|
|
CopyRight @ 2005
It's time again. It's time to turn wild ideas into disciplined ideas of some potential use.
This is not going to be easy to write both because the difficulty of the topic and because
of what it comes to address.
This is a discussion of the future of humanity, based on the previous work in this book. So
far this book has been based on genetics, ecology and survival strategies. It has been very
conservative though, in the same way that evolution and survival are conservative. Looking at
what I have learned and what it seems to mean is not conservative. Looking at the future of
humans is inherently quite speculative. Up until now, the book has been science or philosophy
that is bsed on science. What follows is different. While largely initiated by reason and logic,
it draws on more than that. It is philosophy based on far more than the limited
body that is science. Still, the purpose of this book is to use a large foundation of
science upon which to use reason and logic to show the patterns that may create the future, a
future where humans exist
in a relatively stable ecology. Most views of the future tend towards something that looks like
Star Trek, partly because that is what we can understand. Partly because it was a great looking
future. This speculation though is a bit different, because it is based on the unique foundation
of this book. That is that humans will have to use artificial selection. Not only that, but that
any specie that develops technology will have to use artificial selection for the same reasons
that humans must. What does that assumption say about the future of humanity? Something fairly
novel, I assure you. I also use some on other things to make conclusions, including emotion.
Do not underestimate the utility of emotion for solving problems.
If you accept that any technological specie will need to use artificial selection, if you accept that most technological species will use virtual realities as part of their ecology and if you think that there are other intelligent species in the universe, then what is said here is just a question of probability, not possibility.
I wasn't looking for something amazing. I was looking for a way for humans to survive.
Since this is about the future, it must be considered speculative. There is a whole genre of such
writings, best known as Science Fiction. I am very, very familiar with Science Fiction. What I
speculate tends to be different than pretty much anything to be found in Science Fiction, because
my assumptions about genetics are different. The closest any writer has come I think is E. E. Doc
Smith who spoke of the Arisians, though they were a product of great time working on natural genetic
evolution. My description is of evolution being accelerated by artificial selection.
Realize that this section is based only on reason. Evaluate it in that context. This is a very
controversial view. Avoid pre-conceptions when reading it, but then again, it is about
pre-conceptions. It turned out when I figured it out, the description of the human future looks
uncannily similar to another description that many have heard of before and from that will come
the controversy.
The second foundation of this view relates to the oldest trend and the most recent. By the
most recent, I mean virtual reality. Then again, it's not that new. Books and plays qualify as
virtual realities as much as television, music and so many other distractions that humans
seem to be spending more and more of their time on. Virtual realities in a very broad sense have
already become a significant part of our ecology and will become more so in the future, including
the realities that will be offered by computers.
You ask what the oldest trend is. What are among the oldest and most recognizable monuments on
Earth? It is the pyramids. They were built as a way to beat death. They illustrate a goal of
humanity.
It is a goal that will start to become feasible, especially in terms of virtual reality. Survival
past the death of the body. Sure, we may extend the life span of people, but that is another
issue and another problem. I'm not talking right away, but I expect, barring global calamity, that
humans will be able to project their consciousness into generated virtual realities within a century
at the most. The incentive is just too great.
What has been said so far, doesn't explain what I am getting to, but it raises questions of
validity. What good are my guesses about something like this, even if they are based on a lot
of good study of humans and genetics? Well, I wasn't looking for this. I only wanted to see the
next stable ecology, which is likely to look something like Star Trek, but that is not where it
will end. I think there is another stable ecology that humans may achieve, but then you've heard
of it already. That's the point and the problem, it looks far more like religion than science.
I always say that I try to put into words what people already know, but cannot put into words.
In this case, I cannot put it into words nearly as well as I can describe what has already been
written. If you read this with an open, curious mind and understand the three essays. If you
can do the almost impossible and put aside all your pre-conceptions about religion, you can
use your reason to evaluate what might explain both humanity and God.
