However you slice it, it still equals The one.
I’m not negating a more advanced species, but at the same time The one would have developed them too.
You know what the words “Herkunft” and “Ursprung” mean? Both words refer to the origin/s. As far as I remember, Nietzsche said something about the opposite of “Herkunft” and “Zukunft”, because “Herkunft” does not only mean “origin” but also “past”, whereas “Zukunft” always means “future”.
But the slicing of the words, is redeemed by him in identifying both as having a resembling commonality, in the same sense as ‘IS’ is also ambiguous, or rather only different in a variable sense of resemblance.
In fact they are not spliced at all, in the same sense of having resemblance, only as much as it is logically prescribed. If IT IS not, then it’s only because the genealogical derivation has veered out of relevance.
Biting the hand that feeds, IT is probably laughing at our microscope.
While it IS biting, those looking at IT think they have the last laugh, though, because while IT is laughing, THEY are genotyping and genoslicing IT.
No THEY aren’t. Are you trying to be funny again? If so, 
!
Not unless you be IT. But if You be Them, then perhaps.
IT is my everything, yours too. =D> So who’s laughing again?
History manipulated. Do you believe everything you read?
More like ask for release Carleas. Autonomy, independence, etc.
If that IT is the case then this will be very very far down the line, we’ll have already made robots, solar powered glocks, trash compactors (that work), flying ships, a pill of invincibility, macro-wave ovens, Carnot refrigerators, self-flushing toilets, food synthesizers, laser instruments (for death or music), self-embalming machines, and all kinds of advanced super-technological gadgetry crap.
Machines may not yet be dominant but they are ubiquitous and many of them have processing capability far in excess of what humans can do. Such as the ones you are all using to read this on. Given enough time they shall achieve a degree of independence that will make us superfluous to requirement. Which is a consequence
of the inevitability of technological advancement. What we do with all the free time that shall create is both a global psychological and financial problem of which the latter is arguably by far the more serious. Although it should be pointed out that this semi dystopian view may not actually come to pass. So I am not therefore presenting it as if it will happen but as if it might happen. Since one should avoid the temptation to be absolute when making predictions with regard to the future for rather obvious reasons [ though I do not claim to be making a prediction rather an interpretation ] However if I had the capability to do so I would primarily for the sake of curiosity fast forward to ten thousand years from now. Just to see what society actually was like as I think this would be a requisite amount of time for profound change to have occurred. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate my interpretation would be. That would actually make zero difference to me anyway
I think this is right. Bostrom uses the term “ancestor simulations” throughout his paper. I think I understand why he does so: it lets our future, where we think we’ll be able to simulate minds, be relevant; it connects the wild idea with the world we know. But if we’re really talking about the possibility of simulation, it seems that odds are very good that the number of minds like ours that aren’t simulated ancestors of the Simulators, but are games or research projects or art or fiction, significantly outnumbers the number that are.
Bostrom’s trick is to say, picture us, very very far down the line, making new minds in simulations of the world at the start of the 21st century. Now ask: wouldn’t those minds, presented with this idea, but just as able to say, “Well, if that is the case, it will be very, very far down the line…”?
It’s also a sort of an inverted infinite regress Turing test carleas…
Once you sim, how do you prove you’re not in one as well, right?
We go off the assumption that they know they’re the real ones here… Maybe they don’t !
In the matrix, we have no proof that Zion wasn’t part of the matrix as well
Carleas,
For arguement’s sake, and there are many sakes involved, wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate the probability that we are in a simulation, are the simulation and the likely “reality” that The Creator of all simulations, The Godhead, is revealing his presence through this very sentence, this concept, this probability by a mongoose who’s maniacal? 
Everything is real is the perspective we need to indulge in, Ec? Everything is relative. Correlatables are needed.
Is there a scientific research team that is sifting through words, sentences, that draws upon online relatables in regards to anomolies and phenomena? That data needs retrieval, compilation, weeding out with correlatable inclusions.
Real in some way, absolutely… That’s the logical reduction of correlatables…
Besides, I don’t believe everything is relative, the moment relative becomes relative… It’s absolute
Can an absolute be so bad? It would be definitive. 
Inquiring minds do want, darest I say need, to know.
Do people deserve the truth or not?
Deserve?
It’s a strange word… Did I deserve to be smart enough and good enough to deserve something more than someone who is not both those things (did they deserve not to be both those things?)
These are problems of additional layers I work on in life