Author Topic: Hypothetical Question  (Read 183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cogsandspigots

  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Gender: Male
Hypothetical Question
« on: September 17, 2013, 03:40:06 AM »
Simple rules:

Answer the previous question and then post your own.
The question cannot have a definitive answer.



If I were to kill and eat an intelligent alien, would it be hunting or murder?

Offline ٶȻhriʂ

  • AIM, IT IS ABOUT PRECISION
  • *****
  • Donator
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 1314
  • Gender: Male
  • THEY TALK ABOUT MY 1 TAPS
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2013, 03:49:01 AM »
lul Vsauce






















Ignore pls



Offline Astropilot

  • Infinitus Tabula Rasa
  • ******
  • Cat LoverWindows User
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 2462
  • Gender: Male
  • A little bit morass
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2013, 12:26:32 PM »
Murder if they live in a society.

Be free and live uncomfortably or live comfortably without freedom?

       
                                                

                            Inspirational quotes don't do jack until you do something yourself

Offline Apie2

  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
  • Gender: Male
  • WAAAAZAAHHHH, You can eat me O_o
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2013, 01:13:24 PM »
Be free and live uncomfortably.

If the toilet was alive and you poo on the toilet, does it count as pooseckz?

Offline Jhon

  • ***
  • Windows UserOld Forum Member
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2013, 01:29:56 PM »
Be free and live uncomfortably.

If the toilet was alive and you poo on the toilet, does it count as pooseckz?

No, since that might be the toilet's mouth (brb puking).



If humans became immortal, would it completely contradict religion and the idea of an existance of god/s?

Offline cogsandspigots

  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2013, 03:52:36 PM »
Not necessarily.
Human "immortality", as perceived by most scientific predictions, would be transferring your consciousness/soul into a computer. This means that you are still you, but the vessel you use to interact with the world has been changed. And this vessel is not indestructible, at some point it WILL be destroyed, time conquers all. When it is destroyed, your soul will then be left to be judged by a deity (I believe that it will be the Christian God, but to each his own). True immortality is not bound to something physical.


If the world has a bountiful surplus of resources and everyone can live life without need, would the situation be good (endless supplies have turned humanity into a greed-less populace who only want to follow their dreams and personalities are the real commodities) or bad (excess supplies have driven the world into decadence and boredom, leading to spikes in crimes and suicides)?


Could you guys put some explanation into your answers, please?

Offline ·UηİŦ··

  • eeeeeeeeeee
  • *****
  • Windows UserApple UserOld Forum MemberLeague Player
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 977
  • Gender: Male
  • Exit left.
    • My Steam Profile
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2013, 05:17:29 PM »
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's my take, and sometimes I have a tendency to be stupid... please read what I type not as fact, but as an opinion/onion.

What constitutes forever? Is forever truly infinite, or is 'forever' just the span of time in which something is able to consciously perceive it?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 05:19:13 PM by ·UηİŦ··© »


Offline Osme

  • Feel like whinin'?
  • ******
  • Linux UserWindows UserOld Forum Member
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 2847
  • Gender: Male
  • Get some wine in.
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2013, 10:42:22 AM »
Forever is until the universe reaches its point of maximum entropy (assuming...).

Assuming (any) religion is true, what is the reasonable origin of the proposed god?
Code: [Select]
for(;;) procrastinate = !procrastinate;Damn emoticons

Offline coolzeldad

  • ******
  • OwnerDonatorOld Forum MemberrNd DeveloperLinux UserWindows UserDog LoverLeague PlayerDWO Player
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 3333
  • I eat ddos for breakfast OMNOMONOM
    • .:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2013, 07:43:35 PM »
Assuming (any) religion is true, what is the reasonable origin of the proposed god?

Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 07:48:25 PM by coolzeldad »
 ▲
▲▲Big thanks to Marie for this awesome sprite! :3

Spoiler: Moar Imagez (click to show/hide)
pingaz
Thanks Cryptokid!

Thanks gamefreak!


-- My youtube: http://www.youtube.com/coolzeldad
-- My deviantart: http://coolzeldad.deviantart.com
-- My soundcloud: http://www.soundcloud.com/coolzeldad
-- My ustream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/coolzeldapingaz
-- My twitchtv: http://www.twitch.tv/coolzeldad

-- rNd Wiki: http://wiki.randomgs.com
-- rNd Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/RandomgsProductions
-- rNd Steam Group: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/r_A_N_d_O_m

Spoiler: rNd Typography (click to show/hide)





Every time you download Garry's Mod illegally, Garry makes a bug.

When people ask me "Plz" because its shorter than "Please" I feel perfectly justified to answer "No" because its shorter than "Yes".

derp herp lerp perp kerp serp zerp - say faiv timez fazt


Offline Osme

  • Feel like whinin'?
  • ******
  • Linux UserWindows UserOld Forum Member
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 2847
  • Gender: Male
  • Get some wine in.
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2013, 01:55:17 AM »
Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?
Humanity as a race would have to be constantly rational and work together under a single omnipotent government that truly does work for the people, and has no corruption within it. Simply put, humans are dicks, therefor a reasonable state of peace isn't possible.

Reincarnation?
Code: [Select]
for(;;) procrastinate = !procrastinate;Damn emoticons

Offline Xrain

  • *****
  • DWO PlayerOld Forum Member
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 751
  • XRain - King of TL;DR
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2013, 02:01:16 AM »
Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?

Absolute peace is a political extreme, similar to successful communism etc.

