Transcendence- Spoiler Corner

[Avengium]

I'm gonna rephrase QwertyYerty. I'm using a lot of translate because i want to say something complicated. But i hope in the end the post will be more clear.
I'm a person who overanalyses things sometimes. So, i'm quickly talking about philosophy and such things.

Dicotomy between Emotion / Intelligence that are located in different organs. The emotion are located mistically in the heart muscle. So we think with the heart muscles sometimes. XD Plus the heart has no reason, only "the reason of love" and such things.
And the intelligence / reason / etc. Is located in the brain. So, the brain has no emotion.

This trope that i don't like has taken root and evolved into other tropes with little or no evidence.
For example i feel uncomfortable in some social situations. And other people can too. Plus i think i'm intelligent. So i probably fit into the trope in some way. But the trope is still false.

So the tropes are like memetic conservatism because are the things some people thought in the past. But the tropes have a high percentage of false. If we want to advance, to be better, we have to think in the real thing not in the trope. So believe that the real are the tropes can be harmful.

If the movie shows us that the intelligences has little social intelligence, because of the suspension of disbelief we tend to believe that.

Is like the trope "the 90% of your brain" . is false. But some people think we are currently using only the ten percent of our brain matter, no matter what amount of times we say the trope is false.

I think the movie introduces the idea of the existential risk due to transapient.

If the trope emotion/reason is the straight line of the integer numbers, right and left are emotion/reason. And the distance from zero is the module of the amount of emotion/reason.

So a transapient is farther away from us to the emotion (so the transap emotion is devolved).
The trope emotion/reason in philosophy is like classic greece Apolo/dionisius. Apolo is reason, and dionisius emotion. Is anthropology perhaps.

And the existential risk for making us more intelligent is telling us that if we delve deeper into the knowledge, into the intelligence, if we leave the integer numbers of emotion bad things can happen (the risk). This can be the "hybris" or the "fruit from the tree of knowledge".

So the trope is telling that is better not to delve in such knowledge. So is conservatism.

About the Frankestein. There are several different.
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%ADn...ankenstein
http://arcana.wikidot.com/frankenstein-syndrome
For example. This trope says "something created, will turn against it's creator".

The type Isaac Asimov talks when he talks about frankenstein is called complex instead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_complex
This trope says: "people fear beings that are not humans but are created in first instance by humans". In the novels these are robots.
But science is created by humans. And can refer too to ai, transapient, etc

So if we combine the two tropes: "People fear the other. The other are going to kill us" is just a irrational fear.

And Asimov thought that this fear is a burden for knowledge and science. So for this reason he made the Three Laws. To tell people that science is a benefit and we don't have to listen to irrational fears.

Quote of Wikipedia: "The general attitude of the public towards robots in much of Dr. Asimov's fiction is fear and suspicion [...] although dominance is impossible under the specifications of the Three Laws of Robotics, [...] the fictitious earthly public does not generally listen to this logic, but rather they listen to their fears."

In the movie, even if Johnny Depp is a good and kind individual, the risk is there. And the movie is a subject of the trope in this way.

[selden]

To a certain extent, the movie Lucy portrays a transcendent who is not as antisocial as many movies portray them.

[Avengium]

Maybe because "women have more emotion than men" trope.

[Bear]

I would like to think that any human using more than 10% of their brain would realize that, brain tissue being there is evolutionary advantage to be had in using every bit of tissue you've got, or otherwise having less. This was my first thought when I was ~5 years old and someone told me we only use 10% of our brain. "Well, why then do we have so much?" I am utterly sure that any number of young bright people thought the same thing.

It was later that I learned how much energy the maintenance and operation of a brain requires relative to other tissues. I may have been eight or nine at the time, and at that point I was dead _certain_ that the 10% thing was wrong. It was too expensive to waste so much resources on the 'useless' 90%. When finally it was acknowledged publically to be wrong, I was 30 years old or thereabouts, and simply rolled my eyes.

