The end of Humans....

**Betazep** · 06-19-2002

"Energy

3. Strength of expression; force of utterance; power to impress the mind and arouse the feelings; life; spirit;"

Tit for tat Mr. Einstein... perhaps 'electricity' makes you feel better.

You sure have a lot of strong comments about everything, you must have several PhDs in physics, medicine, and others.

And quite the contentious ego you have.... one of those that absolutely cannot be wrong or the world falls apart....

"you cannot have arches in nature"

Yes 'you' can.

**Clyde** · 06-19-2002

Heh not the definition i was looking for, but no matter, it makes no difference; biology cannot "become" "pure energy". It's a nonsense statement.

"perhaps 'electricity' makes you feel better. "

Eh? So you think we can turn into electricity now? Hah, though i suppose about as plausable as turning into "pure energy".

"You sure have a lot of strong comments about everything, you must have several PhDs in physics, medicine, and others"

I have good general and in certain areas specialist knowledge of scientific disciplines. I have been studying science for the last 7 years of my life (and i'm rather good at it if i do say so myself), and intend to spend the rest of my life in the same fashion.

Thing is it's not like you need a Phd, or even a university education to rebuke many of the nonsense statements that get thrown up on the board, any kind of basic scientific education would do.

"And quite the contentious ego you have.... one of those that absolutely cannot be wrong or the world falls apart.... "

Do i have an ego? HELL YEA however in the context of this message board, the reason you think i'm arrogant is because i'm sure of what i talk about and i express myself with reasonable clarity(because i actually know what i'm talking about, unlike some people *cough*).

"Yes 'you' can"

*Sigh* no, 'you' can't, the arch is a classical example used in BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS, to demonstrate an example of a structure that cannot be formed through natural selection.

It's easy to see why; any part of an arch is dependant on each and every other part, you can build an arch of blocks, and once made it will stay standing without any glue/cement and will be able to take a considerable load, however if any brick is removed the arch is useless. Evolution works by gradually accumulating characteristics than confer an advantage, you cannot gradually form a structural arch, because it is only usefull when 100% complete.

**salvelinus** · 06-19-2002

1. Can you have an arch in nature?
Sure, happens all the time. Not through biology/evolution/etc, though. Lots of geologic arches happen through geology.
2. Can people turn into pure energy?
Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy".
The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter. This is a broader question and impinges on theology, but still has scientific roots. Right now the answer is who knows?

**Betazep** · 06-19-2002

>>>I have been studying science for the last 7 years of my life (and i'm rather good at it if i do say so myself)<<<

Yeah like your comments on plants not feeling pain... you were golden on that one. The guy even showed an article to strengthen his concept.

And if you look around at all those little wooden things with green things on them... I am not scientific and all but I think they are called leaves... you will see all kinds of arches. Caves are arches in some respects. There is a rock in AZ that a river found its way through that distinctly resembles an arch standing all by its lonesome. I have climbed it. Bow legged people... now there is an arch for you.

>>>Heh not the definition i was looking for, but no matter, it makes no difference; biology cannot "become" "pure energy". It's a nonsense statement.<<<

Who said anything about biology. (though, I am sure you know that our biological make up is atoms... atoms have energy, both kinetic and a few in there are potential... but that is beside the point) Take your magnificent understanding of science and determine the true abstract of the human entity... the being... that which makes you. The area that science passes... the soul. Some people believe in the possible existence of an entity that makes you that isn't a biological construct.

Mainly I just said "yes it is" to your not possible statement to pick at you a bit.... but the reality of things is that you or any other scientist (even those that know what they are talking about) cannot possibly fathom the existence of the human entity in say 400,000 years (if any form of us even exists at all).

And I am sure, since you are a scientist and all that, you wouldn't believe in a soul or entity that makes up the human project. So you would believe that we as individuals are mere impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body that meets the needs of our current environment. Ok. So if we are impulses, the posibilty may exist to duplicate each psyche in a computer of sorts in say... 1 million years. The ability could exist to store 'us' in computers.

Take a single computer made solely out of optics where beams of light created by organic lasers are the make-up of you, Clyde the science wizard from cprogramming.com ... another million years passes... new applications are found to support thought processes without the use of cables, but still using organic lasers (available now btw, bell-labs.com) Now you are a set of organic lasers that shoot light through the air held together by a magnetic field perhaps. Another million years....

do you get the point? There is room in the scientific community for plausibility even where there isn't distinct possibility. You can shoot holes in this all day... today, but in a million years... you cannot tell me where we will be biologically or otherwise.

