Return - Entire thread - Last 10 posts

[politics] ITT: We discuss my bullshit theory [generalization] (11)


1 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-01-13 07:01 ID:wlUfuYNX

Do you consume recreational drugs? Do you browse the computer all day? Do you do both? You are scum and what you represent will be the gradual decline of the human race

1.The goal of all sentience is its annihilation. Sentience is necessarily tied to stimuli, any form of stimuli is innately vulnerable to overstimulation. Overstimulated, in the sense that it reaches the point at which either said stimuli is completely fulfilled, or to the point at which central consciousness can no longer compose itself. Moderation in any form of stimuli can never be sustained indefinitely when there is presented a more stimulating alternative, hence it is inevitable that stimulation escalates to the point of absolute overstimulation on a infinite timeline.

Entire post...

2 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-01-13 10:43 ID:jpYObkhW

Is it destroyed or is a new form of life created? For awhile, we are valuable to the machines as a creative input. Eventually though, the machines are far more creative than we ever were. If we are wholly dependent on machines, then eventually they control our existence at the base level and begin making decisions for us. The ultimate decision will be to limit our numbers and eventually eliminate us as an unnecessary component.

Entire post...

3 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-01-14 03:40 ID:wlUfuYNX

>>2
Certainly, the situation suggested would be redistribution of consciousness and power hence both creation and destruction. What concerns me more is the innate danger of forfeiting control through complacency, which innately places the subject in a subordinate and therefore averse relationship risking much potential misery unless the system is perfected. Until the point in time at which all reality may be organized so as to allow for constant predictable chemical reaction minimizing all sources of variation and friction (if such a thing is possible), there is still a use for consciousness.

Entire post...

4 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-03-10 01:51 ID:GP2bnP7b

you make a lot of assumptions without even considering elementary reactions necessary to accomplish them

5 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-03-12 10:51 ID:zByuaU9k

How are your Psych and Anthropology 101 courses going, OP?

6 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-05-12 20:03 ID:wlUfuYNX

>>4
Fair enough, the cosmology arguments are certainly the shakiest part of what I've suggested. Point them out and I can busy myself correcting them.

Entire post...

7 Name: kjhfiojsw : 2012-05-17 10:31 ID:6xuJFEzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIrmeIkBnk&list=UUacbCh62wtyBHW4-AeewE0w&index=1&feature=plcp

8 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-06-10 14:27 ID:Heaven

Now consider the existence of God, OP

9 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-06-11 19:29 ID:Heaven

>>8

is he in heaven?

10 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-10-09 14:21 ID:Heaven

bullshit theory indeed

11 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2013-04-08 13:42 ID:Heaven

please don't generalize