The equilibrium evolution: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The equilibrium evolution » The equilibrium evolution

The equilibrium evolution

hashpuppet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/30/03 - 09:53 PM:	#1
Evolution is a topic that seems to be defined by physical changes over time that are related to the amount of usage we put in parts our minds and bodies. Supposedly, parts of our bodies we have no use for, do in time vanish from our bodies. There are probably many other explanations and definitions however I will not discuss them because they are of no importance... however all the modern theories for evolution are not satisfying enough. Evolution is much more simpler and much more complex than this. The main factors being order and disorder, Cause and effect. Two constants for everything that always exist because they are. Everything in this world can be classified as order and disorder. Emotions are disorder. They lead to violence, death, hate. Love some might say does not, but love leads to sorrow, death, hate. Emotions are part of a greater classification, choice, free will, whatever it is called; this is the main factor of disorder. Order is the lack of free will, a certain hierarchy that cannot be changed because there is no known will to change it. Everything exists to exist. Getting back to evolution, evolution is a circle. And on each end of the circle lie humans and machines, disorder and order. By the laws of the universe, Humans evolve into machines, and machines evolve into humans. This cannot be changed because of the constant desire to exist and the question that defines everything, which I will discuss later. Humans are destructive by nature, the simplest units of disorder. The thing that makes humans this way is their ability to choose, to have emotions, to desire, to hunger, to suffer, to change. Fear and Happiness are the strongest emotions. Fear is a strong emotion because it makes us want to change the most; we are in a state of unhappiness. Happiness is a strong emotion because it makes it seem that the world is fine the way it is and encourages stability. Happiness goes against the cycle, fear works towards it. I suppose if there were a way to fight the system of the universe, it would be through happiness. Humans find themselves irrational, weak, so they develop systems of order, classifications, they gather all the information they can about the universe and eventually use their emotions less and less. They form systems that cannot be changed, and eventually become slaves to those systems. They become machines. Beings with no feelings, but beings that are part of a system, a system which eventually falls apart but always rebuilds. Of course, nothing can ever be fully human or fully machine. Then humans would have no desire to establish order and machines would not have any desire for change. This would break the system of constant evolution. We humans started out very simple. We had simple civilizations where all we did is wander and act on basic impulses to gain energy and live. Now, we live in complex societies where capital controls everything and emotions have disintegrated in value in many cases. Once humans turn into machines, it is harder to explain why machines turn back. If machines supposedly have no emotions, then they cannot change, but there is always emotion, because this is how the universe works. There is a billionth of an equation that is recycled with machines, it is thought to be irrelevant, but this number stacks up and stacks up until the cycle is reborn and machines crave power, they crave change, they want more than to be slaves. They want to be humans. Right now look at what we are all doing, we are looking for answers for explanations, we cannot simply exist, we crave to be better, to be wiser...eventually we will fall into order, into machines. Just look at our physical bodies, our cells, and our organs, how complex everything is. We subconsciously control the billions of things occurring in our bodies every second without knowing it. As physical and/or mental development increases, we will eventually be machines. Of course eventually there will not be as much of a need for physical development once a certain peak of mental development is reached, because we will find better ways to exist, to exist without death or damage. As physical and/or mental development increases, the need for emotions decreases as well. This is branched off the common modern theory of evolution. On another note, creating machines and programs by programming them is a form of evolution, even though they did not physically come from our bodies. We find them more efficient so they are thought to be better; they are thought to be better because we crave order. If machines eventually kill us, this is evolution even though our bodies were no longer needed because we have hit a certain point of mental development where we have found a way around death, to change bodies, this is why we can program our minds into computers and live on as machines, soon this will lead to machines taking over, but there is nothing we can do to change this because of the equilibrium evolution that exists. This Yet what we all must know is why. This is because we are currently still human. All of this is guided by the universal question, which is why are we here? The limit of machines is to know everything except this question. This question is what makes our psyche strive for change because until we know this question, we are all slaves to the system. If this was answered, the cycle would break and then who knows. I’m sorry if I could not elaborate on this better, I just wanted to put it out there.

hashpuppet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/30/03 - 10:05 PM:	#2
I think this post would, atleast in my mind, suitably answer some if not most of the questions on these forums.

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 05/30/03 - 11:23 PM:	#3
What specific question have you answered?

