|
(27-06-2004)
* I desire solace, not just sex. The latter is but one part in many
varied components of the former.
* Voyager episode - "One".
It should (in my opinion) end with the new drone alive and kicking,
assisting the upgrade of the voyager to become significantly more
advanced and powerful than current 'Borg', including transportation,
therefore reaching earth in a matter of days and from there
upgrading all federation planets technologically, etc. In turn the
Borg (if not wiped out immediately) would eventually get their hands
on the new technology, through some weak link, and be back on a
level pegging. But this story has been mutilated to fit a 'soap'
style commercial show not brave enough by far to be able to tell a
good story. That's the primary reason i long ago grew out of liking
the star trek universe.
* Emulate biological neural
function for very basic creatures. Gain insight and use compress the
mechanics of it's logical operation. Build more complex, thinking
'creatures' using this more computationally efficient method.
* I am human male, with
appropriate desires. These are, however, overlaid with more purely
logical, theoretical ideals / concepts. Result being an aching void
desiring solace that is too over defined to be available in my
current environment (so it currently appears to me).
* So trapped by the socio-commercial organisation of humans i am a
part off (yet i am in pretty much the best of modern-day situations)
+ the vast majority of requisites i apply to a female face and body
being attractive are also compatible with male physiology. Therefore
i must, and do, find 'attractive' men good looking, yes? I am,
however, apparently not homosexual (how long winded) as i have an in
build pre-specified aversion to the male body. This is not
necessarily the same as a predilection to the female form, as i seem
to be increasingly limited in finding females of 'acceptable'
appearance. Will I always (and increasingly) become more picky?
* knowledge itself is
not wisdom....(e.g. an unethical genius could build a nuclear
bomb and kill many for no good or advantageous reason)
* Space lift (and the technological-engineering progression into
space utilisation): smaller, cheaper multi-stage launch systems
(e.g. spaceship one's progeny) coupled with advances in carbon nano-engineered
materials lead to space lifts from earth. The first one enabling
cheaper construction of further elevators. Commonplace traversal of
surface to orbit enables space colonisation to really begin! + huge
space based observatories, utilisation of increasingly large
resources. Setting sights on interstellar travel and beyond....
* i seem to be able to think of concepts without being able to
recall the word to precisely represent it. However, would it be
possible for me to 'understand' as much as i now do without
attaching meaning to the symbols that are our formal language. If
so, surely i would be creating my own individual, internalised
representation system... Words do seem helpful in clarifying my
thoughts (even internally), and some basic comon protocol is
absolutely nesecary some communication between individuals.
+ does this comanality
(language) then reduce individuality in the sense that your
thoughts are not stickly your 'own' but are influence (and
therefore part of) others u interact with? Simultaneously
increasing the substance of yourself by gaining information
(perhaps
knowledge) from others.
+ there seems to be a
balance/compromise between increased knowledge and individuality
(variety is often very useful). Complete homogenayity would
result in a 'Borg' like senario, whereas total isolation would
be dum creatures 'living' in sealed container worlds. Can either
senario for mind states truely be achived in nature? no, not
wholey. Sounds like entropy to me: total merciless organisation
is as bad as total disorganisation (e.g.s: perfecly repeating
lattice of atoms everwhere vs. an entirely 'random' gas)
+hang on! if it's completely disorganised (and infinitely large)
it would have to contain all possible configurations to avoid
repeat, surely? then it would also contain, as a subset in the
'meaningless' noise, complex structures and information!??.....
like an idealised example of the million monkeys on type-writers
eventually writting a shakesperian work. I get the feel my
understanding of the physical definition of entropy is somewhat
laking /or/ i'm talking nonsense (which i fundamentally strive
to avoid) /or/ the current deffinition
of entropy is somewhat lacking!.....
* Word order and sentence
'meaning': "I will die" /vs/ "Will i die"
+ or "I do" /vs./ "Do
I"
+ word order often
seems unimportant, the 'meaning' is largely conveyed in the
choice of words rather than their arrangement. So what is
this thing called 'meaning'? and how much does a language's
structure influence how accurately a meaning is conveyed? is
there then a perfect
language? (maths springs to mind, much as it is, by itself,
inert and soulless)
|