Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto
Wrong, at least according to my belief about what success in evolution means. But I agree a discussion about faith (theories that cannot be proven) is pointless.
Yeah, I even said so. This is only my belief and I am not able to prove it. Neither can you disprove it. And just because something cannot be proven, does not mean it is wrong. This applies for Syn's theory too. However, based on real world observations (this world and its species) it is very unlikely that hive minds have the necessary intelectual mutations going on to evolve much in technology (a hive mind is based on the idea that all think basically the same). At some point you can only estimate whats more likely to be the truth. And of course I can be wrong.
Actually I see a way how something like a hive mind could actually reach that level... if a non-hive mind species create a super/seed AI (basically a technological singularity from the point of view of the species), then this AI could dominate said species and control it. But there would be still the individuals of that species that are certainly useful to that AI. The imperfectness of the human mind for example is the reason that the brain is an incredibly powerful problemsolver (well, not in all humans). Anyway, it would be a waste to not utilize those cheap problemsolvers. I doubt the seed AI can be more efficient energy wise.
Now I've already written more about this, then I actually care.  |
The difference is, Syn and I are talking about possibilities. We're saying "who knows? anything's possible about an hypothetical species developing in an unknown environment and achieving unknown technological feats".
What you're saying is that we're wrong, because you say so.