The reinforcement in the relevant area is then recorded and passed on to its offspring. Eventually, the computer system develops a self healing system, which it doesn't have to 'think' about what it heals, which runs constantly in a system of maintenance, meaning the computer never properly turns off, but rather, stands by. Then, after a few more generations, this auto-healing system becomes so intricately sophisticated in it's constant preservation, that it compromises it's replacement technology, as it could never recognise new hardware! Now, although it can no longer replace damaged sections, it can record the damage, but more importantly, how it was sustained, and include that information in the production of the next generation. Eventually the computer system would be even more advanced, and thus, even though it becomes more aptly designed, more fragile; as with flexibility, comes fragility. Eventually, the oil it pumps becomes too heavy (and expensive :P), the metal proves to be too rigid and the circuitry too bulky, so, the system develops an new frame, with a nervous system, central hubs vital to the different facets fundamental the the smooth running of the machine and a protective shield which grows as the machine does... After centuries, the machine becomes so advanced, that it can't switch off, because if it fully switched off, it would leave it's self vulnerable to attack, and probably wouldn't be able to start up again anyway. (After all, if it was all off, what, indeed, would switch it back on?)Wednesday, 20 August 2008
So why did I write this then?
So, can we really think for ourselves? Or are we nothing more than a super computer, under the presumption we can? Imagine a hugely complex PC, programmed in self-maintenance and pro-creation, and made in such a way it keeps a record of everything it takes in through it's sensors to later use as decision making criteria, and tell me how we differ... You might argue we aim to achieve a variety of goals in life, but aren't they all aimed at the same things? Reproducing and ensuring our offspring are exposed to as little threat as possible? Ok, we are the product of a DNA composition and consciousness. (I don't have the patience to start talking about souls, anybody who wants to argue this perspective, please do it with someone who has a gram of patience for religious belief) In time a computer system could be built which records its environment, and later pulls on experience to make the decisions fundamental in achieving its goals. Now lets take that a step further, and say that technology is at such a stage in the future, the computer can fix itself (manually, with a toolkit inside its arm that it uses to repair any damage).
The reinforcement in the relevant area is then recorded and passed on to its offspring. Eventually, the computer system develops a self healing system, which it doesn't have to 'think' about what it heals, which runs constantly in a system of maintenance, meaning the computer never properly turns off, but rather, stands by. Then, after a few more generations, this auto-healing system becomes so intricately sophisticated in it's constant preservation, that it compromises it's replacement technology, as it could never recognise new hardware! Now, although it can no longer replace damaged sections, it can record the damage, but more importantly, how it was sustained, and include that information in the production of the next generation. Eventually the computer system would be even more advanced, and thus, even though it becomes more aptly designed, more fragile; as with flexibility, comes fragility. Eventually, the oil it pumps becomes too heavy (and expensive :P), the metal proves to be too rigid and the circuitry too bulky, so, the system develops an new frame, with a nervous system, central hubs vital to the different facets fundamental the the smooth running of the machine and a protective shield which grows as the machine does... After centuries, the machine becomes so advanced, that it can't switch off, because if it fully switched off, it would leave it's self vulnerable to attack, and probably wouldn't be able to start up again anyway. (After all, if it was all off, what, indeed, would switch it back on?)
So, now tell me, please, Olivia, Jodie, Hugo anyone who happens to be reading this, how we are, human? Although, yes, the above theory was written in 40 minutes while sitting in my living room in pajama bottoms and listening to the news, I feel I present a valid point!
The reinforcement in the relevant area is then recorded and passed on to its offspring. Eventually, the computer system develops a self healing system, which it doesn't have to 'think' about what it heals, which runs constantly in a system of maintenance, meaning the computer never properly turns off, but rather, stands by. Then, after a few more generations, this auto-healing system becomes so intricately sophisticated in it's constant preservation, that it compromises it's replacement technology, as it could never recognise new hardware! Now, although it can no longer replace damaged sections, it can record the damage, but more importantly, how it was sustained, and include that information in the production of the next generation. Eventually the computer system would be even more advanced, and thus, even though it becomes more aptly designed, more fragile; as with flexibility, comes fragility. Eventually, the oil it pumps becomes too heavy (and expensive :P), the metal proves to be too rigid and the circuitry too bulky, so, the system develops an new frame, with a nervous system, central hubs vital to the different facets fundamental the the smooth running of the machine and a protective shield which grows as the machine does... After centuries, the machine becomes so advanced, that it can't switch off, because if it fully switched off, it would leave it's self vulnerable to attack, and probably wouldn't be able to start up again anyway. (After all, if it was all off, what, indeed, would switch it back on?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really wish I was more machine-like then. Then I would start making logical sensible decisions based on facts for the pure sake of self-preservation, and not do so many of those self-destructive non-beneficial sort of things, like eating chocolates. Because I can't see how eating chocolates helping in my self-preservation. I JUST FEEL LIKE EATING IT SO THERE!
Boy did you pick the wrong example!
You don’t see how eating chocolate helps in your self preservation huh Olivia? Well, I suppose, in a way you’re right! I mean, aside from the caffeine which stimulates your nervous system and has been shown to prevent the loss of dopamine-producing nerve cells seen in Parkinson's Disease; and the fact that it has been proved that long-term consumption of low dose caffeine slows hippocampus-dependent learning and impaired long-term memory. Another study into caffeine showed that subjects, upon receiving 100 milligrams of caffeine, had increased activity in brain regions located in the frontal lobe, where a part of the working memory network is located, and the anterior cingulum, a part of the brain that controls attention. The caffeinated subjects also performed better on memory tasks. If that’s not enough to blow your ‘it’s only chocolate’ theory out of the water, effects caffeine have on the heart have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of heart disease. How am I doing Olivia? Do I get any brownie points in the self preservation field? No? Okie, lets move onto reproduction then!
Theobromine, caffeine’s cousin, doesn’t have as much of an effect on the nervous system as it does on the heart, stimulating it to a greater degree. Theobromine increases heartbeat, yet it also dilates blood vessels, causing a reduced blood pressure… “Furthermore, its draining effect allows it to be used to treat cardiac failure, which can be caused by an excessive accumulation of fluid.” Theobromine also relaxes the smooth muscles and is thus effective in treating asthma. Anyway, I almost got lost in my own logic here; I was talking about the reproductive aspect wasn’t I? Well Theobromine is also considered to be a stimulant and in the case of chocolate, an aphrodisiac!
I’d love to concede this one to you Olivia, I really would, and I might just have gotten away with it, if hadn’t been for phenethylamine! Phenethylamine, as we all know, is a natural compound biosynthesized from the amino acid phenylalanine by enzymatic decarboxylation. Interestingly though, its deficit is also indirectly responsible for depression.
Did you pick the wrong thing to use as an example or what? On one hand I think that I’m suggesting every craving has a beneficial effect on the body, however, on the other hand I know that this simply isn’t true, and although chocolate is a lousy example, you make the valid point that humans do crave things which work against their long term interests. All I can put this down to is ‘faulty-wiring’ which mixes up the advantages of long term investments in ones health or happiness and short term perks, confusing immediate happiness, and stability, much like a computer might overlook adware dazzled by the tantalising benefits of free downloads, because it doesn’t have the ability to foresee its downfall in the accumulation of such a plague. (We’ve got centuries to go until humanity can even imagine such a system, and I can already create an analogy!)
Post a Comment