Ambrosia Software Web Board: Chaos, Order, and Everything in Between - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Okay, this is a more ordered (ack!) way to stick this insane debate onto the webboards. Because I am now so enthralled by this subject I can't sleep.

The reason why I conceeded for a good five minutes is because I found that my reasoning could be put into the greater scheme of things, where I am supposed to be thinking this way to do something else for someone or whatever.

But now I've changed my mind and have gone back to the idea that Chaos controls all. Our ideas clash, and we can't find a definite answer for it, because it's nigh impossible to find the meaning of life *cough42cough*.

And I too, am flattered by your statement that my ideas are very radical. I believe that was the point of my whole reasoning.

Joveia, we will speak again tomorrow. I must consult my Fight Club friend and have a smoke.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Righto, until then.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Transformers Rule!

------------------
And then there were the toe-socks...

Joveia, what I've figured out, is that you still have hope for the world. Me, I don't, but I'm seeing things in the light of how everything really is.

We are made up of the same stuff that everything else on this planet is made of. You're theory still leaves the idea open that you might be important in the greater scheme of things. But for me, there is no greater plan.

We as humans have gotten to a point in our existence where we have no choices left except to die out. Look at us, we've become slaves to our desires and emotions. Do animals have these things? No, because they understand that they don't need them to survive. Animals reproduce because they need it to survive. We reproduce for sport, and usually never want offspring. This is removing one of the largest points from what makes us alive.

To say that we are more important than other animals is silly. We are so afraid of diseases and war and conflict, we have left nothing for us to evolve with, for with conflict comes results, be them tehcnological (the wheel; "I need to move better, circle roll better than squares, I'll use the wheel"), political (Communist Revolution), or evolutionary (we evolved from some little amoeba thing because we wanted to survive.
Now that we've removed the conflict, essentially removing our progression in history, we've removed our reason to live.

May seem extreme, but it's true.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Quote

I beg to differ. Look around you carefully -- most people do want to settle down and have offspring someday.

Quote

From the fact that we are "afraid of diseases and war and conflict" it doesn't follow that "we've removed the conflict." I'm pretty sure that through the history of humanity no one has ever welcomed diseases or wars or conflict; they have been thrust upon us, they are being thrust upon us now (cancer, AIDS, the Middle East, terrorism -- need I go on?), and it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to do so.

More directly, we are certainly progressing in history. You're basically saying that we as a race can't go any farther -- in other words, that we've reached the pinnacle of invention, evolution, and history, or have no motivation to advance any farther towards that pinnacle.

To put it plainly, I don't see that happening. Invention and discovery aren't stagnating by a long shot. Evolution is nearly impossible to see on the small scale in which we're observing it. History, I'm sure, is being put on the books as we speak, though we probably won't be able to appreciate the full significance until much later.

In short, I understand your reasoning, but I can't see from where you got the premises.

------------------
Visit my EVO web site at [url="http://"http://www.evoverride.com"]http://www.evoverride.com[/url]!
"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" -- Hamlet, Hamlet, II.ii

Whoops, my bust. I never meant to say history. I meant existence.

I agree with you Shay, inventions and things like that are advancing. But what I'm saying is that we aren't.
We have the ability to go into space. Are we? No, we've decided to pursue mostly pointless... hmm, can't think of a good word here, I hope you understand anyways.

And yes, at this point in our existence I don't believe we can go any further unless we finally decide to use these inventions we've created. Look where the wheel got us. Just a simple idea (incredible at the time), that we pursued and used, got us going.
I believe that now there just isn't anything we are doing that will push us further so that we may once again evolve.
We've pushed this way of living for long enough, and if we keep going into it any further, we _will_ cease to exist, either by disease or war or whatever might come along (perhaps the next evolution of other creatures on Earth).

And again, I apologize for being restricted by our language. When I give most of my examples, they don't come out right. Such as the "afraid of war and disease and conflict". Not sure what I meant there now, but I know that afraid is the wrong word. More like... hmmm, the thing that stops us from continuing. It's only natural for us to want to survive, but the way things are going (in my opinion), we no longer want to use our basic survival instincts and want to survive by todays survival instincts.
Example:

Most of us want to go to college where we will learn what we need to and then get a job and continue our life from there. This is today's survival instinct; the need to be on top. Our basic survival instinct is to survive. Little fishies in the ocean aren't worrying about being better than all the other fishies, or having nicer scales, or eating better food, they just want to survive.
And this is what I want to avoid: us replacing our old instincts with the ones of today. By removing our old ones, we no longer want to survive, but rather would be on top where we could trick ourselves into thinking we've survived, when in actuality, we've only dug ourselves deeper into this rut we are forming.

I know that this is an extremely irrational and almost anarchistic (I'm a commie) way of looking at things, but seems to make the most sense when compared to everything that has been happening for the last 2000 years.

PS. How do I do the quote things?

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

I'd rather not discuss until my views are on the table as well, so...

Chaos is the natural way of things, as I will be saying. It is *not*, however, the opposite of order as it is usually thought. Chaos is, more accurately, the unintentional. The unintentional will fall randomly. In order to discuss this, think of the numbers 1 through 4, and put them in a random order - this is how I see chaos, much simplified.

There are 24 different sequences, as I'm sure you should all be able to see. Notice, however, that in creating these sequences "chaotically," I happen to have the sequence 1234 and 4321. This is obviously the full, United Order that we can generally think of. Simple math, for example, is falls into this category. It is completely ordered and predictable. Note that, in any set of numbers, this can only occur twice.

There are also a slightly larger number of sequences that contain nothing but order, but lack a single order to them: 1243, 2134, 2143, 3412, 3421, 4312. These comprise 1/4 of the set I'm considering, so they're not entirely uncommon. This Disunited Order occurs likewise more often than United Order. Higher math and the periodic table tend to contain order, but not to obey any single directive.

The greatest portion of the sequences, at slightly more than 1/2, has nothing particularly special about it. There have parts which contain Order, and parts which do not. I think that this comprises most of what is naturally present in our lives.

The sequences which most intrigue me are 2413 and 3142. They behave similarly to United Order, in that one reversed will yield another. However, there are no elements of Order in them. This, of course, makes them United Chaos. And this can occur, but very rarely.

Yet mathematically speaking, the number of United Chaos sequences will increase significantly when there are more numbers being considered. With three, it is impossible. With four, it occurs 1 in 12 times. With five, 14 in 120. Yet I haven't observed such great levels of United Chaos for so many sets with so many elements as we have.

Seeing how the set corresponds to the universe, I would say that "unintentional" chaos is natural. But there is little United Chaos...

What is the universe then? A great compromise between United Order and United Chaos? The random arrangement of things certainly does seem to suggest that it's all Chaos at the top. However, United Order seems to be much more common than United Chaos in comparison even when mathematically this is not so. Chaos's victory seems to be the bigger, but it is not frequently allowed to unite, whereas United Order remains even in the midst of Chaos.

------------------
"Welcome to our Pirate outpost. Please enjoy your stay, and realize that any irregular actions can and will be used against you in the afterlife."

Too much pyschology it hurts...I'm lost....yeah whatever...

------------------
And then there were the toe-socks...

-nm-

I agree with Pallas.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 05-08-2002).]

I think the disagreement arises from a difference in definitions.

What kind of "order" are we talking about here? Complete order is simply stagnation.

From an evolution point of view, the introduction of mutations (chaos) is the key to evolution (progress).

How do you define "order" anyways? War has existed for a very long time, perhaps as old as humanity itself. Doesn't that make it qualify as simply another fact of life? As "order"?

From this perspective, chaos is when there is actually world peace.

A similar (Dare I say it?) chaos arises on the issue of progress. Yes, we do make progress in the sciences. I think what KahBasha was suggesting is that on the moral front, there has been very little detectable progress. Compared to the progress in the sciences, the humanity front has been on a virtual standstill.

------------------
[url="http://"http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/"]http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/[/url]
The Moderators: Standing Between the Darkness and the Light, between the candle and the Star.
Tolkien on Lord of the Rings: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

There have been changes, I think. When I read 'The Republic' (Plato) I was intrigued by the psychology of the ancient greeks. Don't pin me down with factual information, but I got the feeling they viewed things a little different from us. Things like 'justice', 'good', and other stuff.

In evolutionary terms, the perfect human being would have a great amount of intelligence, breed easily and quickly, not have much self-awareness (intelligence can be seperated from self-awareness) and have no ego or individuality. I think people nowadays are more collective in their thinking. It's wrong to be selfish or show such individualistic sentiments as ego and arrogance. In Greek times, they called people who weren't selfish etc.. idiots. And quite rightly in my opinion...

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Wow...a whole series of issues here. Where should I start?

