the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Lucky Sevens Candidate | joined 23 Jun 2006 | 16

posted 27 Jun 2006, 08:06 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

Assuming some care is taken in how it is applied and what traits are selected to enhance, many of the concerns people have regarding genetic manipulation are terribly shortsighted. At this moment in time, even the best humans have a significant lack of foresight and, if this were left unchanged, would perhaps eventually lead to some cataclysmic event. However, what we are talking about creating is a positive feedback system. Smarter humans can create better techniques to manipulate genes, and use existing ones in a more thoughtful manner to prevent flaws from surfacing. Better techniques and better planning then allow us to produce even more sophisticated (i.e. intelligent, healthy, etc.) humans, who in turn can do even better, and so on. As things stand now, I'd be more worried about the consequences of forsaking these sorts of genetic developments and instead (as we seem compelled to do) focusing on creating ever-smarter machines. After all, the premise of [i:rxx4icfn]The Matrix[/i:rxx4icfn] really isn't so impossible in many respects. If humans fall behind machines in sophistication (something which is already beginning to be proven to be the case), they are leaving themselves much more vulnerable to being usurped as the dominant species on this (or any) planet. Evolutionarily fit indeed, heh. In short, smarter people plan better. view post

posted 29 Jun 2006, 04:06 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

At this point in time, you are quite right. Although it's an exponential feedback loop, it's most certainly not easy to start up. As for selective breeding, I guess one could do that, and it might have some small measure of success, though it's a bit too messy of a process for my tastes. Might as well just start dumping amino acids and random proteins together and hope a perfect human walks out ready to roll. view post

posted 14 Jan 2007, 10:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished.. few questions. by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

It's not so much that the goal was his father's death, although he began his journey being sent for that purpose. The Thousandfold Thought itself seems to be a modified version of the probability trance, and Kellhus mastered it much better than his father did. Through this, Kellhus has predicted all (or at least most) possible chains of events. The ones where his father was allowed to live all ended badly (i.e. the end of the world). The most likely of these chains was where his father, finally understanding the state of his own damnation due to his acts of sin driven by amorality, joins the Consult in their goal of sealing off the world from the Outside. By killing him, he prevented this. I recommend you read the books again. Your questions show some fundamental misunderstandings about several important points: 1) Lust for power was never an issue. 2) They could in theory help each other, but they wouldn't. Kellhus has gained the ability to believe; his father is utterly logic-bound, and heading in the same direction as the Consult. 3) Kellhus was the one who compared the Dunyain and the Consult. 4) Kellhus' goals are diametrically opposed to the Consult's. 5) His becoming the Aspect-Emperor is not directly related to the Second Apocalypse. 6) Kellhus is/was a harbinger of the Second Apocalypse. A harbinger is a person or thing that announces the coming of something. It does not imply he supports evil. view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 15:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtIs No-God an Apache Attack Helicopter? by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

Why wouldn't it make sense? The Inchoroi don't draw the same kinds of distinctions between natural and artificial that you and I might. They have done so much genetic and other engineering on themselves (their "original" forms couldn't even produce a communicable language) that they themselves are practically artificial in nature. With this in mind, they likely view their creation, the No-God, as a being closer to the ideal they strive for than they are, and so feel awe towards it. view post

posted 17 Nov 2007, 15:11 in Philosophy DiscussionAre depressed people more realistic? by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

What a depressed or manic individual lacks is the ability to accurately distinguish between negative and positive circumstances. As long as life proceeds according to the model one has set up internally, everything is great, but it is a rigid model, and life is full of vicissitudes. That said, depressives are probably more in line with reality due to the influence of attitude on results, especially in social situations. Both mania and depression tend to make life worse, but manics are constantly blindsided by the barrage of negative consequences, while depressives were expecting them all along, and this reinforces their depression. These are both clinical disorders that interfere with one's ability to function. In effect, in order to rationalize their own perspective, either side has to blithely ignore aspects of reality, which means that even when one is correct, it is only by chance. Optimism and pessimism are much weaker forms of these. In nature, realism (the neutral state which unbiasedly uses observation to guide outlook) is probably best in terms of effectiveness, when both survival and success are at stake. In society, it's a toss up between realism and optimism. view post

posted 20 Nov 2007, 08:11 in Philosophy DiscussionPersonal Identity by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

