[karajorma]

Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?

Find me a post where someone else has said they'd never use a transporter because they'd be dead and a copy would live on in their place. I'll wait.

If it was a huge issue I'm pretty sure someone would have brought it up. What with this being a Sci-fi board and all. But if you want I'll post a poll and see if you're in in the minority. Might be interesting.

And even if we assume they do, what of it? How does a buch of people willing to use transporters prove anything discussed in their thread?

Well it proves your view is in the minority for one thing.

I never said one would always know. I said that in most cases, the copy would be abelt to find out if it is a copy.

Yet you never managed to make a convincing argument for what happened in the cases where it couldn't tell.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't thir thread originalyl about human expansion and colonization?

If you want me to ban you for dragging this entire thread off-topic when you claimed Transhumanism was monkey poo and thereby initiating all the off-topic discussion of how it isn't, just ask.

Otherwise you don't get to argue for 6 pages about something off-topic and then suddenly try to talk about the original when someone rebuts your argument. Especially when your post was actually the root cause of the off-topic. It's a rather cheap debating trick.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Anyway, the human being's inherent cognitive abilities are part of their adaptive abilities. Which fulfills the definition of "a creature which can adapt naturally has no challenge and therefore no need to improve itself", and makes your argument a bit circular.

No, what you said essentially was:

Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)

We're far from optimized for galactic domination. I'm sure there are designs out there that can do everything we can do, but do it better, and then do a lot more on top of it.

If a creature doesn't need to haul around a bubble of it's absurd environment, then it has no need to create an artificial bubble, if it has no need to create the bubble it has no need to improve it's own technology. What you're essentially saying is that a creature whose physiology is more diverse and can adapt to more environments would be a better candidate for mass expansion than a human, but what I'm saying is that a human with its physical limitations and it's "niche environment" (btw everyone it's pronounced NEESH not NITCH!!!!!!  ) would ultimately be more successful because it has actually has a need to create technology to overcome its physical shortcomings.

A creature which adapts through intelligence and design will always be more successful than a creature which adapts simply by its the diverse abilities of its physical being. And perhaps even in the development process a creature with diverse physiology simply has no need to develop a higher intelligence because it can instinctively do what it does and will therefore remain our definition of an animal or a lifeform lacking sentience.

[Colonol Dekker]

As I read through this 'discussion' I can't help but think "I'm getting a Terran vs Zerg vibe here.

[General Battuta]

If a creature doesn't need to haul around a bubble of it's absurd environment, then it has no need to create an artificial bubble, if it has no need to create the bubble it has no need to improve it's own technology.

Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?

You should have read the thread.

What you're essentially saying is that a creature whose physiology is more diverse and can adapt to more environments would be a better candidate for mass expansion than a human, but what I'm saying is that a human with its physical limitations and it's "niche environment" (btw everyone it's pronounced NEESH not NITCH!!!!!!  ) would ultimately be more successful because it has actually has a need to create technology to overcome its physical shortcomings.

Er, right, but a creature that has a more diverse physiology and all the technological ability of a human would be better still.

There's simply no way you can argue that a spacecraft without the need for life support is better than a spacecraft with the need for life support. Life support is an absurd waste of resources.

A creature which adapts through intelligence and design will always be more successful than a creature which adapts simply by its the diverse abilities of its physical being.

Well, okay, no, while I'm inclined to agree, we don't have any evidence of that at all. We've barely been around an eyeblink. One of the things we have to consider is that our 'intelligence and design' is actually a weakness, a bad survival strategy. Or, alternatively, that we're not actually particularly intelligent - there's plenty of evidence that we are pretty half-assed thinkers.

And perhaps even in the development process a creature with diverse physiology simply has no need to develop a higher intelligence because it can instinctively do what it does and will therefore remain our definition of an animal or a lifeform lacking sentience.

Again, zero evidence.

You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.

[Mars]

Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?

Find me a post where someone else has said they'd never use a transporter because they'd be dead and a copy would live on in their place. I'll wait.

Although I disagree to an extent, I probably would not use a transporter, because I would be afraid of coming out different somehow.

[Ghostavo]

Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?

Find me a post where someone else has said they'd never use a transporter because they'd be dead and a copy would live on in their place. I'll wait.

If it was a huge issue I'm pretty sure someone would have brought it up. What with this being a Sci-fi board and all. But if you want I'll post a poll and see if you're in in the minority. Might be interesting.

In universe reference, McCoy. 

[Topgun]

I wouldn't use a teleporter either, just in case.

[Colonol Dekker]

If they were about before I was born and I grew up with them integral to society I wouldn't have a bloody choice would I
 
 
I'd rather not though. . I saw the fly remake when I was little and aside from Geena Davis' arse, the rest was pretty nasty for a preteen.

[castor]

Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.

Ok, I don't agree with everything, but you seem to be consistent in your line of thought.

Just as a side note (as it's even more OT), I have the itch that it will not be possible to actually replicate a mind; I assume a mind is like a fractal that modifies itself as it goes.. To replicate a mind, you need to know the "equation", to know the equation, you need to replicate the mind (that is, no matter how fine details you pass over, it will never be complete - just a cardboard copy).

[Topgun]

Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.