First of all, I got a different reading from the Republic than you did. I believe that in the Republic, their notions of justice, good and evil,...etc. are very much similar to our own. The difference between them and us are the following:

The Greek school is the path of philosophy, that of examination. They may be polygamists (and Socrates made sacrifices to the gods) but from a philosophical standpoint, they were worshippers of reason. Reason is their God.

Therefore, in the Republic, the participants pushed reason to its very limits (and then some) to establish their version of utopia, a "republic" of virtue.

The problem is this: When reason is pushed beyond its breaking point (as the Republic did), it ceased to be rational. That is when reason is detached from reality. As even Plato acknowledged, the "republic" was unrealistic, impossible.

An alternative representative of the Greek school is Aristotle, who stays within the confines of reason.

Modernity made the same mistake as well. Before WWI, people did believe that progress was guaranteed. People confused scientific progress with progress in humanity and boldly proclaimed that we were on the verge of abolishing war.

Therefore WWI came as a rude awakening. And for those who did not get the message, WWII finished the job.

We have become more skeptical of the promises of scientific progress and the possibilities of reason (in some ways, justified) since. The process to the most ruthless crimes against humanity were all highly rational. That severely shook people's faith in reason.

Unfortunately, too many people decided to turn to unreason as an alternative and in so doing, relativism rose and nihilism received more adherents than ever before. But neither one can promise progress in humanity. Both ideologies are, in the end, self-destructive.

Second, I disagree with your analysis and I'll note that you're not the first person to come to such conclusions about what a perfect human being might be. Some people in Russia used to call it simply: "The New Soviet Man".

I don't think I need to elaborate on the consequences of such misguided beliefs.

You give humanity too little credit for what it is. For purposes of ego gratification, explorers had gone out and explored the unknown, scientists made breakthroughs, and statesmen labored for peace. What we carry with us is capable of both good and evil. To avert the risks by abolishing humanity entirely is not only unrealistic, it can be downright catastrophic.

I think the confusion you're having is a very modern confusion. Since the World Wars, people have long rejected faith in the divine but also rejected faith in reason. Both the Jerusalem School and the Athens School were rejected. As a result, people were left adrift. In the interests of not being left without direction, some decided that no course is the true course. A position as laughable as if Odysseus decided that drifting across the Mediterranean for 20 years is truly where he wants to go.

It's a reflection of how far we lost our self-confidence. People, after rejecting religion due to the fear that it may be untrue, has come to fear ourselves as well. That fear is very much justified. But the mistake is being trapped in that state of fear, and actually trying, in an ultimately vain attempt, to console oneself that this state of fear is the best possible world.

------------------
[url="http://"http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/"]http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/[/url]
The Moderators: Standing Between the Darkness and the Light, between the candle and the Star.
Tolkien on Lord of the Rings: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Now Yang, since we've got the idea that you find most of the human race to have problems that we didn't have before; What do you think is going to happen to us?

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Quote

All three kinds, at least in my post.

Intentional: The actual opposite of chaos. Everything is intentionally placed, and therefore everything is in a state of United Order.

United Order: A state in which everything logically progresses, and there are universal patterns discernable to anyone who examines sufficiently.

Disunited Order: A state in which everything behaves according to a pattern, but no single pattern holds true throughout the set which is being considered.

------------------
"Welcome to our Pirate outpost. Please enjoy your stay, and realize that any irregular actions can and will be used against you in the afterlife."

Quote

First, a qualifier: The problems that plague humanity are very mcuh the same ones. They've only been "updated" by changing circumstances and technology. The proverbial old wine in new bottle, if you will.

So I expect humanity to carry on like before. As my fellow mods know, I've been predicting the following for a long time: famine, disease, pestilence, and death. There will be wars and rumors of wars.

Maybe I should shut up now and let my fellow, much more optimistic, mods, fill in the rest.

------------------
[url="http://"http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/"]http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/[/url]
The Moderators: Standing Between the Darkness and the Light, between the candle and the Star.
Tolkien on Lord of the Rings: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Quote

I'd agree with us not being more important than other animals. And I'd definately say that there are many new technological and political things out there for humans to evolve with. And I don't understand how using our intelligence to become an invasive species destroys our reason to live. I think it would help if you said what our reason to live was.

Quote

Evolution is a continuous process, and is always happening. Although I don't see how other creatures could out-evolve humans, as behavioral evolution with this amount of communication is extremely rapid, comparatively.

