2 ms·
"Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed." Taking it one step further, somethi
by devmonk 16y ago
"Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed."
Taking it one step further, something like "Skynet" will realize that humans have inefficient brains compared to whatever technology it is using, and attempt to eliminate us, completely resolving the issue. However, then it will realize it was destroying information that it should keep, so it will then morph into something like the "Borg" to start collecting info, until it realizes that is too "high-touch" and interferes with the processes it is trying to study, at which point it will just watch us from a distance and only interfere when needed or when we fail.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoYou're spot on in that we're in a system that is seeking equilibrium. Both extremes are really bad, so let's work on things that determine where the line between being a caveman and being a Borg is. It's fine if people want to set their own boundaries, but we shouldn't let the system itself determine where they are. Nor should we let societal pressure. Nor should we let commercial businesses hacking the limbic system just so they can make a buck. One could make the case that biological entities aren't really very interesting or significant in the universe, that until you find the balance and evolve into some kind of symbiotic being you're really just so much carbon-based noise. Don't know if I'd go that far, but it's a fascinating thought.