ALine

What has lead you toward this conclusion hoola? What previous ideas did you use to develop this hypothesis and what exact idea are you trying to convey?

A creative impulse is just the beginning stages of developing an idea which has it's basis in a desire or want to perform a certain action or basically do anything that the individual can imagine. I would not say that it is an "impulse" more like that impulse is just the desire to create something new which leads to the development of an idea. Like say you like making things then you have a desire to make something new, this desire can also be like if you want to have sexual relations with someone else, you have the desire to do it and then you have the idea to do it. Ideas derived from desires and desires derive from ideas. Best response I can think of.

Strange just came in out of left feild with that python save. Thanks I will try both and use java as a learning exersise.

Oh no the server is not for connecting clients to, well not really, it will only be accessed by on server of the other server. So there would not be any clients besides the 2 servers. I just want to have the option for there to be clients.

Now I am trying to make each server portable using a raspberry pi 2. Also, I will be getting it within 1 weeks. I will tell you about my progress.

Ok thanks guy

Hey, ok so I am working on a new project and I was wondering how would I go about connecting 2 servers together. Like each server is it's own independent file/document server and the 2 servers can connect to one another via some link. The reason that I would be having 2 separate servers instead of just a single server and connecting 2 devices to it is that I want the person using the server to have absolute control of there documents and files all while allowing for each server to copy information from each other. Also if one server were to die or be destroyed then another server would just have everything backed up on it. Maybe it would be better if I explained it with a picture.

Well, I guess you could say that every cell in the human body has DNA which can become damaged and changed depending upon the environmental stimulus. And you could also say that new cells could be formed from these older cells. So in a sense, you could say that newer cells have a copy of that previously damaged cell. So it would not be the storage of memory per say but over time there would a transference of the data that has been stored. So it would be like a baton race where previous cells pass on information to newer cells. So it would be a transference rather than a storage and from that transference, you can imply past instances. It would be like looking at a computer program that has been changed over a long period of time without saving the changes. Also, I have no formal training in biological studies so I might not be the best source for this.

Ok so i am trying to create a schedule for university that allows for me to take as many classes as possible in the fields of Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, and finally Art Studio while also taking as little time as possible to complete them. I am going to be going to USC Columbia in the fall and I have a general idea of all of the classes that I am trying to take focusing on (Robotics and AI, Resource Development and Manufacturing, and finally Inventing and Innovating). Any help would be appriciated for how I can fully plan out all of the courses that I will need to take. I can also show my current university class list plan which mostly takes into account all of the classes that I will need to take.

I have not, should have done more research. Thanks studiot

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that each cell has there owned unique memories of general experiences depending upon environmental interactions or environmental events that they have undergone? Or are you saying that when a new biological organism is born they inherit there the cells from there parents which cause those cells to have a "memory" of there parents actions which cause them to be more responsive to certain stimuli because they are "remembering" their previous interactions because they are passed down? Because that would be fricken amazing if it were even remotely true.

Oh really, cool. Thanks for the reference Doc.

This is not a question, whereas it is an exercise. I would like to create a new language, one that is very simple and entirely based upon solely the English language. It has to be very simple and very efficient in informing another individual about what they are saying. It can use certain symbols but it must be able to be traced back to English words and terms. I do not have a name for it, just want to create it with people I have never met who are interested in the sciences and brain stuff.

Ok, I have a question. Is it possible to fully model the conversion and the transfer of energy using only mechanical waves propagating through matter? Like say you have an energy conversion path; Mechanical => Electrical => Chemical => Thermal => Mechanical. So from Mechanical to electrical, there would be a turning of a motor to transfer electricity right. So when an individual spins the motor they are actually sending small mechanical waves through the solid in order for them to rebound and reflect to create a turning motion. This, in turn, causes a rotation which induces an electrical current which is actually just the movement of electrons through a wire which can be seen as a free electrical wave propagating through the wire. Electrical to the chemical is just the reversing of a certain reaction, however, this, in turn, causes the chemical atoms and molecules to move together and from the outside can be seen as a propagation pattern. Chemical to thermal is just these chemical bonds breaking which creates a wave of fast-moving particles which creates heat and thermal energy. Finally, Thermal energy to mechanical energy would just be the propagating particles moving and hitting the other particle in a material transferring their energy thus creating mechanical waves from the beginning. Also when I say Mechanical Wave I mean just modeling the energy as some form of wave being transferred.

You have made a claim or a statement that "A god does exist" and you are searching for evidence to support your claim that a God exists. However what lead you toward the conclusion that such a being would exist. One of the key hallmarks of science is questioning everything which includes questioning every step you take in order to make sure that your next step is observable and knowable through testing and observation. You are asking a question about an idea that has not been proven to either be true or false. Even though it is not proven you cannot take random steps into the darkness attempting to create new ideas and experiments from that said darkness. This is like trying to find a wall without a flashlight. The God hypothesis must be questioned first before you can even attempt to build on top of it in order to determine if you can build up from it. This is how science works. A building of continually tested ideas which sustain themselves against the tests of time by being consistently tested over and over again. With a concept like you God it requires you to throw away the scientific method thus removing science from the topic as a whole so asking for scientific reasoning for the existence of God is a fools errand on the account that you want to prove such a hypothetical God exists even though at the same time this hypothesis must through away the scientific method. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You must either throw away the concept of God because you cannot test it or throw away the concept of science because it is preventing you from believing in the concept of a God. One or the other; atheist or theist.