These have reasonably objective answers: While we are alive, we are changing. Our brains are storehouses for our memories. Our memories (both conscious and unconscious) allow us to know, or at least be, what we've been, and thus change only in a limited fashion. What defines us is continuity, which is more-or-less the same as a soul. There are various mental tricks to get at these conclusions; one is to imagine a machine that can make a perfect copy of you. Is the copy you? Another is to imagine a ship that has its planks replaced one by one over the course of years, until none of the original bits are left. Is it the same ship? That's what happens to you. There are certainly other schools of thought, but I've always preferred definitions that are more of an operational bent than theoretical. view post

posted 27 Nov 2007, 00:11 in Philosophy DiscussionPersonal Identity by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

[quote="jub":1ym1vyc5]So, you believe in life after death; or are you refering to 'soul' as a means for definition?[/quote:1ym1vyc5] A soul is the linear and continuous progression of oneself; death is a break in that continuity. [quote="jub":1ym1vyc5]So if I am a continuity of (you have yet to explain), and someone makes an exact copy of me, with the same memories of the same experiences, would that mean there are two of me now?[/quote:1ym1vyc5] No, there would be one you, and another who is very much like you. If nothing else, they occupy a different space than you, and begin to have divergent experiences the moment they are created. view post

posted 29 Nov 2007, 10:11 in Philosophy DiscussionPersonal Identity by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

[quote="jub":i4n9lhtq][quote="Lucky Sevens":i4n9lhtq] No, there would be one you, and another who is very much like you. If nothing else, they occupy a different space than you, and begin to have divergent experiences the moment they are created.[/quote:i4n9lhtq] Then we are a compilatoin of past experiences, nothing more?[/quote:i4n9lhtq] No. Experiences are just one way in which we may differ, but they are indicators of other more subtle changes that can occur. In reality, we are past experiences, current environment, genes, and their epigenetic modifications. view post

posted 29 Nov 2007, 17:11 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

Perhaps choice is more the recognition of an individual the potential to act, or not act, independent of the probability of taking that action and any attributable causes behind it. view post

posted 02 Dec 2007, 20:12 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

While it is easy to point out examples that have taken a deterministic course, I think that proving 100% causality (i.e. no external influences or errors) is impossible. As it was pointed out, we do not need to have full control over every thought we have in order to have choice, just a slight nudge in one direction or another. If something such as a "soul" that can influence the paths of electrical charge in the brain exists, it would allow for this possibility. My point is that as long as there is error, there can be no meaningful discussion of determinism's authority. view post

posted 10 Dec 2007, 07:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished Thousandfold Thought by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

The Thousandfold Thought is not what has been said. It is the particular path that the people of the world must follow (involving a rewriting of their beliefs and values) in order to survive the Second Apocalypse and prevent the fruition of the Consult's plans. It is accessed partially through the Probability Trance, and partly by faith (as it requires some intuitive leaping ability). It is also seemingly not bound by standard models of [url=]causality[/url:3uyxfcn2]. view post

posted 11 Dec 2007, 01:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished Thousandfold Thought by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

Cohen, what you were describing is simply the Probability Trance, which is by no means the Thousandfold Thought. It is a tree, warring as it grows in all directions. The definition is the result. It is an inspiration, an idea that conditions the ground they walk on. This is not opinion, this is what the book directly states. view post

posted 11 Dec 2007, 09:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAkka by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

I knew it. view post

posted 11 Dec 2007, 23:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtInchoroi: Aliens or Demons? by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

[quote="amodman":36prsrc3]The Synthese spoke to Kellhus of once having massive amounts of power, blotting out planets and life with his fingertips. This could either mean shaping the Universe with their highly advanced technologies [i:36prsrc3]or[/i:36prsrc3] literally being imbued with a level or Arcane or Supernatural power that allowed them to do these things.[/quote:36prsrc3] I took this to mean he came in a spaceship and saw the planet from so far away he could use his thumb to blot out the image of it through a window. Also, the Inchoroi did not possess arcane power before they joined with a Gnostic school. view post

posted 12 Dec 2007, 08:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished Thousandfold Thought by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

I don't understand why no one seems to understand. :? view post

posted 12 Dec 2007, 18:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished Thousandfold Thought by Lucky Sevens, Candidate

I'd prefer to leave the crawling to you. While you're down there, try to learn a little respect. In more technical terminology, the Thousandfold Thought is a meme complex. :P view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.