It relies on the principle that every human is rational. Which may to some extent be true, but what one human considers rational another will not. Which is why in practice both are unsuccessful. They both demand that people stop acting like people. Absolute peace would require either perfect arbitration between every party that has a grievance with each other, with that perfect arbitration both parties must leave completely satisfied.

This perfect arbitration isn't possible, as many parties have wants that are in direct opposition to each other, therefore the ideal compromise in this case leaves neither party happy (ie. Two people divorcing, both want the iphone, most equal solution is to cut iphone in half, which renders it useless. Or split custody of the iphone which leaves one party unhappy 1/2 of the time.)

The only way to achieve absolute peace is drastically rewrite how human being think and behave. Probably would look similar to the Borg in the end.

Only real possibility for people to achieve peace would be to act without self-interest. It might be achievable on the majority (ie right now a majority of people are at peace with each other), but there will always be outliers who will break the peace.


My question:

What are the societal rammifications that you foresee if anyone ever perfects cybernetic technology, and makes it accessible to a majority of people. (think ghost in the shell cybernetics)


Edit:

 Damn you ninja, I suppose will just have to answer your question too.

Reincarnation? I'm not quite sure what you are asking about it. If you are asking about its plausibility, I am not one to say as it is a religious belief and its not really my position to judge people on theirs.

Personally I am a Christian so... Jesus was reincarnated after dieing, and there are a few other examples of reincarnation in the bible. But I suspect that isn't the reincarnation you were referring to.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 02:05:43 AM by Xrain »
" I don't take square roots, I make them. Then I set them out to cool after I baked them for 40 minutes."
"It's Canadia, not Chlamydia."
"Hold on I just have to ddos myself"
~Coolzeldad~

"I'm like 12 in my head" screen when I do video?"
~Minic~

Offline Tezuni

  • *****
  • Posts: 618
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2013, 02:04:09 AM »
Humanity as a race would have to be constantly rational and work together under a single omnipotent government that truly does work for the people, and has no corruption within it. Simply put, humans are dicks, therefor a reasonable state of peace isn't possible.

Reincarnation?
Our lives are composed of our experiences, recorded in our memories.  The concept of reincarnation into a new body does not bring those into your next life.  Would that really be you?

Do you think it's possible for people to truly understand each other, and achieve a global understanding, perhaps through some futuristic communications method developed in the future, bringing about real peace? (think emotional communication, where you can feel what they feel like you are their childhood friend that knows exactly what they're feeling and how to talk and treat them accordingly.  then think about that happening with everyone)


Ahh Xain popped in, lol.  I'll answer his too just to catch this thing up)

My question:

What are the societal rammifications that you foresee if anyone ever perfects cybernetic technology, and makes it accessible to a majority of people. (think ghost in the shell cybernetics)
Perfect cybernetic technology would be a huge aid, and it will happen.  It starts as exterior pieces, like google glass, but it will get smaller, cheaper, and more advanced.  Eventually people will have implanted technology, and it will feel like just another part of their body.  Though perfection of this technology would be a great aid, I can also see it as a double edged sword; it could be used to enhance communication, or be used as a distraction from socializing.  For example, you can use the internet for email, IM, video calls, etc and you can slo use it to play WoW 16 hrs a day and leave your room once a week for a food trip to stock your mini fridge.  lol.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 02:17:07 AM by Tezuni »

Offline Xrain

  • *****
  • DWO PlayerOld Forum Member
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 751
  • XRain - King of TL;DR
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2013, 02:08:16 AM »
Our lives are composed of our experiences, recorded in our memories.  The concept of reincarnation into a new body does not bring those into your next life.  Would that really be you?

Do you think it's possible for people to truly understand each other, and achieve a global understanding, perhaps through some futuristic communications method developed in the future, bringing about real peace?

I am just being ninja'd all over the place here.

Yes it is plausible to think that it might be possible one day. Is it advisable? absolutely not. Think of what would happen if everyone knew absolutely everything you thought about them.

It would be awfully tough to have any friends.


Repeating my question from before.
" I don't take square roots, I make them. Then I set them out to cool after I baked them for 40 minutes."
"It's Canadia, not Chlamydia."
"Hold on I just have to ddos myself"
~Coolzeldad~

"I'm like 12 in my head" screen when I do video?"
~Minic~

Offline ·UηİŦ··

  • eeeeeeeeeee
  • *****
  • Windows UserApple UserOld Forum MemberLeague Player
    View More Badges!

  • Posts: 977
  • Gender: Male
  • Exit left.
    • My Steam Profile
Re: Hypothetical Question
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2013, 07:13:22 AM »
I'd borrow from what Tezuni said about it being a great aid to general being and possibly even a revolution of inter-connectivity between those with upgrades. If it's the same tier as Ghost in the shell, then I also think that it would turn into a distraction... provided that we are not living under a omnipotent government that works for the people, and everyone is still inherently Human.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If humanity were to advance technology exponentially until the point wherein technology will only improve every 5 years after 2027, only starting with the most superficial of things (like communications or the internet, or phones, or lights, airplanes, etc) before moving onto the heavy-lifting (energy, industry, manufacturing, etc)... how fast do you think we'd be able to start colonizing planets in terms of habitats and small mining operations?

To add, do you think there are a sort of rules or guidelines/responsibilities that should be put into foresight before going around and "fracking" things like Mars, or even the Moon? You don't have to answer both, but I don't know how to spin this without asking two questions in series, without it dragging on or sounding more awkward.