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.
I see. If any two Individuals fail to agree on specifics, society cannot exist. Got it. Makes sense to Me.
Um... Sure. We cannot have society. Why bother.
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.
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.
But that just isn't happening. Same shiza different toilet.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
Still Human - as long as the flesh is there.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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...
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?
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
Generalization is, in fact, a specialization if taken too far, and it too goes extinct.
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.
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
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
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by boncho
yea, well somebody has to confront him on the fallacies of what he's selling.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
Legal definitions of the word doesn't change the fact.
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.
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.
Have a nice life.