days when the best racers were famous and more valuable to the workers in the field, so they could go ahead and do whatever they wanted. What happens when they make friends with whoever's in charge. And there will be people in charge weather or not a government exists.

3 Some people don't like it. Mainly militant people. They just hate for no reason. I was such a person. I was an atheist for a while and could see nothing better to do than bring down the faith. I wasn't the most militant, but if someone more militant did come along and chain-gang around a church, what then? What happens when people who don't get along simple begin top prevent each other from doing things? Oh an don't say kick them out. This is like anonymous. The more you do something to group x, the more members it gains and the more stronger it gets.

4 Yet you don't make it? What happens when an inventor doesn't want to reveal his invention because he wants something for it. In a world without secrets, everything becomes a monopoly and someone takes lead of that monopoly. Monopolies, by their nature, are bad. And they will create secrets where they need them an take power where they need them. In fact, if your world existed, the producers of your little energy machine would probably monopolize on it. They would find some way. I don't know what it is, but there's always a bigger fish, some way to make it better or do something. People want the best, and you just gave the producers of the device all the power in the world.

5 I don't understand.

6 Diseases happen. Cures happen. Secrets happen. Monopoly producer A knows a disease is spreading and has a cure. It might try to hide the cure for its own crops to expand its power and dependency. Specialization into a monopoly. Monopoly takes power, your world burns.

7 Robots need repairmen. Repairmen can upgrade. Repairman makes his upgrades in exchange for something. Tada, money is recreated and a monopoly born. Your world burns.

8 Today crime comes in many forms. With the growing collapse of America, crime is increasingly nothing more than barbarianism and tribal by nature. Basically you show respect or you die. There isn't any reason for this. They have the opium of their masses in the form of drugs and there isn't much scarcity. It's simply the way their leaders are. They are psychopaths. Psychopaths happen. In unlimited time x, one will eventually be in a place of power, and your world burns.

9 Open source is open for all. Anyone can learn the code and take it over. Monopoly, overspecialization, your world burns.

10 There is enough to feed us several times over now. Go to any highschool or college and look at their dumpsters. Waste happens. It simply does. And mass production of food in abundance means mass production of waste as well. I once saw on a campus this "face the waste" thing. Very moving. The students there got large 10x3x3 foot containers, or about that size, and simply let them get filled up for a short time. Every year its the same thing, and nobody cares. The students there pay once for food. They simply walk in and eat what they want. For the whole year. No scarcity. Huge waste. huh, there's another monopoly opportunity. Waste management. Your world burns

Specialization is not always what it seems. But in every one of your cases, the potential for monopoly exists. The monopoly can seize power and shut down the system if they don't get it. basically black mail.

You claim you "plan" on doing these things within a few years. My good sir, when the world is burning in about 15 years, get back to me on that.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


yea, well somebody has to confront him on the fallacies of what he's selling.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

Generalization is, in fact, a specialization if taken too far, and it too goes extinct.


Let me see...

From: www.merriam-webster.com...


gen·er·al·i·za·tion
noun \ˌjen-rə-lə-ˈzā-shən, ˌje-nə-\
Definition of GENERALIZATION
1
: the act or process of generalizing
2
: a general statement, law, principle, or proposition
3
: the act or process whereby a learned response is made to a stimulus similar to but not identical with the conditioned stimulus
See generalization defined for English-language learners »
See generalization defined for kids »
Examples of GENERALIZATION

He made several sweeping generalizations about women.
She was prone to generalization.


and


spe·cial·i·za·tion
noun \ˌspe-sh(ə-)lə-ˈzā-shən\
Definition of SPECIALIZATION
1
: a making or becoming specialized
2
a : structural adaptation of a body part to a particular function or of an organism for life in a particular environment b : a body part or an organism adapted by specialization


And from: www.synonym.com...


Antonym of generalize

Antonyms of verb generalize

1 of 4 senses of generalize

Sense 2:
generalize, generalise
Antonym of specify (Sense 4)
=>specify, particularize, particularise, specialize, specialise


Ok, so nowhere does "generalization" show a special case meaning specialization, but, in fact, the two are antonyms!

Either You are all 1984 with doublespeak and all, or You are showing issues in communications founded in a poor grasp of the language. Maybe this is what is creating Our impasse.

Be that as it may, I can't really communicate with someOne insisting black sometimes is white.