But the world is filled with credulous morons, and there were people who were actually surprised. And there are still people who simply prefer to go on believing the lie.

As regards our Po, if an entity with access to active nanotech, the ability to design it, and two years to prepare wants to survive, then with or without the exercise of social intelligence, survival is EASY. An oak tree somewhere in the Pyrenees has computronium instead of deadwood in its core, or more likely a few hundred trees scattered around the world, and our Po has hundreds or thousands of years to work with before humanity even knows it's there. It can make birds and foxes indistinguishable from the natural forms that serve as its eyes and ears, and it can release nanites directly into the air from its leaves if it wants to take other actions.

So. Shut down the Internet, a couple billion die, our technology crashes, and the planet gets a chance to heal? It might be no more than the bitter medicine that the Po finally decided was necessary to implement a lasting cure for all our ills.

But it is certain in my mind that either Will is still alive, or Will decided to die.

[JohnnyYesterday]

I would like to think that any human using more than 10% of their brain would realize that, brain tissue being there is evolutionary advantage to be had in using every bit of tissue you've got, or otherwise having less.  This was my first thought when I was ~5 years old and someone told me we only use 10% of our brain.  "Well, why then do we have so much?"  I am utterly sure that any number of young bright people thought the same thing.

It was later that I learned how much energy the maintenance and operation of a brain requires relative to other tissues.  I may have been eight or nine at the time, and at that point I was dead _certain_ that the 10% thing was wrong.  It was too expensive to waste so much resources on the 'useless' 90%. When finally it was acknowledged publically to be wrong, I was 30 years old or thereabouts, and simply rolled my eyes.

This was a myth created by woo-meister Uri Geller. No neuroscientist ever believed something so moronic. As to its persistence, well, look at astrology; it was discredited a few centuries ago and it's still kicking along happily. Once a myth gets going it's very hard to stamp out.

[Matterplay1]

I would like to think that any human using more than 10% of their brain would realize that, brain tissue being there is evolutionary advantage to be had in using every bit of tissue you've got, or otherwise having less.  This was my first thought when I was ~5 years old and someone told me we only use 10% of our brain.  "Well, why then do we have so much?"  I am utterly sure that any number of young bright people thought the same thing.

It was later that I learned how much energy the maintenance and operation of a brain requires relative to other tissues.  I may have been eight or nine at the time, and at that point I was dead _certain_ that the 10% thing was wrong.  It was too expensive to waste so much resources on the 'useless' 90%. When finally it was acknowledged publically to be wrong, I was 30 years old or thereabouts, and simply rolled my eyes.

This was a myth created by woo-meister Uri Geller. No neuroscientist ever believed something so moronic. As to its persistence, well, look at astrology; it was discredited a few centuries ago and it's still kicking along happily. Once a myth gets going it's very hard to stamp out.

As I heard it the 'only 10%' meme is quite a bit older than Geller. The current version of the Wikipedia article on it gives something like what I've heard from credible sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percen...brain_myth
I think there are two reasons why the myth is so persistent, aside from the latitude it gives to charlatans or the self-deluded. One of course is that it is hopeful and encouraging and the other is that there's a germ of truth in it. That is, just as you can get your muscles and nerves to work together and get some extraordinary improvements in results (martial arts being a good example) so too you can quite dramatically improve results with appropriate training of your neural circuits. That 'untapped potential' is just a matter of better coordination for a desired result (faster abstract problem solving, better emotional self-regulation, quicker verbal responses, or whatever). 

Going back to 'Frankenstein Syndrome', we have a version of that in OA, too:
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/480d41a65054c

More broadly, I think on sober second thought modern cultures have come to see that no tech is an unmixed blessing, even if it is, properly used, a blessing. Then of course, people being people, some of us have overreacted and assume now that every new technology is going to turn out to be all pain and no gain, just as in earlier generations people were unreasonably optimistic.