Hey, what up. Aline is here to draw lines between multiple fields of study. More into inventing verses science but science is the foundation of inventing to here I am.

I do not think that science is about the management of power intelligently. Power implies that you have something to wield again another person. Science "gives" you the ability to have power sure but once you introduce the concept of a power game then you are in turn doomed to fail. Power is for politicians, Science is for scientists.

This...is actually the society I initially tried to explain at the beginning of this forum post. Look, a perfect utopia is a near absolute impossibility. You try to help one group of people and another group of people will be harmed or believe that they are not being looked at equally. This applies on the individual level along with the international stage. No matter what you do one group of persons will either be or feel oppressed. This eventually goes away as cultures combine and with enough time there can be enough of an equilibrium sustained that a coexistence can exist. However there will always be problems, they will always exist. To not have problems is to not be human. However, if you can predict these problems in order to mitigate there results then you can prevent them from ever occurring. This falls into the category of being "bad" because if you can predict then you, in essence, can guide them. If you can guide then it no longer becomes a free society. Your damned if you do" hope I can use profanity, I do not mean anything negative by it, simply using it for dramatic emphasis" and your damned if you don't. If you know too little then war will break out, if you know too much then war will break out. However, this is also dependent upon who is within "power" and how they are. But the more knowledge a society has the more likely they are to remove that person in power from power unless they are treated with respect and information is made available and made free. But there are just going to be some people in that society that will simply want power. If they want power then they are going to get to the top and stay there with disregard for anyone at the bottom. No matter how much respect you try to teach them when they are younger, no matter how much you "love them" they will still simply want power and trying to do something against these people will cause you to go against the very foundations which your utopia is based upon. You are not respecting them because they are unique and they want to do whatever they want.

Nope, no one agrees on anything. It would be basically the same thing except the society teaches there young to think for them selfs, to not think emotionally but to think rationally, and that is pretty much the difference.

This is a discussion concerning UBI and not political viewpoints. That just starts un-needed emotional associations. How about we stick with UBI and consider it's possibilities of affecting future and current generations.

So the united states and the rest of the world is headed toward a hive mind then. You are saying that every society and form of government is just destined to head toward a hive mind. That every form of law is just one hive mind. You want everyone to eventually become a hive mind society then?

I do not want everyone to agree on everything, this would no longer be a democracy nor would it be a good place to live. What I said was that I want everyone to think rationally in respect to empirical evidence which keeps into consideration morality. It would be a hive mind if everyone just "confirmed" to new ideas. What I said was that every idea should be challenged and questioned and when I said that it would take 5 minutes I said not a few sentences before that was that as the intelligence of the society would increase the general IQ would slowly increase which would allow for people to reason faster and faster. This would not mean that they are agreeing faster but because they are becoming more efficient in there agreeing on a process ( Thinking empirically rationally and questioning everything/time). And again I did not say that I want everyone to agree on everything you are taking words out of context. I cannot find that I want everyone to agree with everything in my previous posts. Is it possible that you can search through and find where I might have mistakenly said this?

No, I do not, I have never made this claim nor have I ever stated that this was my primary objective. You are making general assumptions through comparisons made and then jumping to conclusions while also cementing those conclusions through the process of creating a meme. You are then further propagating this meme forward as your primary argument when there is little evidence that I am trying to "create a hive mind." I have not fully stated exactly how the society would run, however, I have only made a few key points on how the society would run. In what way would my eutopia, changed it to make it more plausible, would be a horrible place? How is it rational to kill people if they are not apart of the "collective." It would be irrational on the account of; they are people, they are conscious, they can maybe help us, why would we kill them? In what universe is it rational to kill someone?

I'm starting to feel as if Utopia is an unachievable dream created by hippies who think everyone in the world can live in the same place regardless of who they are. And I feel it is also used to develop forms of government and it is a starting point to try and make everyone equal. I also feel as if the definition of the society I have given is defendable in a debatable situation. The question of "if this then that" kind of becomes irrelevant in a society that has the capabilities to land on the moon with a pencil and some paperclips due to its continued intellectual development. I am not saying the society would be free of any problems what so ever. This would be absolutely improbable on the account of human nature. What I am saying is that this society would know if something is going wrong and will fix it before anything worse begins to happen. And you all are correct, not everyone would be allowed in, this would be a form of border control. Those who are allowed in must undergo extreme analysis to determine if they would socially benefit the society as a whole. An argument can be made where because it based upon the first people who made the system then it is as immoral as them. This idea has some flaws being that there are real-world examples where the united states were founded on the principles of maintaining the rights and liberties of the individuals. And one could say that the founding fathers were moral people, well half or more of those founding fathers were slave owners at the time; I would not consider that being moral. So if the society is founded by individuals who are by the standards of humanity moral individuals then it can be said that the society will evolve over time to become moral. There are also billions of problems with the society besides the one of separating children, however, every form of government has billions of problems. There is even a problem with America right now separating families at the border. The society would not be free of problems, problems are a part of what it means to be human. It is how we address these problems which dictate how the society would evolve and grow.