So you are much like a tv lawyer... looks good in the act, doesn't know crap about the reality of law.

**golfinguy4** · 06-19-2002

Jet, you forgot that I said gene splicing AND cloning. Gene splicing leads to organisms that can be dramatically different. Then, after using this, we can use cloning to speed up this process.

**Betazep** · 06-19-2002

Originally posted by salvelinus
1. Can you have an arch in nature?
Sure, happens all the time. Not through biology/evolution/etc, though. Lots of geologic arches happen through geology.
2. Can people turn into pure energy?
Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy".
The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter. This is a broader question and impinges on theology, but still has scientific roots. Right now the answer is who knows?

Behold... someone with a brain.

>> Right now the answer is who knows?

Well Clyde of course... he knows everything. lol

**RobS** · 06-20-2002

The main sticking point in this now rather petty argument is quite frankly one of everyones use/interpretation of language.
For ease I will start on arches and if I can be bothered onto pure and energy.

You're difference of opinion on arches in nature is down to each of your individual definitions of an "arch".

Clyde, is reading the word arch, and I think, to him it appears an arch is defined by 3 things, shape, function and constuction. An arch is a atructural construction, semicircular in nature, built of a series of wedge shaped components such that the compressive forces hold it together and can be used to securely distribute a load.
This kind of arch, has been around for centuries and was\is a common archetectural device. This arch, does not exist in nature, unless there have been any really freaky rock falls reported.

The other interpretation is an arch is something that is "arch-shaped". And yes, curved things exist in nature.

If people would be as kind to clarify their definitions of "pure energy" to me, I will gladly throw some weight around there as well, I may as well use my physics degree for something every now and again.

**RobR** · 06-20-2002

Bunch of arch-holes

LMFAO!! Nice one.

**Clyde** · 06-20-2002

"Yeah like your comments on plants not feeling pain... you were golden on that one. The guy even showed an article to strengthen his concept. "

LOL, yea that article from CNN sure set me straight... *chortles*

"And if you look around at all those little wooden things with green things on them... I am not scientific and all but I think they are called leaves... you will see all kinds of arches"

RobS as already clarified what i mean by an arch, i did not realise the definition was what was being contended.

"Who said anything about biology. (though, I am sure you know that our biological make up is atoms... atoms have energy, both kinetic and a few in there are potential... but that is beside the point) Take your magnificent understanding of science and determine the true abstract of the human entity... the being... that which makes you. The area that science passes... the soul. Some people believe in the possible existence of an entity that makes you that isn't a biological construct. "

*Considers rebuking this nonsense, then just gives in to a fit of hysterics*

"Mainly I just said "yes it is" to your not possible statement to pick at you a bit.... but the reality of things is that you or any other scientist (even those that know what they are talking about) cannot possibly fathom the existence of the human entity in say 400,000 years (if any form of us even exists at all). "

ROFL, you really don't have a clue do you? Cannot fathom the existance of the human entity...... what utter utter giberish, did you not study any biology at all?

"So you would believe that we as individuals are mere impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body that meets the needs of our current environment. Ok. So if we are impulses, the posibilty may exist to duplicate each psyche in a computer of sorts in say... 1 million years. The ability could exist to store 'us' in computers. "

OMG something thats almost intelligent, CONGRATULATIONS MAN! Anyway, "impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body".... a fairly meaningless collection of words there, but you are somewhat redeemed by your next statement, it might indeed be possible to recreate the structure of the brain within a computer.

"Take a single computer made solely out of optics where beams of light created by organic lasers are the make-up of you, Clyde the science wizard from cprogramming.com ... another million years passes... new applications are found to support thought processes without the use of cables, but still using organic lasers "

What exactly is an "organic laser"? But ok lets say we have a computer that uses lasers, how are you going to store memory w/o using matter? How are you going to detect a laser without using matter?

"Now you are a set of organic lasers that shoot light through the air held together by a magnetic field perhaps. Another million years....

do you get the point? "

Not really, so theoretically you could make a computer act like a person, and then you could improve the computer's technology:

1) The laser of this uber computer that may or may not exist will still have to use physical technology made of matter. (Laser beams are fired by physical objects, photon detectors are physical objects, etc.).

2) This "pure energy" nonsense is still nonsense, because you would be NO CLOSER TO BEING "pure energy" than you are RIGHT NOW. Mass and energy are equivalent remember, meaning that if you want to define us like that you could claim that we are "pure energy" right now. (Of course such a statement is foolish because the point is that EVERYTHING is "pure energy")

However thats somewhat different from the mythical sci-fi faff where people believe that we will somehow ascend to a higher form of "energy", where they somehow invisage us as beings made of light, (no, no lazers, just light that floats around).

