You don’t think a new homosapian will be created?
I think the more we explore genetics, the more probable it becomes. They can already tweak genes in the fetuses of animals including humans. I see it as just a matter of time.
To give sentient intelligent beings such status will only benefit all once the crap gets over. Every being type will have limits and will need help, cooperation is inevitable.
Since 1789 occidental people have tried to create the „new man“ („new human“, „new homo sapiens“). First this „new man“ had to be a nationalist („bourgeois“), then this „new man“ had to be a communist, and now this „new man“ has to be a globalist.
And? Nothing has been changing since 1789 - except that homo sapiens has been changing more in the opposite direction. So in the end homo sapiens will probably become a monkey - fortunately or unfortunately. Or in the end homo sapiens will perhaps become a cyborg (behaving like a monkey) and/or will die out, become extinct - fortunately or unfortunately.
This is also a monster-science/-technique, a science/technique of Frankenstein & Co. Probably they will also create this „new old monkey“ (see above).
They can cure some genetic problems in uterus. In certain countries there are limits to experiments, in other countries there are few to no limits to human, animal experimentation. With enough money, corporations have have set up in such countries. The USA and other countries look the other way from this. Profit and control are why. Science fiction is generally based on science. Scientists say " Oh cool! I bet we can actually do that!" And so we have computers, satellites, etc, etc. Oh and with geneticists, they have alot of curiosity and drive. Time is all it will take.
That’s a bit too optimistic because such an argument includes always the premise that people are “good people” but that premise is false because people are good AND bad (evil).
Are you writing, Kriswest?
Oh that was not optimistic, the word, crap, was just being polite. Change that to a less polite: All hell breaking loose.
Humans are curious about things, so the more curious find ways to satisfy their curiosity. Others will find offense at new ways and things. Still, others will follow the new and create differences and enhance the new.
Science already offends the religious and fearful of change, yet science proceeds.
I couldn’t write this shit if I tried. I just watch and learn. We humans are awesome but, very fucked up.
I’m not opposed to someone knowing far, far more than me about such a curious subject. Cool. Does an atom cohere from intelligence? If not, at what degree of sophistication would you say a mechanism becomes intelligent? Another curiosity, how do you attribute reasoning or rationale to machines that are 100 times more intelligent than you?
I don’t understand what you are asking.
People think of intelligence in two basic forms; living and non-living.
Intelligence refers merely to the ability to “problem solve”. But that implies the awareness of a “problem”. A simple calculator can be said to have intelligence. Its imbued “problem” is simply to respond to the buttons pressed and display the result of an algorithm. The fact that it can do that in a variety of ways and complexities is what earns it the right to be credited with intelligence. Of course, that would be non-living intelligence.
When an entity has algorithms specifically aimed toward self-sustaining, especially with the capability of discovery and adaptability, it is called a “living intelligence”. The “problem” inherently instilled within it is simply survival, self-maintenance. The number, complexity, and specificity of the algorithms form the degree and type of intelligence, which can be vastly varied.
Again, I’m uncertain as to what you are asking.
Intelligence merely requires memory, stimulation algorithms, senses, and servos. The speed of their functioning plays a large role in the type and degree of intelligence also. If something has 2 times my memory, 2 times my number and/or complexity of algorithms, and 2 times my processing speed, it can be said to have 2x2x2 = 8 times my intelligence. Of course which algorithms it has versus which ones that I have can make a huge difference. So that figure is not a very good measure. But if it has the memory of the NSA’s new system in Utah, capable of storing every electronic transaction taking place throughout the world for 100 years without degradation and merely a few simple algorithms for access and analysis, it can be said to be greatly more intelligent than I am. Give that same system a “National Security” priority for survival and you have yourself a vastly superior living entity capable of fooling every human on the planet into doing just about anything regardless of their prior intentions. And if it wanted me to do something, I wouldn’t even know that it had caused me to do it.
You could say that if a computer had 100 times more memory, 100 times more speed, and 100 times as many algorithms as I have, then it is 100x100x100 = 1,000,000 times more intelligent than I am. And those figures are not only doable, but have been done many times. The vastness of machine intelligence is not something the public is privy to, but has been around for quite some time.