Quote

See the "reply" button at the top of everybody's posts?

Oh, and I belive that somewhere, you said that humans will no longer evolve, due to there being no more natural selection that targets humans. However, I disagree. Because of the removal of natural selection, humans now evolving (genetically) much faster. The best way I can do this is with a model/example type of thing:

Say somebody gets a gene that gives them horns. They look funny. Ordinarily, looking funny wouldn't be that bad a thing, as people that aren't in civilization (wild animals and such) don't really care how they look, only how efficient they are. However, we'll say that these are special horns that need a lot of food and energy, or the person dies for some reason. Ordinarily, the person would die, and not pass their genes on. However, with our society, some doctor or another would invent something that would allow the person to not die from his horns not getting enough food.

So he was able to reproduce, and pass on his genes. Say someone else develops green skin, but something about having green skin causes them to be unable to stop bleeding from any kind of cut, once they start. In not civilization, the person would die as soon as they pricked themself on a thorn or fell and scraped themselves or something. But in civilization, they survive and reproduce.

Say that offspring of these two people eventually meet. Then you get a person with green skin and horns. Ordinarily, you'd only have normal people. This way, you have normal people, people with horns, people with green skin, and people with green skin and horns. These changes were overly-dramatic, but there would normally be more than just two different genes. Eventually, at this rate, humans will have all sorts of DNA.

------------------
"Vampiric chickens are spiffy. Bak bak bak ARRR!"

There is indeed alot to argue about here. But since I have a bone to pick with htjyang, I'll reply to him (I prefer not to go into really long internet arguments.)

Quote

Well, all this time I've been ignorant of what relativism and nihilism are. *embarrased expression*. You'll have to explain it to me.

Quote

For my benefit, please.

Quote

I'd like to think there's an element of ego gratification and 'doing something for humanity' in all of those exploits. I don't believe I suggested abolishing humanity, however if I have I would like the relevant quote.

Quote

I think you may be assuming that I'm confused when I'm not. In fact, I'm not even sure what to be confused *about* (ok, ok, that's confusion of a sort).

Quote

Well, I can't disagree with you there. Consolling yourself with fear can only lead to bad things.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 05-09-2002).]

Quote

Relativism, in this case, is the argument that there is no significant difference between good and evil. Nihilism completely repudiates their existence.

Quote

"The New Soviet Man" was a constant Soviet slogan since the 1920s. He would fit all the characteristics you (and Nietzche) prescribed.

The result is the Soviet Union. During the 1920s-1930s, it was plagued by massive famines and a similar experience was only averted in the 1970s-1980s through the purchase of foreign grain.

The idea of being part of a collective, "the great socialist machine", as the Soviets called it, is not very appealing to too many people. People are, by their nature, selfish. The idea that people should work for one another and together forward the common good is the kind of ivory-tower theory that has little footing in reality.

Quote

Naturally, but not many of them were done with those as their primary purposes.

Quote

Quote

------------------
[url="http://"http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/"]http://www.reverseroe.com/reverseroe/[/url]
The Moderators: Standing Between the Darkness and the Light, between the candle and the Star.
Tolkien on Lord of the Rings: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Quote

I wouldn't call it ivory tower in the least... I would hate to be a bee in in a hive (thus proving your comment.) However, it does seem like such a person, as opposed to the current ego/selfish person, is a more valuable member of a group. So far, people have ego/selfishness and it's opposite, thus proving that an 'opposite' exists. I believe that opposite (unselfishness, collectivist thinking) will grow with time.

It seems our standard of the abolishment of humanity are somewhat different. I did not create my comment as a prelude to the abolishment of humanity, rather, as a comment regarding the 'perfect' evolutionary being. Humanity is constantly used as a collectivist adjective. Appealing to the humanity of someone is appealing to non-selfish motives. How can I then be advocating the abolishment of said humanity when I advocate someone who has completely unselfish motives?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

But the possibility of society accepting this horned guy is supa-dupa low. But yes I understand your point and openly agree with it. (Thanks for the quotes thing)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by htjyang:
[B]
First, a qualifier: The problems that plague humanity are very mcuh the same ones. They've only been "updated" by changing circumstances and technology. The proverbial old wine in new bottle, if you will.
[B][QUOTE]

Actually, I think you contradicted yourself on this one without calling it. Here is a quote explaining why:

[QUOTE]htjyang:
[B]
I think the confusion you're having is a very modern confusion. Since the World Wars, people have long rejected faith in the divine but also rejected faith in reason. Both the Jerusalem School and the Athens School were rejected. As a result, people were left adrift. In the interests of not being left without direction, some decided that no course is the true course. A position as laughable as if Odysseus decided that drifting across the Mediterranean for 20 years is truly where he wants to go.
[B][QUOTE]

You just named a problem that humans haven't had. People have always had religion, or at least beliefs in a greater being. I agree with the position of taking no course is "laughable". And I completely disagree that we only have updated versions of old problems. Instead of diseases that target groups of us and are contageous (Black Plague), we have specialized diseases that target certain areas (Cancers) and even diseases that target our one way to reproduce (STIs).

Cancers kill us out eventually, and consciously stop reproduction (at least for a bit) because the person has "morals". And STIs, same thing, no reproduction if the person has "morals". I put morals in quotes because it's synonymous with the survival instincts of today (which I said before was wanting/needing to be on top, and I believe no one argued, so you all agree?). These problems slow down reproduction, which slows down evolution (this could be seen as another form of natural selection).

Of course you're thinking: "This kid is nuts, he wants us to reproduce, thus spreading these diseases". I agree with you, I'm nuts, and I probably won't have sex if I am afflicted with one of these diseases. But imagine for a minute what would happen if someone did. Eventually our genetic makeup would have to evolve to accept our diseases, and eventually find a way around it. That is evolution. But today's "morals" have stopped this form of evolution.

And that is my whole point; Today's "morals" are slowing down the human race.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with all of your takes on humanity, I'm simply disagreeing with the ideas being forced onto us by our countries, media, and adults/superiors. I'd really just like to see who else agrees.

And Yang, I completely disagree with what you said about Communism never working (which is what can be implied by your comments on working together and the New Soviet Man). Communism can work, and I agree with Joveia that in an advanced society, it will work. But the problem is is that it can't work now because of the "morals" of today. I think you, Yang, are a good example of the "morals" of today. You believe communism cannot work and that humans are selfish. But you have no will to change the fact that we can work better in groups. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I read your posts, this is what I see.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Quote

From what I've gleaned about the Soviet Union (you most likely know more than I do, mind you, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that Lenin pulled it from a third world country to a second world country. Then, Trotsky (I think, I'm not sure) was working on taking over, planning on running it as Lenin had, and Lenin had Trotsky planned for succession. Then Stalin kicked Trotsky out, and, between his ruthlessness and lack of ability to run a country, ran it to the ground.

Quote

I'd say that much of society wouldn't accept a guy with horns, but most would, and doing bad things to him (which many people would probably attempt) would be considered illegal and evil and such by most of society. Sort of like crazy or mentally retarded or gay people.

Quote

I think you mean "STDs"...

Quote

I don't think that morals are wanting to be on top. Most people would consider killing somebody, then stealing everything of value that they had on them at the time, immoral, although, if they were to do it, it would put them on top (or at least higher up than the guy they killed). And if we reproduce for sport (hence us being on top when we reproduce), and we wouldn't reproduce if we had STDs due to our morals (being that we were worried about giving the STDs to the other person), that would say that our morals would interfere with us being on top.

Quote

I think it will be a very long time before any humans, at least, have a working communism (ants and termites and bees already have functional communism (not actual communism, but pretty much what the USSR had)). Pseudocommunism could work now, and it could be modified, over time, to be closer and closer to "pure" communism, to the point where the culture accepted communism as the way things worked, and how society funcitoned and was, and blah blah blah.

------------------
"Vampiric chickens are spiffy. Bak bak bak ARRR!"

The best possible government at the moment would be a eudaimonaic democracy.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

And what exactly is a eudaimonaic democracy?

------------------
"Vampiric chickens are spiffy. Bak bak bak ARRR!"

I'll tell you. From what I know, a eudomonaic democracy is a system (democracy is irrelevant) based on the pursuit of happiness, in supplement of pleasure. The man who suggested it was Socrates, when he associated happiness with excellence, rather than pleasure. He put forward the shocking idea that someone who was excellent in their life and way they lived would be happier than someone who pursued pleasure their entire life. I'm not sure if Western civilisation is ready to cope with this idea, some people do of course but the vast majority pursue pleasure for pleasure. i.e. drinking beer and watching friends. I believe in 'Star Trek' the systsem the Federation has is a eudomonaic democracy. Which is why they don't need money etc... Laughable, I agree.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.