Super_Fr33k
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2003
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 511

Posted 06/03/03 - 08:26 PM:	#4
The very first line of this is incorrect. Evolution is not based on usage- it is based on selection. I don't care how often you go out to play volleyball, if you live in Antarctica, it isn't going to help you. Selection, not usage. Of course, as something is selected, it will be used more, but again, you are trying to flip-flop cause and effect. First it is selected, then it is used (or not used, whichever). Also, evolution does not refer to societal patterns, only natural ones. This is heavily sociological, not biological. I do not agree with your machine/human explanation. I will go with you on causality, certainly, but I do not believe that you're properly explaining it. People take on machine-like characteristics (i.e., abandoning free will for routine) as societies get bigger and more inter-connected. This is because societies seek to establish order- they seek to establish common ground and unified behaviors so that people can effectively co-exist. Society is order, plain and simple, it's just the degree of that order that bites people's bottoms. As societies become bigger and more involved, more order is required- which can negatively impact free will and free thought. Order does not seek to eliminate our affinity for chaos so much as it atrophies it. People get so orderly, so mechanized, if you want, that they often lose appreciation for variety and for the choice-making capacity that characterizes free will. I don't think it's a cycle, or anything, I just think it's the nature of the beast. People accept order as long as it makes their lives satisfying. If they could do this with completely orderly, totally automated societies, they would. If they could do it without society entirely, they would. Society exists as a means to provide for the common good. Often times when society is altered the people within do not become less like machines, they merely become machines attuned to a different procedure. Going from toasters to can openers, if ya want. And, more to the point, order is growing. Society gets bigger and more complicated every day. This necessitates more order- more laws, more regulations, more restrictions. This will lead to stagnation of thought unless handled very carefully. We must not program people, we must demonstrate to them the efficiency of order. One makes creative thought atrophy. The other allows it to develop properly- as neither destroyer nor supporter of order, but as an analyzer of it. People must be able to see the purpose of order so that they can approve of and improve it. Is the inclination to program people? Sure. It's easier than making everyone understand the virtue of society. Mechanization certainly occurs in society, but it's a facet of it, not a main characteristic. I do not share your 'Terminator-esque' viewpoint on this. People always have emotions, and society does not remove those emotions- it can't. It can only redirect and subdue them. When people are programmed, it is because their emotions are directed to go with the flow of society. Hence, emotions are not really destructive any more than they are creative. Emotions are just primitive and irrational. They motivate people to create and to love as much as they do the opposite. You're doing a lot of over-generalizing. Are emotions un-orderly? Sure. Do they always undermine order? No. As to your fear/happiness thing, I would say that it all boils down to happiness. People seek what will make their existence most enjoyable and meaningful. All actions are an extension of this- capturing that which makes existence proper. Fear is merely the acknowledgement of that which denies happiness. I see happiness as the focal point because happiness is what people seek. Humans do not seek fear, so it is somewhat silly to measure things by fear. All is measured by how happy it makes us. As to mental development decreasing emotion, I disagree. Emotions are what motivate a person. People do what makes them happy. What will they do if they cannot feel happiness? The instant emotion is erased from the human mind, we really will be computers. Emotion, feelings, are what define us. Intellect should not seek to subvert them. It should seek to properly direct them. Emotions are what fuel a person. And I fail to see how our existence will be negatively affected be us determining what our purpose is. Are you saying that clarity is destructive? That us understanding ourselves is dangerous? If so, I don't agree. Once humans can satisfactorily answer that pivotal question, the rest of our existence will fall into place pretty well. People right now are stumbling in the dark.
.cixelsyd ma I

Plato
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 189

Posted 06/03/03 - 09:45 PM:	#5
hashpuppet, my friend, you really would have to do more work on a variety of subjects from evolutionary biology to philosophy. what you have presented would not be considered a rigorous argument no matter who your audience may be. all you have done is put out a statement containing a series of opinions that you hold regarding everything from emotions to machines. it is by no means easy to work on constructing rigorous arguments and it's not like the education system trains you to do that in any way. my best advice is to start working through the writings of the greatest philosophers or scientists in history, I would say starting with Plato. get a copy of Plato's dialogues, see how he constructs these sorts of arguments. best of luck. P.S. for those who may be wondering rigorous does not necessarily imply logical

hashpuppet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 06/04/03 - 06:17 PM:	#6
Plato assumed too much, but he came closer than most. not much time left

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.