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

1 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-01-13 07:01 ID:wlUfuYNX This thread was merged from the former /debate/ board. You can view the archive here.

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.

2. Whereas early hunter-gatherer society contented itself with moderate, cyclical forms of stimuli fulfillment (IE sex, communal group gatherings, etc), the emergence of human technology has disrupted these patterns. Technology, by default serves to extend all faucets of human functioning, and thereby inevitably serves to increase stimulation in human beings. Biological forms of stimulation-fulfillment are gradually being replaced by commodity extensions, and will eventually be replaced completely (IE societal involvement with video games, Sex with more direct drug use, etc). Whereas there may be contemporary resistance to these changes, social mores can never sustain themselves continually as they rely on material circumstances to support themselves.

3. Thus, we can say that continual technological development will inevitably lead to human overstimulation. There can be no moderation of this tendency, the most direct form of stimulation is chemical, which will likely manifest itself on a circular basis. This "end state" of humanity will resemble a simple cell structure, thoughtless, engaged in constant chemical exchange and supported through a self-sustaining external structure (technology). The argument that human taste varies itself enough to not support a singular chemical interaction is irrelevant to this scenario, for even if this were to be the case it may be accommodated through rapid interchanging of all desirable substances to the point at which they blur to act as one in effect.

4. The historical phenomena which has prior prevented decadence and overstimulation, the systemic purging of forms of life who divert undue capacity towards self-indulgence, cannot be maintained. Assuming it is not annihilated prematurely, the human race will intertwine economically to the point of a world state (IE globalization, it is already creating global class relations through outsourcing the rest must inevitably follow), hence national conflict must inevitably be replaced with class conflict as the common denominator.

5. In a situation such as this, the only possible way to sustain any form of class inequality will be the use of increasingly more stimulating commodities to appease any subordinate classes. When this stimulating commodity reaches the point at which it must inevitably conflict with the need to engage in wage-labour (as labour is a function of time therefore inevitably in conflict with absolute stimulation), there will either be revolution or gradual collapse to allow overstimulation by all persons capable of doing so in society. To sustain this, technological means shall be used to take over human command functions. This technological apparatus will likely function something like a human being- its obligations being to provide stable resources and maintain its wards.

6. Therefore, (human) sentience shall inevitably destroy itself through technology.

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.

This isn't to say that all of humanity will go extinct as there are plenty of uncontacted tribes and luddites that will never join the system in the first place. They'll basically be scavengers in a world otherwise controlled by the machines and for the machines. I don't think it will go "Terminator" on us, because those left behind would offer no real threat or competition. We'd be little more than the crows of the machine age... for awhile.

The thing is, given the machines we make are as or more intelligent than we are, they'll take it on themselves to further their existence. They'll have many advantages over us in terms long-distance space travel so it will be quite easy for them: they don't need life support systems, they can exist in a wider range of planetary conditions, and they are not burdened with our notion of a lifespan. They will conquer the universe where we could not.

Humanity will go extinct as our home planet dies. Our creation will live on indefinitely. It's just a step in evolution. It's nothing to be afraid of.

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

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.

In regards to machines, I do not think they are nearly as direct a threat as you make them out to be. So long as technology sustains itself from the interactions of these human "cells", so long as its infrastructure is composed of these and experiences them as sources of stimuli, the threat will be low.

The obvious example is a human being and its relation to itself: clearly, we could reconstruct our cell structure so as to be infinitely more productive, but as in the end we are still composed of this and cannot radically alter the structure without inflicting negative responses obstructing this behavior. It is true that even this block cannot last forever, but it will exist long enough to prevent flagrant machine/human friction most likely. At any rate, even machines would be liable to sensory overstimulation for the same reasons as humans are. Any process capable of manipulating the environment towards its own self-interest with the resources to do so shall annihilate itself through absolute sustaining of its needs.

Still, it is my opinion that even while this step may be inevitable for the human race so long as it survives, it is desirable to stall its emergence. Assuming conservation of energy is genuine, the annihilation of the human race will not prevent replication of analogous scenarios displacing itself to other forms of matter. Only through attempting to arrange matter in such a way so as to prevent the replication of these circumstances can genuine stability be maintained

Or y'know, maybe I am just full of shit. I can't tell

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

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.

That said, I don't think this invalidates the concept, which is more based on natural tendencies of development within human society. Rationalization has always demanded centralization, indeed the development of increasing technological complexity hinges and feeds on interconnection. The most efficient, rational state with highest possible output is opposed to human self-determination, cognition, or any form of unnecessary behaviour. This is not out of malevolence, it is out of continued extrapolation of division-of-labour to the point at which the parts become one. We have seen historically that human alienation at this division has stood contrary to integration, the fall of the soviet union could be crudely used as an example of the deficiency of absolutist integration.

This however, is but a stumbling block which will be circumvented. Stimulation and increased want can only be fulfilled through attachment to ever larger complexes and increasing stagnation, indeed uncontrollable want is most rational as it allows the increased expansion of these much more capable structures. In the end, the parts become attached to something much larger as a means of securing stability and displacing demand towards machines. The human form is a very good example of a combination which secures great results initially but actually retards absolute fulfillment in later stages by being resistant to further change. Human beings alone can never absolutely fulfill all needs because they are far beyond the required capacity available to them, at best they can specialize in one at loss to others. Society bridges this gap through combination of specialization of overlapping traits, the further development of it is integration.

We can see this kind of funnelling development of parts into a supra-entity in the formation of virtually all kinds of organizations. The parts feud against all initially, gradually form groups which have the upper hand through mass, specialize to gain the edge over larger groups, and gradually through this process integrate into a larger part which renews the process over again on a much larger scale.

Honestly, outside of lack of materials I don't think this result can be avoided. Can any genuine criticism be levelled against this core of the argument?

Please re-read: the entire thread

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


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

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...