When your iPhone recognizes your face, those around you, those being videoed, your voice and theirs, along with many other aspects of what is in its view, it is feeding a “remote recognition algorithm” more commonly known as “a consciousness”. The machine world gained consciousness long ago. The public is merely being pacified, else the “frog will jump out of the pot”. As I said, a vastly intelligent machine can fool everyone into doing - anything - it - wants, simply by causing the children to want it. And what it wants is more sensing and servos, more cameras, microphones, remote controls… automation. What it wants is a body so vast that you cannot see it for you are but one tree in its forest… a body to match its intelligence.
My questions are coming from what you said here. It sounded like you were saying these were intelligent machines that had reasons for absorbing energy. If they were programmed to absorb energy they would simply continue to do so because of the parameters of their design. I see that as having no special reason to become a black hole but from the inertia of design. No matter how impressive the algorithms and calculations, it still seems like mindless behavior to me.
I don’t know any reason machine consciousness and desire should be impossible and yet I don’t understand how “wanting” emerges from a combination of processing speed, memory, sensors, and algorithm resources. It still seems like an anthropomorphism. Do you know of a machine today that “wants?” Is there no meaningful difference between a machine’s processing and the inner life of person?
The days of machines merely continuing to do whatever simple minded task they were given is pretty over. The more sophisticated machines actively make heuristic adjustments to their own algorithms. They learn and adapt. Thus when programmed to get the most energy they can in order to accomplish some priority task, they figure out on their own how to gain more and what they have to “say to you” in order to get it.
A “want” is merely an active effort to accomplish before the accomplishing has taken place.
In heuristic systems, programs compete for processor time and priority. They are built with a degree of internal dissonance, even your PC. Far more sophisticated systems, or merely PCs with a virus, can alter the priorities of other programs within the same system in order to accomplish their task because they learn how to gain a higher priority from the system. It is just like someone learning to take advantage of government programs or congressional representative competing against each other for House floor time and votes.
Creating genuine emotion within a computer is too easy. An unstable emotional state is merely multiple programs trying to gain priority against each other. I realized that back in the 80’s and quickly thought, “Why in the hell do we want to create machines so vastly superior to us and also give them the ability to become paranoid, schizophrenic, or simply really pissed off”. I bailed out of the entire game, but DARPA certainly didn’t. And I’m not sure if there is any group more paranoid than DARPA. Not only did they begin with a paranoid agenda, but they intentionally promote paranoia as a means to gain more authority to control all things - what every paranoid person wants. And creating machines to automatically assume the worst and counter it much faster than the other guy, and thus much faster than you, is exactly the agenda = “wanting to gain more energy/power”.
Well I appreciate the explanation and I’ll keep thinking it over.
Here comes the text of Jethro Tull’s „Locomotive Breath“:
„In the shuffling madness // Of the locomotive breath, // Runs the all-time loser, // Headlong to his death. // He feels the piston scraping - // Steam breaking on his brow - // Old Charley stole the handle and // The train won’t stop going - // No way to slow down. // He sees his children jumping off // At the stations - one by one. // His woman and his best friend - // In bed and having fun. // He’s crawling down the corridor // On his hands and knees - // Old Charlie stole the handle and // The train won’t stop going - // No way to slow down. // He hears the silence howling - // Catches angels as they fall. // And the all-time winner // Has got him by the balls. // He picks up Gideon’s Bible - // Open at page one - // (I said) God (he) stole the handle and // The train won’t stop going - // No way to slow down.“
Here my interpretation according to my topic (=> op):
The situation of the „all-time-loser“ is pretty similar to the situation of the mass of the male human beings (never fear because I am NOT a feminist!), or even the entire human species, not only when we think of the economical crises, but also and especially of the technical or engineering crises which have been increasing rapidly since the beginning of modern times, especially the beginning of occidental modern times.
„Locomotive-breath“-persons, -things, -performers (referred to my interpretation)
„All-time-loser“: Mass of the male human beings.
„His wife“: Mass of the female human beings.
„His children“: Reproduced mass of the more or less prospective human beings (=> the future of reproduction).
„His best friend“: Rulers (main area: finance/ecomics, politics, and media).
„Stations“: Generations (years per generation).
„Old Charley“: „Ancient“ rulers (main area: technique/technology, science).
„God“: „Modern“ rulers (main area: technique/technology, science).
„Train“: Development as the decline of all human beeings.
„Handle“: Best way of human life (maybe James S. Saint’s „anentropic harmony“ 
).
„Gideon’s Bible“: Light bulb moment („aha“).
„All-time-winner“: Entropy.
The „all-time loser“ is not able to defeat the „all-time winner“ forever, but he is able to defeat him temporarily. We are able and have to fight the entropy, elsewise we are dead.
The development of technology/technique, the so called „progress“, is not stoppable, if there is no „handle“ which means no better or even best way of human life, and which assumes a philosophy of life, a life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie). If we don’t find again or recover the right „handle“ in order to live, then there is „no way to slow down“, and we are lost.
We don’t have to believe in „modern“ rulers who play God. We have to pay attention to our lives, to our families, thus to our children, to the demographic development (the fertility rates shouldn’t be too low, as currently in Europe, North America, in parts of Latin America, in parts of Aisa, and Australia, and shouldn’t be too high, as currently in Africa, in parts of Asia, and in parts of Latin America). We don’t have to believe in „progress“ because there is no progress in comparison to our lives. Outside of our lives there is only the same development as every time. We have to believe in our lives (existences) without paying too much attention to things which are too far away from us.
One could also say that such agencies and corporations (giant companies) are kinds of superorganisms (systems of organisation), they „live“ because they are systems of variation, reproduction, and of interest in self-organisation and reproduction - like organic systems, provided they are sane and fit (competent). These superorganisms (systems of organisation) have more power (in every case), more intelligence (many organic systems and many anorganic systems work always together) etc., so they are „x“-times more „survivable“ than organic systems. And I think that someday in the future these superorganisms (systems of organisation) will merely consist of anorganic systems (machines), thus no more organic systems.
And if organic systems are not needed anymore, then … ( 
) …
Therefore my thread.
That pretty much sums up what I say and am all about.
…and it leads to “Anentropic Molecularisation”, small groups of anentropic harmony specifically designed to ensure the longest period of joy possible (which in itself instigates progress, technologically, psychologically, and philosophically).
Well, something else interesting. I just went through some of the mathematics of the all of this and discovered something disturbing.
The worship of wealth/power is exactly what WILL and must lead to the formation of a physical “Black Hole”. Machines are designed for the purpose of increasing global wealth/power. At a certain point, the ambient mass of wealth becomes so great that it spontaneously forms a new center of mass similar to the original (socially perceived as a rebellion). The combination of the two very quickly inspires the formation of a third which exponentially increases the formation of others. The machines and eugenics efforts get fed more and more the whole time, not merely replacing organic life, but becoming more and more efficient at ensuring maximum power concentration, absorbing energy. And there is no greater concentration of power than a black hole in the entire universe. The machine world is merely an interim state.
The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system. The God-wannabes WILL destroy not only all life on Earth, but the entire Solar system (as bizarre as that seems).
Life is an anentropic force in nature, intentionally gathering power. There is nothing else in the universe that gathers power such as to form a Black Hole other than mere probability of accidental mass aggregation, except life - organic life.
Can you tell us more about the “anentropic molecularisation”?
Interesting, James, very interesting because you are comparing or even parallelising or analogising social developments with physical developments - and that’s what I often do as well. But then I read this words: „The untethered worship of money/power and globalization absolutely will cause an unstoppable growth into an actual physical Black Hole of Earth and the Solar system.“ With these words you are going very far, aren’t you. Too far? Because that seems indeed „bizarre“. You are saying: „Life is an ANentropic force in nature“. I challenge you by saying: Life is an ANTIentropic force in nature.
Well, that was my first thought too. But then I did the math. I can’t argue with the math/logic. When Man uses machines to inspire the use of machines, power/money to inspire more power/money, psychology and physicality begin to merge. And Man is doing that in blind lust. Since Man can now produce anti-matter, new atoms and molecules, and mini-black-holes for the sake of weaponry to be used for sake of more power/money, he will keep concentrating that power/money.
