WonSul

90% of the human population knows what Steam is? Sounds to me like a part of the problem is your generalizations. It really shouldn't be a surprise that other people have different interests. You know about Steam and likely about modern computer games but I doubt you know of a good routine for endurance training and what foods to eat to help in that regard. The number of sets and reps, the time it should be done and the frequency of workouts. Do you know how to score in a competitive game of soccer or properly do a tackle in American Football. Can you do a spike in Volleyball or a serve in Tennis? Besides there's no way for you to know that you're the only that does this or that in your entire school. Not all people are forthcoming. And going with the flow of your peers is often easy to do so as not to create some kind of conflict. If it really bothers you, then broaden the horizons of your immediate friends by properly introducing them to the things that "90% of the bloody human population" knows but they do not. '

Just finished watching it. The Game music remix site that was mentioned is OCRemix. I go there pretty regularly so it instantly rang a bell. http://ocremix.org/ Stands for OverClocked Remix. A link in case Scott decides to revisit this thread for any reason. I found the microphone discussion to be pretty interesting as I'm looking for a microphone that I'll be able to record my music with. I was thinking of something decently advanced but with noise in other rooms, it may be better to go with something mediocre. But I don't know. A voice and an instrument have pretty different range over all.

In my opinion we are. I think we are still the same people described in the bible, still the same as the old romans and undoubtly still the same as the Nazis. I think any similarities to those examples in today's world is more the exception to the rule than the general status.

Let's look at it this way: Why do we even have wars? Disagreement in culture, rights, etc and the surge for power Would a smarter person disagree with us? Most likely Do smarter people want power? I think it depends on not intelligence but corruption or disagreement. See first point. Even without wars, wouldn't we vanish steadily just like post above yours if we allow a smarter human species to reproduce. Remember neanderthals? I think there is only one place for an intelligent and social species on a planet. By the way I should publish that theory with support if no one did yet . The one intelligent social species on the planet theory. If our fate is to become a new species through interbreeding with our own creations I can't say I particularly care. It's not a very appealing prospect to me due to the almost 100% guarantee that the enhanced humans would have flaws because of a lack of complete understanding of Genetics and it's modification. The kind of flaws I'm talking about are of course significant flaws that may mean the difference between a species that is adaptable, fertile, and able to handle the tests of time and one that cannot. I think the chance of the engineers missing something that could lead to impotence for the new species after 5-6 generations is just far too possible. With those kinds of errors as a possibility, there is no point to making an attempt beyond gathering data. As far as "the post above mine" went. It's ridiculous to assume that enhanced humans would kill us, enslave us, or be that hostile. If you're trying to use Neanderthals as an example then a flaw is already present. As it is unknown what exactly caused the Neanderthals disappearance. There is only speculation. Interbreeding, conflict due to competition, and/or a lack of ability to adapt to the environmental changes that took place over that time. Depending on which you go with it, it makes a very very big difference. The other problem is that we are not a technologically deficient species. Nor are we unable to communicate with each other. It's not like the enhanced humans would simply be thrown out in to the wild to see what happens. Their education would be handled by humans. Taking care of them would be handled by humans. Their experiences and influences would for the most part be, with humans. And people aren't simply their genetic predispositions, for the most part, they are their experiences, influences, the decisions they make and the conclusions they come to. Those things alone make the Neanderthal comparison obsolete. I think it's unreasonable to assume that Human's are still the exact same as they were tens of thousands of years ago.

Where is this notion of destruction coming from? The greatest minds in our world aren't the largest portion of killers and destruction seeking maniacs. And does seeing something inferior make you want to kill it? I don't know of anyone within my relations that has felt that way about any disabled person, whether within my relations or outside of it. A disabled person is cared for, not sent to execution. Or at least that is the modern world.

I'm not a deist, not by the definition you gave. Anyway, what I am or am not is off topic.

The thing that was under unstable conditions is the universe. I thought that was a given since I was talking about the Universe currently expanding and the Universe having a uniform background microwave radiation that is dissipating. Also, I'm not an Atheist.

