0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The question is, how far we can improve them? Is there any inherent limitations to the change which should not be exceeded?
The question is, how far we can improve them? Is there any inherent limitations to the change which should not be exceeded?Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2021 21:50:51My answer is no.
My answer is no.
That's why we need to achieve some balance in resources distribution to optimize the usage of our finite available resources to maximize overall performance.
I don't know or care what you are talking about, but it's pretty funny to watch you have a in depth conversation with yourself.
Quote from: Origin on 08/05/2021 22:24:51I don't know or care what you are talking about, but it's pretty funny to watch you have a in depth conversation with yourself.I'm glad that my posts can be entertaining to you, who don't even know or care what they mean. It looks like you care enough to post some comments here, despite your claim. I'm also curious, which part of my statements you still don't understand? Have you read them yet? Do you want to deliberately ignore them? What's your motivation to prevent me and others to discuss this matters? In my previous posts I've mentioned the importance of getting the correct answer to the question about our terminal goals. Not knowing them would render our actions ineffective and inefficient. It would leave us directed by instinct and emotions, which may not serve us well in the long term journey of life.
The problem of optimizing resources distribution is not restricted to individual level. It also applies to the subsystems as well as superorganism level.In any level, optimizing resources distribution requires some methods of information exchange or signalling among parts of the system.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2021 23:21:29Quote from: Origin on 08/05/2021 22:24:51I don't know or care what you are talking about, but it's pretty funny to watch you have a in depth conversation with yourself.I'm glad that my posts can be entertaining to you, who don't even know or care what they mean. It looks like you care enough to post some comments here, despite your claim. I'm also curious, which part of my statements you still don't understand? Have you read them yet? Do you want to deliberately ignore them? What's your motivation to prevent me and others to discuss this matters? In my previous posts I've mentioned the importance of getting the correct answer to the question about our terminal goals. Not knowing them would render our actions ineffective and inefficient. It would leave us directed by instinct and emotions, which may not serve us well in the long term journey of life. When you wake up everyday, have you ever wonder why you do whatever you are going to do that day? What's their purpose? What your life is for? Why you try to stay alive if life is meaningless? The fact that you posted here proves that you are not a practical nihilist, despite the content of your posts seemingly contradicting it. But things that you do indicate who you are better than words that you say.
In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 22/04/2021 13:55:47There will be some people or other conscious lifeforms who act as if there is no such thing as a universal terminal goal. Hence they effectively replace it with some arbitrarily chosen non-universal terminal goals.Some of those non-universal terminal goals may bring consequences which effectively obstruct or even prevent the achievement of the universal terminal goal. Other conscious agents who already acknowledge the universal terminal goal should prepare some counter measures for that case. Establishing a universal moral standard is one of them.
There will be some people or other conscious lifeforms who act as if there is no such thing as a universal terminal goal. Hence they effectively replace it with some arbitrarily chosen non-universal terminal goals.
Our perception of the goal, whether it's perceived as terminal or instrumental goal may influence our calculation of effectiveness and efficiency. Failing to achieve instrumental goals is generally more acceptable than failing to achieve terminal goals. Winning a skirmish battle and winning a war are often cited as examples of instrumental and terminal goals, respectively. In ancient times, losing a war can mean a complete destruction of a civilization, like what happened to the Canaanites. But in modern day, it may not be the case anymore. Germans lost both world wars, but now they are among wealthiest countriest in Europe, even on earth. It shows us that even winning a war is just an instrumental goal to help achieving a longer term terminal goal.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2021 05:58:24It's Alive, But Is It Life: Synthetic Biology and the Future of Creation//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU_pfCtSWF4QuoteFor decades, biologists have read and edited DNA, the code of life. Revolutionary developments are giving scientists the power to write it. Instead of tinkering with existing life forms, synthetic biologists may be on the verge of writing the DNA of a living organism from scratch. In the next decade, according to some, we may even see the first synthetic human genome. Join a distinguished group of synthetic biologists, geneticists and bioengineers who are edging closer to breathing life into matter.This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.Original Program Date: June 4, 2016MODERATOR: Robert KrulwichPARTICIPANTS: George Church, Drew Endy, Tom Knight, Pamela SilverQuoteSynthetic Biology and the Future of Creation 00:00Participant Intros 3:25Ordering DNA from the internet 8:10 How much does it cost to make a synthetic human? 13:04Why is yeast the best catalyst 20:10How George Church printed 90 billion copies of his book 26:05Creating synthetic rose oil 28:35Safety engineering and synthetic biology 37:15Do we want to be invaded by bad bacteria? 45:26Do you need a human gene's to create human cells? 55:09The standard of DNA sequencing in utero 1:02:27The science community is divided by closed press meetings 1:11:30The Human Genome Project. What is it? 1:21:45Profound question about morality was asked in 1:00:00 mark. It's remarkable that this video was uploaded in 2016, as if it's foreseeing our current situation.