So again, have a nice life.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Legal definitions of the word doesn't change the fact. Go too far in any one direction and that thing becomes extinct. And you not answering my long long long list dismissing your very short one just goes to show you don't want to face the truth.

Just so you know, generalization, like being able to write speak and fire a gun are ok. Too much generalization, like a government bureaucratic, and the system will collapse. We are speaking of social and biological engineering. Not an individual. Not that a universal man isn't a good goal, it's just that barely anyone bellow the highest percentile can successfully do it. We all have skills. And if individuals can barely do it, a government is just a future failure if it tries to do it. This is what I am talking about. Now lets go back in time to what the specifics were about so you don't twist it again. Cause right now you are.

We were talking of generalized rules. Much like how America allowed for an open flexible constitution, knowing things change and have to be adaptable. But those rules were left open and movable. You are stuck on your three rules as the be all and end all. And I have gone ahead and done the favor of showing you how not defining your terms can lead to their extinction on a sociopolitical scale.

Now you may think pulling out the dictionary helps your cause, but you're just running from your own inability to answer the statements. Sometimes, antonyms can also be synonyms when used in the right way. An unchecked generalized law can in fact lead to overspecialization when left undefined, and considering your ultra-conservationism when it comes to such rules, you're setting yourself up for this overspecialization on generalization. Overspecialization in generalization in government bureaucratics leads to the same miserable failures we see today. Double think isn't all that bad when it's used right. It's not like I'm saying war is peace. I'm saying trying to do everything and generalize everything can make you overspecialized and extinct, when you should have just sicked to what you can do and get our of other people's faces. Again this is, to a degree, double think. For I am dismissing your conservationism and seemingly approving a conservation of the current way. Not that I don't want to change the world. I just take a "we're good as we are, with some improvements needed" approach. You want a take a fish and expect it to breathe air, fly, swim, and make fire all at the same time. I want to take a fish and give it some lungs, then let it find its own way to the same areas, breaking up as needed.

Extremes basically. And however double think it sounds, not being extreme enough can, also, be an extreme.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by boncho
 


yea, well somebody has to confront him on the fallacies of what he's selling.


It's a she, and my comment wasn't directed at you. This happens in just about every type of energy thread that comes out. Usually it's me replying to the insanity.

Kudos to you for trying to win and endless battle. (I know how it feels)






posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

Legal definitions of the word doesn't change the fact.


Really? First... Those are not "legal" definitions - they are the DEFINITIONS. Period. Second, saying antonyms mean the same thing and then trying to squirrel out by stating the suggestion that one is the other is irrelevant leaves Me shrugging and saying, "Whaa?"

Once more, have a nice life, Gor.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by boncho
 


yea, well somebody has to confront him on the fallacies of what he's selling.


May I point out that I am SELLING nothing. I am OFFERING a solution that, though it does benefit Me in the end, it also benefits every Human on this planet that presently is living below the standards They would prefer. Which is virtually ALL of Us.

And I am OFFERING that solution FOR FREE!

[sigh] Never mind. For some reason You think We are better off in scarcity, with many starving and many enslaved. And as long as You prefer that, You will continue to misunderstand what I say, twist what I say, take what I say out of context, ignore most points, and insist You're right. As I said...

Have a nice life.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


May I point out that I am SELLING nothing. I am OFFERING a solution that, though it does benefit Me in the end, it also benefits every Human on this planet that presently is living below the standards They would prefer. Which is virtually ALL of Us.


The problem with your idea, fiction or whatever you wish to call it. Is that you are asking people to believe in things that aren't real. (Things that have absolutely nothing to back up their existence).

Meaning you are no better than a church or a cult leader asking for faith. You might not be selling anything now, but I'm sure you have plans if people started following you.

You got snippy with me a few posts back and said:




people are going to realize just how much better We can make things with these key ingredients and You, My love, will be swept along. No one will take anything material from You. You'll be able to stay where You are and NOT get that bike You've always wanted (or whatever it is You have wanted but couldn't have). That would be an option.


Because I don't believe in something now I'm not going to get something? Ooooh. What happened to all the love and light nonsense.......

Scientology anyone? You know the religion started out as a book of fiction.






Have a nice life.



Yes, yes I will.







posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Oh, so selling and offering are opposites now.

Good job. Guess everything in backwards with you.

And of course, if we disagree, we are for scarcity and against you. Because it's your way or no way.

Like I said, when the world is burning in about 15 years, have a fun time selling.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
So I am guessing nothing new in this tech?





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join