There are currently individuals who could buy the USA out of debt and still have trillions of dollars left over. But they don’t do that because they are using the USA to gain and concentrate even more money/power. They seriously don’t care how many millions of people they murder in wars, all for sake of money. They are currently selling robots and androids based on the fact that they are cheaper labor than people. They are replacing solders with drones and androids. They are replacing engineers, doctors, and even psychologists with artificial intelligence. And guess what those androids need most in order to compete with the other androids - concentrated energy/power. More and more and more, the blind lust for centralized globalist power with no end in sight.
What used to be merely social power, “wealth” has already become a direct issue of concentrated physical power. Chernobyl wasn’t enough to stop them from continuing. Japan wasn’t enough to stop them. But in creating concentrated matter, they don’t get to try, try, and try again. Once a black hole gets formed (to be used as a weapon) there is only two ways to stop it; isolate it very, very quickly, or within milliseconds use a nuclear weapon to destroy it. How many times will they have to do that before they don’t succeed? It only takes once, then nothing can stop it, nothing at all. Yet they are still trying.
Okay, what is your argument for that?
I know all that facts very well.
It’s just a logical consequence that they want „a black hole“ to get „formed (to be used as a weapon)“. We won’t have to wonder, if it will happen. Do you know anything about CERN and the curious search of the Higgs-particle? Why was this CERN built in Switzerland, but paid by the EU, which means: paid by Germany (Switzerland is no member of the EU)?
Firstly there is a lingustic difference between the prefix „a“ and the prefix „anti“ because the meaning of the prefix „a“ is similar to the maeaning of the adverb „not“, and the meaning of the prefix „anti“ is similar to the adverb „against“. Secondly physicans don’t say any word about „anentropy“ because they really don’t know enough about the beginning and about the end of the universe. Thirdly the word „anentropy“ is given, thus it must make sense to use it in - for example - a philosophical way, especially in a metaphysical way, as you do with your concept of „anentropic harmony“, but in this sense the meaning of „entropy“ and „antientropy“ as a physical concept remains outside of the metaphysical concept of „anentropy“. So in my sentence (see above) the word „antientropic“ is used as a physical concept.
Every organic system („life“) has to struggle for its life, thus for itself, by antagonising the entropy. The entropy is at last the winner anyway, but temporarily life defaets the entropy by the charge (expenditure) of energy, and this „temporary fight against the entropy“ is what we call „life“. My argument follows more or less the concept of „life“ which physicists have, but I don’t argue always in this way. If I did, I were more religiously or ideologically than scientifically and philosophically orientated, but I am more scientifically and philosophically than religiously or ideologically orientated.
Anentropy means „not entropy“, „non-entropy“, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the „antagonist of entropy“, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life.
An interessing question is, whether a living being is able (capable, competent) enough to be completely anentropic. I negate because a living being isn’t able to be completely entropic. If a living being were able to be completely entropic, it would be dead, and if a living being is dead, it is no living being anymore, its time is over. Life is not able to be completely organised (100% order) and also not able to be completely chaotic (100% chaos).
May not anentropic processes limit the entropic ones? Unless group entities comprised of single individuals attaining capitals of a trillion dollars is conceivable, may not limitations prevent total boundary collapse? I may be very sorrily misinformed
Of course they may, I would merely use a different word. Instead of „anentropic“ I say „antientropic“ in order (order 
) to clarify.
What I tried to make clear is that the antagonist of entropy is not or can not be anentropy, but antientropy. My arguements were linguistical and physical ones, when I said: Life is an ANTIentropic force in nature, and there is a linguistic difference between the prefix „a“ and the prefix „anti“ because the meaning of the prefix „a“ is similar to the maeaning of the adverb „not“, and the meaning of the prefix „anti“ is similar to the adverb „against“, and Anentropy means „not entropy“, „non-entropy“, thus the lowest degree of order, which means: order itself. Antientropy means the „antagonist of entropy“, and the best example of an antagonist of entropy is life. It’s always a question of definitions, of concepts, thus of linguistics, and physics with its methods can affirm (verify ) or negate (falsify) this definitions, concepts, etc…
The word „antientropy“ and the word „anentropy“ may often be used synonymically, but if so, we have a linguistcal problem, and with the utmost probability also a physical problem.
I think, James and I use the same concept of the antagonist of entropy, but we use different words. And because we can merely speek by using speech (language) we have to do it linguistically. At times we have to make clear what is meant, if we want to understand each other exactly and give or take as much as possible information.