The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
Cubist wrote:
Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray
> thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer
> is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the
> planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no
> answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for
> all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and
> creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one.
> Being bound by logic would be terrible.
No no, you still making it out as if we should be like the Borg, which is too robot-y. We can all still branch out into different areas of research, but instead of the debating "physically" (i.e. talking to each other), we can do so as if we were thinking like one. Hence my idea of sub nets; the further you go down, the more specific the area of research of speciality there is; this will then form a small percentage of the complete function, and will give views based on that group's opinion from their point of view; other point of views from other areas will then meet each other as they move up the hub, and a decision can be made collectively.
To be honest, it's quite similar to what we are doing now - but while we see animal activists protesting against scientists quite visibly, it will just be a thought process as a collective.
Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray
> thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer
> is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the
> planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no
> answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for
> all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and
> creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one.
> Being bound by logic would be terrible.
No no, you still making it out as if we should be like the Borg, which is too robot-y. We can all still branch out into different areas of research, but instead of the debating "physically" (i.e. talking to each other), we can do so as if we were thinking like one. Hence my idea of sub nets; the further you go down, the more specific the area of research of speciality there is; this will then form a small percentage of the complete function, and will give views based on that group's opinion from their point of view; other point of views from other areas will then meet each other as they move up the hub, and a decision can be made collectively.
To be honest, it's quite similar to what we are doing now - but while we see animal activists protesting against scientists quite visibly, it will just be a thought process as a collective.
That is not really evolution though. Evolution is not meant to tear away the basic characteristics of the species. One mind among many would do just that for humans.
I see what you are saying though Icarus.
I see what you are saying though Icarus.
And yet whoever creates a system like that would so easily be able twist it, and therefore put everybody into a big mess. They'd have to have such rational abilities as that of which they would create.
Yes, that's why I'm saying individuality it's good and bad. On one hand, it's what makes humans who they are; on the other, it's the reason why conflicts occur. Sure, you can have a group of ten or even millions having similar opinions, but by being linked so that we cannot "settle" the conflict by arguing or even breaking out into a fight, and instead make decisions as efficiently as possible.
Think of something that requires a decision to be made, or when you have conflicting views on something in your own head - you usually solve it quickly by logically picking what you think is the best solution. It's the same here, but instead of just the one person, there will be billions of ideas, some unique, but instead of arguing as we do now with human to human, we can solve it rationally as a collective.
Like one great big brain.
Think of something that requires a decision to be made, or when you have conflicting views on something in your own head - you usually solve it quickly by logically picking what you think is the best solution. It's the same here, but instead of just the one person, there will be billions of ideas, some unique, but instead of arguing as we do now with human to human, we can solve it rationally as a collective.
Like one great big brain.
Lindgren wrote:
> But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in
> a way?
If it is put into practice from birth though then they wont miss what they never had. Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one. Being bound by logic would be terrible.
> But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in
> a way?
If it is put into practice from birth though then they wont miss what they never had. Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one. Being bound by logic would be terrible.
Icarus wrote:
> Star Trek? Oh, you mean the Borg and stuff? Well fundamentally it
> seems like a good idea to "speed up" human evolution as we
> know it. And I don't see why we have to turn into white faced cyborgs
> in the process.
>
> Look at it this way - a central hub with several subsets of smaller
> hubs (think village, town, city, county, country, etc), where the
> best solutions will be fowarded until reaching the central one.
>
> On second thoughts, we may have to alter our anatomy a bit so we can
> accomodate some some networking equipment.
But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in a way?
> Star Trek? Oh, you mean the Borg and stuff? Well fundamentally it
> seems like a good idea to "speed up" human evolution as we
> know it. And I don't see why we have to turn into white faced cyborgs
> in the process.
>
> Look at it this way - a central hub with several subsets of smaller
> hubs (think village, town, city, county, country, etc), where the
> best solutions will be fowarded until reaching the central one.
>
> On second thoughts, we may have to alter our anatomy a bit so we can
> accomodate some some networking equipment.
But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in a way?
gamezfreak wrote:
> How long is it before we have AI intelligent pilots?
>
Pretty soon I'd think. Some company in the news recently (cannae remember though) has created a helicopter that could fly on its own, avoiding obstacles while en route to its destination.
> How long is it before we have AI intelligent pilots?
>
Pretty soon I'd think. Some company in the news recently (cannae remember though) has created a helicopter that could fly on its own, avoiding obstacles while en route to its destination.
Star Trek? Oh, you mean the Borg and stuff? Well fundamentally it seems like a good idea to "speed up" human evolution as we know it. And I don't see why we have to turn into white faced cyborgs in the process.
Look at it this way - a central hub with several subsets of smaller hubs (think village, town, city, county, country, etc), where the best solutions will be fowarded until reaching the central one.
On second thoughts, we may have to alter our anatomy a bit so we can accomodate some some networking equipment.
Look at it this way - a central hub with several subsets of smaller hubs (think village, town, city, county, country, etc), where the best solutions will be fowarded until reaching the central one.
On second thoughts, we may have to alter our anatomy a bit so we can accomodate some some networking equipment.
gamezfreak wrote:
> How long is it before we have AI intelligent pilots?
>
> I mean like instead of sending human piloted jets into war - how long
> is it before we get AI powered ones which go in - do the job - fly
> out? The technology could be expanded onto commercial flights or even
> emergancy services.
>
> I don't think it's that long a way until a our world becomes AI
> based. In my opinion i'm not sure if i'd like it or not. We'll have
> to wait and see...
Then Notorious Biggles will be out of a job...
> How long is it before we have AI intelligent pilots?
>
> I mean like instead of sending human piloted jets into war - how long
> is it before we get AI powered ones which go in - do the job - fly
> out? The technology could be expanded onto commercial flights or even
> emergancy services.
>
> I don't think it's that long a way until a our world becomes AI
> based. In my opinion i'm not sure if i'd like it or not. We'll have
> to wait and see...
Then Notorious Biggles will be out of a job...
How long is it before we have AI intelligent pilots?
I mean like instead of sending human piloted jets into war - how long is it before we get AI powered ones which go in - do the job - fly out? The technology could be expanded onto commercial flights or even emergancy services.
I don't think it's that long a way until a our world becomes AI based. In my opinion i'm not sure if i'd like it or not. We'll have to wait and see...
I mean like instead of sending human piloted jets into war - how long is it before we get AI powered ones which go in - do the job - fly out? The technology could be expanded onto commercial flights or even emergancy services.
I don't think it's that long a way until a our world becomes AI based. In my opinion i'm not sure if i'd like it or not. We'll have to wait and see...
Page: