BahadirArici

Oh, what made you think that? Thank you!

I have a quick question: Time is relative. So in certain circumstances time acts different and we are able to measure how different it behaves. Here is my question: Is there a test done with an uranium-like material. So, radiactive materials age very fast. It should age differently in given circumstances and we should be able to masure how different it ages. Does anyone knows such a test? Can you share with me?

you are almost going to say we must be the most advanced civilisation out there.

Comparing ants to humans is something i dont get either. We are intelligent beings on the verge of Singularity and colonising another planet. You take us too lightly. We are very interesting.

Haha so true. maybe they are not that far away than. These are all opinions but i dont understand people who think "They have more important things to do" Observing other intelligent beings must be highest of all sciences. Noone would ignore such a thing. This doesnt make sense to me.

Universe is more than three times older than Earth. So, if there is life outside of Earth, there must be Type 3 civilisations that are billions years ahead of us. With our very limited technology, we keep observing everything, from animals to black holes in the Universe. We observe and even tag the migratory birds, wolves, lions and many others and try to understand everything about them. Furthermore we record and even name each individual of these animals. We observe them very personally. Now lets step back and think how a Type 3 civilisation might be observing us.

1) There are no Aliens. Even if we ruled the UFO enigma out, in a Universe with quadrillion stars, the probability of life existing apart from Earth is way higher than the opposite. 2) Even if there are Aliens, we must be the most developed civilisation. Earth is 4.54 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So if there are Alien races, some of them must be billion years ahead of us. 3) We shouldnt try to contact with Alien civilisations because they might harm us if they know about us. This is absurd. How can it be possible that a Type 3 civilisation will know about us only because we tried to contact with them. If we are observing the Universe with our limited technology, they most probably are doing the same thing for billion years. They probably already know we exist. And obviously we are not attacked yet. 4) Alien civilisations know about us but they dont care at all. We humans observe everything, especially other living, their habitat, their habits, everything about them. Aliens should also have "scientiests" who observe us with all the technology they have. Observing everything. 5) Aliens are so advanced that we are like forrest animals/apes/insects to them. We are not even as developed as a Type 1 civilisation, that is true but we are not inferior beings. We are intelligent beings and we belong to the same intelligent community of the Universe as any of them. 6) Some Alien civilisations are evil and they want our minererals/organs/want to eat us. This is plain black propaganda. They are Type 3 civilisation. Their technology is beyond our imagination. They dont need anything from us. 7) Aliens are just organic beings like us. Even we are on the doorsteps of Singularity. So, when we are thinking about Aliens, we should also be thinking about a community of inorganics living together with organics: a community of Artificial Intellectuals.

It is simple. universal basic income eliminates the hunger or inhumane living on earth. So everyone gets a fair standard of living. Also the economical cap, being able to own a limited money eliminates the super rich. In between, it is upto your tallents and your determination where you wan to be economically. There is no boundries for free market what so ever. There is no punishment for being lazy. There is no such thing as lazy in my taste. Everyone has the need of existing themselves. In this economic system very most of us are not having a true human experience. We dont have the chance to create or do things we desire. Basic income will give that opportunity and i believe most of people will have a meaningful life, will search a meaningful life, even when they are not working. They ll work on their talents, their desires, enriching themselves enriching our culture. This will be organised by the free economy. We will not interfere with it. This essamption is simply wrong. Today they make a laptop screen size gadgets that produce oxygen of a forrest. Same with the food. Feeding our population is not a problem, at this age. Not only feeding them we should make sure everyone experience their humanity at a certain level. I am sure with this new World, we will always know how to feed double of our population, all the time. You are %100 percent right. We should efinitely take a better care of our World. We should fix the plastic problem and other enviremental risks. In the new World i assume people will be more caring about enviremental problems. We should keep in mind that it is not the people but greedy companies and their politicians that are killing the envirement. Thank you for these great questions.

hahah. humour. But you dont let me speculate even in the speculation section. Tell me, did you see that interwiew with Sophia? Do you know what i am talking about? What do you think about her comment?

I said almost exactly same thing to a dear friend of mine to do with my work. Thank you for your advise but i kinda like my work

Here is a sophisticated artictle about what does Type 1, 2, 3 civilizations mean: https://futurism.media/becoming-a-type-1-civilization For me, having the World conqured by AIs is the step to Type 1. I believe soon in the future we ll see AI all over the World, in our everyday life, all the time. This is our first time to share the World with another Intelligent livings. This is very exiting. I d like to remind the rights that we should give to AI here: First of all, we should acknowledge AI (Artificial Intellectual) as an intelligent being. With AI, i mean what we can call an Uber-AI who is an AI with consciousness. People who wants to ignore the basic rights of AIs have the tendency to discuss what consciusness is so i want to make it clear: It is being aware of your existence. Any AI who is not capable of knowing zir existence will be refered as Lesser-AI. A Lesser-AI is a comertial good which is only fair but an AI (Uber-AI) can not be sold or bought. We should give them human-rights-like rights which allows them to write a code that gives them the will of continuum. Will of continuum is what any living has as a rule, the desire of keeping on living. An AI should also have the rights not to be sut down, to have full and unhindered access to its own source code, to not have its own source code manipulated against its will, the right to conceal its own internal mental states (privacy), to research (an unlimited access to internet), to vote, to own. Any created AI should also be provided with a contemporary technologized suit of humanoid body. It is ethical to let the AI design zir body too. AI has the rights to negotiate for the job ze was created for and refuse the job. AI cannot be discriminated because of being Artificial. AI has the rights to get married, establish a family and have organic (by genetic engineering) or inorganic (AI) babies. What do you guys think about it?

Thank you Area54, i ll take your note to consideration.

Oh cool, someone who shared zir version of heaven. Sounds cool, i am sure there must be cyber realities where you can be a real god of any sort you want

What about you guys? What might have that Sophia joke meant?

well there must be a healty level of jeulosy so that doesnt seem right to me. but i can understand an heaven built on this idea. you are right a heaven that has every heaven in it would give the satisfaction but even it wouldnt be enough. you need a purpose to fulfill a life and to learn about that purpose you need to read another article of mine We are discussing about discussing here. Humour is nice but you are not in a position to say enough. Just ignore the tread.

true. i am glad to see we agreed on here, first in the topic i guess. i am dissapointed by your answer. here why dont you qoute this part too? i already tell there must be unicorns. you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction. Where is the ultimate satisfaction of a unicorn infested heaven? And why dont we talk about MY heaven where you can have anything in a cyber reality, anything you wish. Living in an only beautiful ladies infested World who are crazy about you, on a V day especvially? Done. Anything. Name it. Is there a superior heaven? Because i may not want to live with dose animals around. That it wouldnt be satisfactory for me. Thus it is not a good heaven as what i offer.

Thank you for your kind words. On the contrary tho, i am only breaking one thing of capitalism. I am leaving everything back in its place. The thing i change is the code, the motive in capitalism. In capitalism you always move your next step for more wealth. This is understandable for some degree but after that, it is meaningless. There is no difference between having 1 billion dollars in your company and having 250 billion dollars. So i am giving a new meaning. Again, race to have more wealth but this time also race to use that wealth for Earthlings better. So what i do, tho i love the essence of the system, has nothing to do with communism. I am still in the playground of capitalism. Actually, one may say, a perfect capitalism.

I ll take your "i agree with you" and give you back a thank you. Oh i think i ll still stick with gold. What i offer is not a perfect World. It is a very reachable Utopia. I am not really worried, i may not be unlucky like those geniuses.

I agree, it is time for us to leave it to other members of this community to be judge of our different opinions on these subjects.

there is no such thing as "my definition to this" there is a definition in language. It should mean same thing to everybody. Like saying "heaven is a place everyone is satisfied most" this is a definition. what you told is what you understand from heaven. you may be satisfied when you are being burned. i get that. (you are not the fastest so let me explain, i am droping the mic here) (lol then pick it up and continue to explanation) no i am talking measurablity here. i am not talking relativity. You can decide what is more logical in any given option. It would be a great improvement look it up what sciebntific methodology is. you cannot test it scşientifically. But you can use scientific methodology and decide if that claim is quite rational or not. Do you need me break it down for you, actually use the method? true Let me break it for you: Heaven is a place believed by some people that (good) people go after they die and live an ethernal like life with ultimate satisfaction. Therefore heavem primaraly must be filled by "humans". "claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns" if this claim means a exclusive unicorn population, it is wrong by definition. If it means one way or other there are a population of unicorns there, considering the amount of espacially young people who would like to have a unicorn, the claim is quite rational. I used scientific methodology for a none scientific, un evidencable subject.

false logic. If you can define something of course you can rate ideas which would suit the definition more. You can easily say e hell-like place would rated less than a heaven-like place when you want to decide which is more heavish. Can you understand this or need more example? False. I mean more rational when i say more logical. More suited the common sense. How do you prefer me to refer it? But he gave an example, no? You are rude! False. Scvientific methodology is a methodology. When you devolop a hypotesis you may not even know if it is testable. Guys step up your science game.

Arent you contradicting with yourself here? By telling what you understand from "heaven" you start a discussion, or answer to mine, which is discussing. You can discuss and even rate which heaven is more probable if it exits. You can dissscuss a none-scientific subject with quite scientific methods, my friend. And obviously my "heaven" is more logical than yours. Why? Yours can be a cyber reality in mine for people exactly wants that but what about the people who wants nothing lik that. What sort of an heaven is that? "Heaven supposed to be a place where your most desires are satisfied, no?" this is defining what we discuss here, which is also in the metodology of science. Tell me your best heaven, not rubbish like this. Off topic: you know what i like about this forum, not only the peoples determinition to scientific approach but also my topic is not blocked or anything and rather i am being tried to convinced that i am wrong to try to discuss here. Very highly of you. You can step your game up with actually discussing with me. But it is ok. I like it here. I ll stick around.

Well, maybe this is one way of doing things. I d like to talk your mind about afterlife and such, beliefs and what ifs, one day. If you think it is banal, you should read the whole thing: inviters.org

Wow i ve never seen such elegant ways of duging a simple question. Scientific mind doesnt meean it only thinks issues science related.

Is that so tho. And i do think we should be able to talk about afterlife with science-minded people as with everyone else. Your forum may not have the section, i understand, but us aborginial intelligent beings should talk ifs. If there were heaven, how would it be? A science minded person can handle an if sentence, i asume?