"So you are much like a tv lawyer... looks good in the act, doesn't know crap about the reality of law."

Yea you're right i don't know crap, i must have just fluked all those exams, no no, i know i must have cheated, yea thats it. Man i was SO lucky to have have found the answer papers to all my exams, how else would i have come top in them eh? Someone as awfull at science as me, would have stood no chance.....

You're a funny guy Beta, perhaps a career in comedy rather than programming is on the cards?

**Clyde** · 06-20-2002

"Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy". "

Not really, E=mc2 means that we ARE "pure energy", and its STILL a nonsense term, wtf is "pure" energy, as opposed to "impure"? Like bad "unclean" energy, heh. Energy is energy, is the potential to do work.

"The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter"

The answer is no. You could theoretically, make beta's laser computer but it would still have material components, hence not be "independant of matter". The reason is that matter's interactions are more allow far FAR greater complexity than photon interactions.

**salvelinus** · 06-20-2002

Well, you've got a good point about "pure energy", but it's easy enough to get the idea - energy as opposed to matter. Matter can be thought of as compressed energy in a sense, but that trivializes the difference between the two. Light, heat, gamma rays, etc, are energy, while my desk is matter.
I suppose if people were to somehow become translated into energy a material source would be necessary to effect this change, but once converted, wouldn't need the material source. Light from the sun doesn't need the sun once it's produced. If the sun were to vanish immediately, we'd still have eight minutes of light coming our way.
I'm not claiming that people will become energy beings, or even that it's possible. I'm just saying it's not proven impossible.

**Betazep** · 06-20-2002

>>>What exactly is an "organic laser"?

http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2000/july/28/1.html

There are already nearly full optic computers.

>>>You're a funny guy Beta, perhaps a career in comedy rather than programming is on the cards?

At least you are lightening up a bit....

I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing.

and....

"I'm not claiming that people will become energy beings, or even that it's possible. I'm just saying it's not proven impossible." and therein lay a chance, though it may be a small one.

And my question was "is it it possible...", to which you gave a valid opinion... but I assumed correctly... that others like salvelinus would have an nearly opposite opinion.

It is based on sci-fi, but a lot of science fiction is based on what scientists think are possibilities... Isaac Asimov for example.

Anyway... I lean toward the plausable in any regard... discovery is met by developing an idea and finding supporting reasons why the idea is valid or invalid. I guess we will have to agree to disagree....

**loopy** · 06-21-2002

>>I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing.

I think your missing the whole idea in debating. In a debate someone one come's in with fact, then another with a different fact. A debate depend's on the (in a forum) poster's frame of reference. I read all the post's and when i'm i feel i have a high enough frame of reference on the subject i post. After being debated
by someone with a higher frame of reference on the subject it's quite nice to look even
further into subject to challenge your idea's.

On the outside it look's like someone is a "know it all", but to the poster it's all in an attempt to improve their own frame of reference, and when you see alot of debating by a single person say clyde, we'll... that's just clyde's way of improving your frame of reference( be it chock full of condescension)
Do a search for frame of reference
and see what you come up with, it'll help get you into the world of debating. (if you so desire)

**Clyde** · 06-21-2002

"I lean toward the plausable in any regard... discovery is met by developing an idea and finding supporting reasons why the idea is valid or invalid. I guess we will have to agree to disagree...."

Ok, i guess we will. I believe what i do for a reason; its simply not feasable to make a computer soley out of photons which is i think what you actually mean by "pure energy".

"It is based on sci-fi, but a lot of science fiction is based on what scientists think are possibilities... Isaac Asimov for example. "

Science fiction can certainly have interestin things to say, in fact I personally think that much of Asimov's world is quite possible, if not probable. BUT just because something occurs in a sci-fi book does NOT mean that it is possible in reality; Science fiction is constrained by the imagination, reality is constrained by the laws of physics, the two are very different.

"I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing."

Perhaps i was a little hard on you, though in my defense if you had said: "Is there are possibility that through use of photon interactions we could build a computer powerfull enough to synthetically recreate the human brain" rather than "is there are possiblity that we could become pure energy" I would have been less so (i would still have explained why it couldn't be, but with less vehemence).

**salvelinus** · 06-21-2002

Try this site for scientists view of some of the ideas discussed here. One view here is that traditional physics looks at the universe on a machine model, while another view is to look at it on a software model. Sort of equations v. algorthyms.
It's probably not a majority view, but it's an emerging and respected view.