Just as a side note (as it's even more OT), I have the itch that it will not be possible to actually replicate a mind; I assume a mind is like a fractal that modifies itself as it goes.. To replicate a mind, you need to know the "equation", to know the equation, you need to replicate the mind (that is, no matter how fine details you pass over, it will never be complete - just a cardboard copy).

wow, that's kinda like what I think.

[High Max]

*_*

[General Battuta]

Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.

Just as a side note (as it's even more OT), I have the itch that it will not be possible to actually replicate a mind; I assume a mind is like a fractal that modifies itself as it goes.. To replicate a mind, you need to know the "equation", to know the equation, you need to replicate the mind (that is, no matter how fine details you pass over, it will never be complete - just a cardboard copy).

wow, that's kinda like what I think.

You can make the argument that it will not be possible from an engineering standpoint, but given arbitrary scan resolution and point manipulation of matter, you cannot argue that it is physically impossible without becoming a dualist.

High Max: read the damn thread! That's already been tackled.

[karajorma]

In universe reference, McCoy. 

He used the transporter all the time. He got beamed down to pretty much every single planet just so he could say "He's dead Jim!"


I should point out that I'm not asking who wouldn't use a transporter because they were scared of an accident. That's a complete different and much more rational fear. I'm asking who absolutely, in all circumstances wouldn't use a transporter because even if it worked 100% correctly they'd still be dead.

So you're on a planet that's about to explode in one minute, the Enterprise offers to beam you up and you say no and start looking for a shuttle because if you can't find one you are just as dead if you beam up as if you blow up with the planet. Find me someone who believes that.

[Scotty]

Which is probably why in sci-fi, other species see humans as inferior. But we are in some ways still physically more adaptable than some life forms on earth considering that we have efficient iron based blood that is good at absorbing oxygen instead of the less efficient copper based blood, as well as having a 4 chambered heart for increased stamina. Also, the fact that we are warm blooded which enables us to live almost anywhere in the world, and we are also omnivores to boot, which enables us to eat a wide variety of foods. We also have the ability to sweat if we get too hot and tan for more protection from the sun, and that also aids in heat dissipation.

I call shenanigans on the first sentence to start.  Cite please, and then explain why that seemingly applies to every single piece of Science Fiction.

Then, please explain why humans are so unique just on the basis of those traits, seeing as we have nothing to compare to. that comparison doesn't hold water to what any alien could be.

No one besides you could ever know if it has your consciousness.

Except, you know, it wouldn't, since it's a distinctly separate individual.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?

You should have read the thread.

10 pages? No thanks.
You've obviously got some fascination with genetic manipulation as you think it's the solution to most everything.
The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.

Well, okay, no, while I'm inclined to agree, we don't have any evidence of that at all. We've barely been around an eyeblink. One of the things we have to consider is that our 'intelligence and design' is actually a weakness, a bad survival strategy. Or, alternatively, that we're not actually particularly intelligent - there's plenty of evidence that we are pretty half-assed thinkers.

Regardless of how smart or not we are there is no evidence of any lifeform more intelligent.

Again, zero evidence.

You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.

Sure, and zero evidence to the contrary too.

[High Max]

*_*

[Topgun]

In universe reference, McCoy.  

I should point out that I'm not asking who wouldn't use a transporter because they were scared of an accident. That's a complete different and much more rational fear. I'm asking who absolutely, in all circumstances wouldn't use a transporter because even if it worked 100% correctly they'd still be dead.

Im not worried about an accident, Im worried that the one who got teleported is not me.
let me put it this way, I believe what you are saying, but I wouldn't take the chance.

In universe reference, McCoy.  

So you're on a planet that's about to explode in one minute, the Enterprise offers to beam you up and you say no and start looking for a shuttle because if you can't find one you are just as dead if you beam up as if you blow up with the planet. Find me someone who believes that.

In that case, I would take the transporter. becuase the odds of the teleporter not killing me are better than the odds of me finding a shuttle in time. and even if the teleporter does kill me, at least my copy will get to go on and have a full life.

[Scotty]

You quoted yourself in that last post.  Read the first sentence again.  Just incase:  "in sci-fi, other species see humans as inferior."  Now let's play spot the qualifier.  I can't find it for some reason.

Also, anyone else start laughing when Max said "stupid, primitive, and like animals, and even selfish" as if that were the worst insult that had ever been conceived?

[Topgun]

One example would be that in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Anakin is pod racing and you hear the announcer say something that indicates that humans are seen as inferior. If you watch sci-fi, you will often encounter other species putting down humans as being weak, stupid, primitive, and like animals, and even selfish, but some of that even I could not argue with and would agree on.

yeah, star wars, where most jedi are human

[The E]

10 pages? No thanks.

And right here, you lost most of your credibility. If you're not going to bother reading what has been said before, why should I bother reading anything you say?

You've obviously got some fascination with genetic manipulation as you think it's the solution to most everything.
The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.

Define "Identity". Does being human necessitate having a 100% biological human body? I say No. What makes us human are our minds and spirits, our bodies matter comparatively little.
Also, genetic manipulation is only one tool in the box. There are other methods which are equally fun.
 

Regardless of how smart or not we are there is no evidence of any lifeform more intelligent.

And?

Again, zero evidence.

You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.

Sure, and zero evidence to the contrary too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Are you telling me there is zero evidence for these mechanisms?