It's Alive, But Is It Life: Synthetic Biology and the Future of Creation//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU_pfCtSWF4QuoteFor decades, biologists have read and edited DNA, the code of life. Revolutionary developments are giving scientists the power to write it. Instead of tinkering with existing life forms, synthetic biologists may be on the verge of writing the DNA of a living organism from scratch. In the next decade, according to some, we may even see the first synthetic human genome. Join a distinguished group of synthetic biologists, geneticists and bioengineers who are edging closer to breathing life into matter.This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.Original Program Date: June 4, 2016MODERATOR: Robert KrulwichPARTICIPANTS: George Church, Drew Endy, Tom Knight, Pamela SilverQuoteSynthetic Biology and the Future of Creation 00:00Participant Intros 3:25Ordering DNA from the internet 8:10 How much does it cost to make a synthetic human? 13:04Why is yeast the best catalyst 20:10How George Church printed 90 billion copies of his book 26:05Creating synthetic rose oil 28:35Safety engineering and synthetic biology 37:15Do we want to be invaded by bad bacteria? 45:26Do you need a human gene's to create human cells? 55:09The standard of DNA sequencing in utero 1:02:27The science community is divided by closed press meetings 1:11:30The Human Genome Project. What is it? 1:21:45
For decades, biologists have read and edited DNA, the code of life. Revolutionary developments are giving scientists the power to write it. Instead of tinkering with existing life forms, synthetic biologists may be on the verge of writing the DNA of a living organism from scratch. In the next decade, according to some, we may even see the first synthetic human genome. Join a distinguished group of synthetic biologists, geneticists and bioengineers who are edging closer to breathing life into matter.This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.Original Program Date: June 4, 2016MODERATOR: Robert KrulwichPARTICIPANTS: George Church, Drew Endy, Tom Knight, Pamela Silver
Synthetic Biology and the Future of Creation 00:00Participant Intros 3:25Ordering DNA from the internet 8:10 How much does it cost to make a synthetic human? 13:04Why is yeast the best catalyst 20:10How George Church printed 90 billion copies of his book 26:05Creating synthetic rose oil 28:35Safety engineering and synthetic biology 37:15Do we want to be invaded by bad bacteria? 45:26Do you need a human gene's to create human cells? 55:09The standard of DNA sequencing in utero 1:02:27The science community is divided by closed press meetings 1:11:30The Human Genome Project. What is it? 1:21:45
Let's contemplate some similar goals which only differ in time scale.- I want to live to pass another day.- I want to live to pass another year.- I want to live to pass through technological singularity, which is expected to arrive before the end of this century.- I want to live forever.It's clear that the former goals become instrumental for the later goals.
So, the only hope to get closer to the best case scenario is to improve myself to be more tolerant of various conditions I might have to deal with in the future. The improvement will involve additions, removal, and replacement of some of my existing subsystems, including genetic and epigenetic types.
Statistically, random mutation produces detrimental genes more often than beneficial ones. Accumulation of beneficial genes must rely on natural selection, or artificial selection like domestication. But that would include reproduction of numerous copies and removal of most of them, which is not very efficient.
Almost all of my genes are shared with other humans.