Albinoni - Adagio in G Minor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spBOZa87xIY

Apparently twins aren't genetically identical. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215121214.htm Anyway, From what I understand of cloning, the problem is that the age of whatever is being cloned is also a factor. When I was studying High school biology I remember an example were the animal they cloned was already pretty old so the clone also didn't live long. This was related to cell division. I think it was called Telomeres. As the cells divide the telomeres get shorter. The problem being that the cells used to create the clone would come from an older sample with already short telomeres. So the number of times the cells can divide for the clone is already shortened. As far as the morality goes. I don't think cloning should be done beyond growing replacement body parts like limbs and organs. but not brains or entire beings. And creating entirely new species is going to backfire in most cases. Mutation is a genuine cause of evolution. Once the organism mutates, it will no longer do what it was designed to. Recreating extinct species is also a problem. As that could devastate current ecosystems. and then what? recreate all the species that went extinct because of the stupidity of the people involved. Sounds like constant work without any chance of long term success.

But in the theory there is no time, nor general relation in the compressed universe. And if the universe can't stay under those conditions then why did it? I sometimes wonder if your actually reading what I write before you respond to it. The universe did not stay under those conditions. That was the point, it was conditions it could not stay at and so it expanded. That was the start of time. 1.Unstable condition. 2. expansion in order to reach a more stable condition. I think it is, that was the point of an unstable initial condition. Like how Liquid Nitrogen cannot stay liquid under STP conditions. It's past it's boiling point.

I wasn't talking about the cause. Actually I don't think I even mentioned a cause at all yet. What department that professor was in? Geo science. Or Earth science if you prefer. I don't know what the Big Bang theory states as the cause. I'm not an expert on the theory. Nor do I know it in detail. What I do know is the red shifts and the background radiation. If you playback the expanding universe and the background radiation to the start. The starting state of the universe is not stable. It's under a lot of pressure, at very high temperature and is compressed to a small volume. There is no need for a spark or anything of that nature, as the conditions themselves are a cause. The universe cannot stay under those conditions and since the pressure and temperature cannot decrease, the volume must increase. That's what the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume suggests.

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization. Are you suggesting that the Big Bang came from a logical impossibility? What? No, I was talking about how my professor related the question of "what came before the big bang" to a logical impossibility. That since time starts with the big bang, there cannot be anything before. As that would be asking what comes before time.

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization.

Eternal force? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this. Is this trying to answer the "what came before god?" concept I mentioned?

The Big Bang is just a theory. But considering the information we have to go on it's a reasonable idea. What we know is that there is a uniform microwave background radiation throughout the known Universe that we can observe. We also know that almost all galaxies are red shifted, indicating that the Universe is expanding. Now play those two pieces of evidence backwards. As we go back in time, the Universe is compressing, and the radiation is increasing. What would the universe be if you keep playing this evidence backwards? Whatever theory one goes with, it has to explain these two pieces of evidence, at least. The overall picture is that the Universe plays backwards to an increasingly hotter point, The volume is decreasing and the pressure is increasing. Here's the wiki for Background radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation And a source on Red shifted galaxies (doppler effect) http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/doppler.html If anyone really wants to know what was before the first instant of time. All you really need to do is ask what came before whatever God you happen to prefer. And if you have an answer to that, then ask yourself what came before whatever created the God that you happen to prefer. Keep doing this process till you realize that the entire question is a waste of your time. Proceed.

Great episode. I especially like the way Freeman laughs at the very end of the video.

Well actually... if it's going to have nothing to do with the Origin of the Universe, can it be taken to another thread?

EDIT: Nihilism is not a philosophy, it reasosn itself that it's wrong. It's like believing in the belief that there is no belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism (It's labeled a philosophical doctrine.) What's your source by the way?

I'm no nihilist but I do agree with their philosophy that there is no purpose, objective reason or intrinsic value to life. Implying that individuals create the purpose, reason or value. Purpose implies that there is an aim or reason for something to come into existence. In this case the Universe but even in the hypothetical situation that the universe does have a purpose, we may not know what it is. So whether we assume the universe has purpose or not, it comes down to us giving the universe a purpose we label it with or believe in. And that will vary from individual to individual. Take away the individuals and what purpose is left? I suppose one could say that the purpose of the universe is to exist. But isn't that like saying that the reason for the Universe to exist is to exist? I guess that could work if the universe really needs a purpose. Though I was assuming from the talk of the "why" having depth and god, etc that we were talking about higher purpose. Which as I'm trying to get across, isn't present. The only form it exists in is what individuals and groups come up with. Take those individuals and groups away and so too is that higher purpose removed.

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate. The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose. Take away purpose and there is still existence.

Well yeah, the "how" question ought to be thin after what, 14 billion years? All researchers really have to go on is the dissipating background radiation of outer space. Red shifting of Galaxies, hence Raisin Bread model. And the elements in Nebulas, stars, and planets that give an indication of how many generation of stars have formed. Honestly even after just 500 million years, history starts to get a little fuzzy in terms of Earth life. Before that the picture is pretty much swiss cheese. It's the same deal for continental arrangements. Go back far enough in anything and the only thing you get is more pieces missing from the puzzle. Does the Universe really need a higher purpose or reason to exist? Edit(danielsangeo beat me to it)

We're in an interglacial period so of course there's global warming. In a couple thousand or more years it'll be a period of glaciation, Then people can complain about global cooling "Oh noes!!" Really, climate change is natural, as is global warming and cooling cycles. There have been about 8 glaciations in the last 800,000 years alone. If you're looking for just hard evidence than look at the correlation between CO2 levels and glaciation cycles over the last I don't know, 600,000 years. Whatever tickles your fancy. The evidence is pretty self explanatory. CO2 levels rise, Interglaciation peaks. CO2 levels drop, glaciation begins, then peaks. CO2 levels rise. Rinse repeat. I'm not sure how human activities are going to affect this cycle. But I do know that it can't stop it. We're going to continue to heat up even if every human source of CO2 was eliminated. Then after the peak, we'll decline to the next glaciation.

I personally prefer the expanding raisin bread model.

I can only give, at best, a weak answer to a weak question. not that I think I'm wrong. why don't you try explaining what you think Unnecessary choice even means before you ask the question from everyone else here? To me it sounds like you're really grasping at a vague idea that shouldn't even be in this so called thread of "science". The only way for human choice to disappear is for humans to become extinct. I don't know what your preconception of evolution is but it doesn't work the way your question is implying. Killing nature or the possibility to kill oneself are not factors that affect evolution. Why don't you try to explain why you believe that just because you think "choice can kill nature and us" that it's eligible to be removed via evolution?

We destroy nature because of people's desire to control the world around them. The lack of control is frightening, and the only solution people can think of is to control it. That way it's not as scary. Just try living in the wild without anything. The only thing under your control there is your actions. These so called higher end choices are due to intelligence, ability, and awareness. By being aware of the potential consequences and having the ability to carry out the actions. The choices become available to us. It's a consequence of knowledge and trying to implement knowledge. Even on the most basic of levels. Irrigation and farming. On a small scale does not hurt the nature around us. Yet large farms and clear cutting trees will cause the soil to blow away with the wind. Leaving behind a desert. We eliminate the very environment that sustains us by trying to progress and control it. Maybe it's ironic. However by no means is chaos to nature exclusive to humans. If left unchecked a population of any animal could cause the environment they live in to be ruined forever or for just a very long period of time. Leave some deer on an island with no predators and plenty of food and they will all die from starvation after multiplying beyond the population their food can sustain. I suppose the only thing unique to humans is our ability to try to create a solution to the problems we ourselves cause. Both on the short term and on the long term. But those choices weren't given to us. We acquired them through hundreds of millions of evolutionary steps. Most prominently, when our brains became our strong point. I guess maybe Homo Habilis. but I'm no biologist. As for crime, sex, gluttony, lies? They are a consequence of intelligence, society, and the desire to be better than those around you (competition for the highest chance of survival or the most pleasant quality of life). I'm not sure why you put sex in there though. I'd say indulgence and lack of self control is another explanation.