I was not particularly interested in studying religion or Gods. (Well, yes, after this I
would like to.) I am like most people and do not examine
religion closely. I honestly, with great ability and fanatic devotion, studied humans. This
though is what the study revealed and it may be that it shows God as well. There are other
items that could influence my take on all of this, but they are not part of the reasoning and
are another issue to be examined elsewhere.
I have to mention the strangeness of this all. I was forced into a path of analysis I would
not have followed myself. The mention of an AI in the middle of the conversation was the first
key.
I will start this with a bit of background about biases I have to consider in this evaluation
and to describe something of the path I used to reach the conclusion. Right or wrong, it makes
a dandy ending to my search for a path of human survival. It may not have started with Brent,
I had some minor questions before he started the argument, but it certainly ended there.
This concept is based on reason and genetics.
To make it short, if we use artificial selection, we will evolve into something that we would
recognise as Gods. While the following essays give a more complete definition, A god is primarily
an emotional experience. If you met a human that had used artificial selection for even 100,000
years, your mind would emotionally respond that that being was a God. No matter what else
you thought, your emotions would be clear on that matter. Combine that with the potentials of
virtual reality and you have something that looks a great deal like some or perhaps most religions.
This in no way proves anything about religion or gods. It is only based on reason, genetic
principles and psychological patterns. Still, the question has been asked if there is intelligent
life out in the universe somewhere besides Earth. If there is, they will have had to use artificial
genetic selection for the same reason that humans need to. We call it human progress. If they do
that, if they achieve a new stable ecology, the result could very well be what we would call
God. It is an idea that took me a long time to accept or get comfortable with, but it is one of
the most amazing and compelling ideas I have ever encountered.
If life is an eddy in the current of entrophy, then what would a permanent eddy be like? Just
how old and vast might it be? It could be older than this galaxy and very possibly older than this
universe.
Comment that has to go somewhere.... It's in conclusion
Elsewhere I have described the blind spot of intelligent people. Since intelligence can be sensed in
many ways, including speed, a person of lesser intelligence can immediately spot a more intelligent
person as soon as they use their intelligence, the speed jumps up. At the same time a more
intelligent person cannot necessarily spot a less intelligent person, because they never know when
their speed might go up.
There is a similarity in the case of emotions. Intelligence is tied to emotions. Though different,
in many ways, it works to consider intelligence as an emotion. Also, for various reasons, there is
likely to be less variation in emotional power between people than there is intellectual variation.
In any case, there is also a difference in response. When a person detects that another person is
more intelligent than themselves, there are many ways they might respond. The response is largely
intellectual. It is different with emotions. When a person detects that another person is a good
deal more emotionally powerful, their response is mostly emotional and sub-conscious. It goes
deeper. This is a subject that can be considered at length. Here, that is not the intent. It does
seem that a person using strong emotions can control, influence or manipulate a person of lesser
emotional power. How this relates to survival is another discussion and probably relates to survival
and social issues. The point here though is that if a human meets a person with significantly
stronger emotions than themselves, there mind tells them "that is a God". This is difficult to
describe in ways. It is emotional, not intellectual. It is as irresistible as emotions are. God is a
poor word, but it is the one that people use. It might be better called a meme. It most likely
relates to social leadership. There are a lot of parts beyond emotion that go together in this. Sometime the emotion is not even the primary part.
Only in a virtual reality would it be safe to meet a being that is far more emotionally powerful.
New Intro - 02/16/06, 8/12/06
Really, I had not planned on saying anything about religions and Gods. Beliefs effect human
survival, but at best there's not really much known about Gods. The scope of this
book was supposed to be something like 10,000 years into the future when humans would be
hybridized enough to take advantage of what genes we have available. Long before that we would
need to develop a new, relatively stable ecology for humans. If we can't solve our present
problems in 10,000 years, my analysis is sure not going to hold up well. The idea was that we
could solve our resource needs with technology and our genetic issues with artificial selection.
We could create something like the world of the Jetsons where people had the intelligence
to control their populations to match their resource availability. You could create a relatively
stable ecology that could last indefinitely. After that I figured that smarter and wiser people
of the time could figure out the next steps.
