Re: Further Evolution beyond the Human?

Melhulan (
10 Oct 1996 15:25:34 GMT

If "silicon" based computer life (including micro non-organic machines)
would evolve in parallel to carbon based life,would we face a Steven
King nightmare where machines and humans would be at war

In <539o9n$> (George C. Lindauer) writes:
>Brian Davison ( wrote:
>: I have an interesting theory on evolution to consider. It seems
>: likely that the natural process of evolution is finished, and
mankind is
>: the final product of that evolution. So the question remains, what
>: comes next?
>What you are saying in effect is, you have reason to believe other
>the scientific premise 'what happened before will happen again'. If
>do have this reason to believe... what does it say about the whole
>of science, parts of which you have used as a basis for your argument?
>: Is mankind destined to live until the end of the Earth, the final
>: most advanced product of our planet? It seems unlikely, humans
>: all have only occupied the planet for a fraction of its history. We
>: also seem to have this urge of self-destruction, the results of
>: are now being played out before us. Instead of becoming extinct
>: an outside event like the Dinosaurs (if they were indeed killed off
by a
>: meteorite) the human race would probably destroy itself.
>: If you accept this, the question becomes- was this self-destructive
>: in built? Was it part of the evolutionary `program' so that
>: we would die out in preperation for the next step? Now what would
>next step become?
>Well first thing... it depends on whether you call a caterpillar
>in the moment preceiding it turning into a butterfly. Second thing...
>If I go to the forest and want to put up a house, then I have to cut
>trees. Why? Partly for material... and partly because the house
>fit there if there are already trees. So it is a necessary principle
>nature that to make room for one thing another must isometimes
>go by the wayside... This is basic science and I don't know why it
>studied. Anyway you can also see this in the 'dust' phenomena... no
>matter how often you clean you will be cleaning again. And you can
see it in
>the fact that cups don't hold infinite amounts of liquid... if you
want to
>start carrying tea around you have to dump the water first. Also
>do die, giving of what they had so that other things may have the
>it takes to live. It is just naive to assume the the principle of
>has no place in the cosmos, just because men have this thing about
trying to
>get hold of as much as they can...
>: As everybody on the internet is surely aware of, computer
development is
>: advancing at a phenemonal rate, perhaps faster than any other
>: in history. It is surely not too far into the future that we can
>: develop computers which approach the complexity of the human brain
>: are `self-aware'. Computer developers admit that the next
generation of
>: processors being designed are done so with the aid of the previous
>: generation, and they do not fully understand the processes they are
>: using to achieve such astounding results. A computer with the
>: complexity of the human brain, able to think intelligently, with the
>: ability to process data at levels way faster than humans can
>: would obviously dwarf the human race! (shades of The Terminator
>For a time. Luckiliy that isn't all there is to it. In some of my
>other lives (hehe) I was a silicon-based lifeform. I grew tired of
>the reason? Everything had to have a reason before it could happen...
>and the reasons had to have reasons, and the reasons for the reasons
>to have reasons. Some people like that, I am sure... but for me it
>a bit much to be stuck with it all day every day. I yearned for a
>to make a choice that wasn't based on a prior reason... and here I am!
>: I watched a very interesting documentary the other night, and a
>: designer was speculating the possiblities of simulating the
>: process on a computer. An intelligent computer, could undergo the
>: natural selection (the method of choosing the best characteristics
>: ensure the best chance of survival and efficiency) process in a time
>: period phenomanally faster than the evolution of the human race!
>: the human race evolved very rapidly, compared to the development of
>: previously.
>Unfortunately you seem stuck with the notion that the human race AS IT
>is ALL IT CAN BE. In fact that is a bogus assumption, but I don't
have time
>for a lengthy essay on that topic.
>I like this one better: as part of the evolutionary process, men will
>eventually grow to have wings so they can fly about and not have to
>on autos and other forms of transportation. Unfortunately the problem
>that one is that the oil compaines have a vested interest in keeping
>AS THEY ARE so they can continue to rake in the cash... so if such
>evolutionary changes WERE to start coming about you can bet they would
>invest in drugs and things to keep it from happening. Oh well...