It was a discussion with a friend about religion that made me look at a much greater time
period. It caused me to think about many things I had not pursued. I was amazed at what I
found. It seems appropriate to describe what I learned, especially since it relates a great
deal to human survival. There is another possibility of an ecology very different than the
Jetsons or Star Trek.
I suspect that the "Fourth Forbidden Topic In Science" is whether science can find data
about Gods.
I think it is necessary to give some context for this to be understood. I was raised with
a religious background. My Mother was very religious, but had a deep understanding of science
as well and saw no conflicts there. As is typical, I never thought about religion that much. I was
comfortable with it, but
was also very comfortable leaving it unexamined. I've never been much of a churchgoer and religion did not offer the answers I wanted. I did not really see a God in religion.
I could never be a fundamentalist of any kind. I knew religion and concepts of God have
been important to human survival in the past, but had few guesses about the future. I did like
the quote, from a Catholic Bishop of all people, that said that the problem with religion was that
it was based on precedence and authority, but needed to be based on reason and understanding. I
added to that "or it will not be used". Still, religion has a great idea that some superior being
cares about humans. Could that be the case?
I had thought about religion a little due to something from my examination of survival strategies.
Since I was looking for an existing or potential survival strategy for humans in a future ecology,
I was looking for a cooperative strategy. I concluded that it would be a strategy based on love.
Cooperation is how humans have always survived and love seemed the most cooperative strategy. It
seemed amazing that the basis of Western moral philosophy had been taught by a person that said it
was a gift from God. I had already studied basic human survival instinct, including how it had seemed to be combined with human
intellectual potentials into a behavior called faith. I could not ignore that many religions put
faith and love
above all other values. I didn't know what to make of it, but it was not something to simply ignore.
To some degree we may recognize a God by their power or perhaps wisdom, but a God is recognized
emotionally. No matter what you know, it is your emotions that will tell you something is a God.
A "God" here usually refers to something worshipped. On the other hand, "Gods" or "gods" refers to
something
described in relation to humans. Or is it the other way around?
Gods and religion are slippery subjects at best. I have already described how religion,
faith and Gods fit into human ecology, survival and thought. It's all very simple and fits into
survival
strategies very nice and tidy, but that tells about humans, not Gods.
It was years after my first look at the question of moral systems, including love and faith, that
the discussion with my friend Brent started. It lasted nearly 2 years
and was definitely a contact sport. I learned a lot. My friend is opposed to religion for a specific
reason. He felt it had left people open to political manipulation. He wanted it banished form Earth.
I had
never examined the question very closely. Off hand, my biggest objection to his desire for all
religion to vanish was to ask who would teach morality in terms of right and wrong, but that is
another question. He is stubborn and pushy so I thought about it a lot to try to come up with an
answer to his questions based on the ways of thought I had been trained to use. I found more than I
expected.
Do you understand how human belief works? How we can and do comfortably carry more than one belief
at the same time? Think of how many times you have had multiple points of view while trying to judge
a situation. It can even get to be a problem of conflict at times. Belief is something with many
changing shades of gray. It can be difficult to figure out which views are your dominant beliefs.
About the only consistently dominant belief in a human is to survive.
In terms of how belief works, pure beliefs,
especially about Gods is very hazardous to ones health. It is the equivalent of an obsession and
is not how the human mind is made to work. It is generally not a good survival strategy.
I basically believe in God, or mostly believe in God, the way belief works. I had never
thought about it that much. Maybe the two go together, belief and lack of examination.
His discussion made me examine.
As far as belief goes, it is not that tightly bound to examination, reason or knowledge. Belief is
largely separate from the logical mind and has its foundations in emotion. To make a long story
short,
I did some thinking and reached a conclusion that I already knew.
Religious faith is just a behavior with a strong genetic basis. I have that basis, so I have faith.
It is not about reasons. Frankly, it has never mattered to me that much. I am not what you would
call
all that religious. As I told my friend, I mostly study human genetics. Still, I have this belief,
that is certainly related to my early training, but it is paired with a genetic based behavior. It
is a large part of me, because it is also the basis of much of my survival instinct. That is what
faith is, a survival instinct or perhaps more correctly, a collection of survival instincts..
The interesting part is how I got to that conclusion. Sure, it is widely accepted that religious
faith has a genetic basis so the behavior does not rely on reason or facts, but I confirmed it
for myself. I applied reason to what I know of God. The results were amazing actually, but I
still found that no matter how interesting the knowledge I learned was, it did not seem to effect my
belief about God greatly. Still, I think that those results were surprising and that is what the
next
essays are about.
Enough bad self conscious writing about biases.
First off, there are two important questions to consider about Gods. They may seem like the same
question, but they certainly are not and it is important to understand that. They are "does God
exist" and "do you believe in God". The first is a rational question and the second is a moral
question. A funny thing is that you don't have to believe one to believe the other.
Do you believe in God is a moral question about survival strategies. What strategies do you follow?
Who are your leaders? What do you value? What do you believe? Do you believe in right and wrong? How
do you live your life? (Actually, that should probably be considered more in earlier parts of this
book.)
Does God exist asks a question that is appropriate to science. Is there something we can see using
the proper telescope or radio receiver? Can a statistical analysis show a deviation from probability
that indicates an effect we just don't know about? Are there any artifacts that might have come from
a God? Examined this way, I was surprised that the likelihood of Gods existing was far higher than I
would have expected before looking. The reasoning is fairly simple and relates to the most basic
premise of this book. That is one of the curious aspects of this. The need for artificial selection,
something that every technological specie is going to require, relates directly to the
likelihood that Gods exist. If it wasn't required, we would likely end up like Star Trek or
the Jetsons, so to speak. We would adapt
enough to survive in a comfortable ecology we produced. With artificial selection in the equation,
we aren't likely to stop there.
Before we go on to the good stuff, there is one more piece of background necessary to make this anywhere near complete. That is
Emotion.
I wrote three essays to explain what I came up with. The first examines if a being like God could or
is likely to exist. The second essay, A Definition of God, is a simple analysis to clarify what
is being talked about. The third commentary is an odd, but simply logical speculation that
could have far reaching consequence in many ways. Does Heaven exist? It seems surprisingly
likely, a few things considered.
Then I went and wrote a conclusion to pull it all together.
This is what you get when an engineer challenges a student of Human Ecology.
The following essays should be read in order. One leads to and builds on the other. Right
now these are fairly rough and incomplete, but they have been gone over for some readability
and they do communicate what is important:
God Model 1
What is a God? What about creating a God?
A Definition of God
This one is pretty good. Pester me with questions enough and I will find an answer. This follows the
previous essay and interjects some important questions about what a God has to deal with.
Archetype Or Maybe Virtual Reality - This one has a lot of potential,
but needs work to make it a complete archetype
It asks if we could create a way to live after the natural death of our bodies. Can we make a
heaven? What would be some of the implications?
Surprisingly I haven't read 'Necromancer' which is supposed to be a similar idea. I have also heard
that it has been proven to be technically impossible. We all know how technically impossible things
seem to remain and that story definitely did not include the potentials of object design.
As I said, though the essays suggest that God or Gods are very likely to exist, it really has
little to do with my beliefs. That is why it is called faith. Really, there is another reason than
faith that I believe in
God. Well, if God does not exist, it may be a sensible human goal to make one.
It can be said that God is the repository of our dreams and aspirations. It is nice that we seem to
have the potentials genetically and technically to achieve most of our dreams and
aspirations, even perhaps conquering death in a useful way.
So how do you end something like this? There can be only one way. Go for it.
Conclusion - I went to the edge. Ya know I stood and looked down.
Then I jumped.
Do you know that when you reach the end, you have to start writing it all over from the beginning.
I have my own
reason to think that it was already done.
Back To Home Page
|
|