Welcome to My Random Thoughts topic. I’ll be posting my random thoughts and opinions here and you are welcome to comment on them.
Fair warning some posts might get long and may contain controversial or mature topics but the intent is not to be harmful in any form and will be discussed in mature manner.
I do like having conversations and it’s fun to learn other people’s point of views so it’s greatly appreciated if you want to help with certain questions I may ask or discussions you want to add to.
My Random Thoughts
-
NovariusHaze
- Donor
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:19 am
- Gender: He/Him
- Location: Canada
The Past and Present of Makeup
The Contemplation of It’s History
The concept of makeup is interesting. In recent times women are far more interested in makeup than men and it’s without a doubt a feminine product in the eyes of society. Apparently in old times, it was popular with men such as Pirates, Royalty, and Pharaohs. Men that do wear makeup now are stereotypically rock or metal bands. Why did the public changed its opinion and deemed it gender specific? Makeup can enhance femininity, but if used right, it could also be used to enhance masculinity too.
It’s possible men developed an immunity to facades and competitiveness was based on true potential. An example would be makeup was used as to appear more intimidating but humans aren’t as fooled as most animals so if a man was challenged, then his intimidation would fail and would have to resort to natural strength, thus having real superior attributes would be desirable. Also could be a situation of waving around a gun but the gun isn’t loaded. You provoke a fight but you aren’t equipped to participate. Thus makeup became less popular with men and using makeup was a sign of weakness, and weakness was heavily frowned upon in old times.
Women, since men reduced to be only desired as wives in old times, took that culture and made it into a competitive sport in a sense. Adopting similar behaviours to animals, women compete for the attention of men and try to be more appealing. Beauty also couldn’t be easily challenged as the wearer had to remove it to see the natural potential so it was more effective than masculine intimidation. This resulted in drastic fashion trends that were far more attention grabbing and diverse than men. These cultural phenomenon has existed for many centuries and has only evolved to match the current conventional beauty standards.
Societal Views in Modern Times
In modern times, some people may not realize that there are many makeup styles and can be influenced by the culture of the country. Japan is very into the Kawaii or “cute” culture as seen with anime girls, so the women wear makeup in a similar style. Western countries try to increase sex appeal so the style makes them look more mature. Music and many other genres and communities influenced unique makeups styles such as Emo, or in more recent times, E-girl.
Makeup can be seen as harmful as it’s can be perceived as a facade that may hide a more unconventional attractive appearance. Another point of view can see it as a form of expression, helping individuals show their individuality. Additionally makeup can be used as a self confidence boost which can help those who feel less confident in their bodies, tho that says a lot about are current society.
My Personal Take
I used to hate the concept of makeup. Women would look weird and not as appealing as the natural look. As I grew older I became less ignorant and understood the value of makeup and aware some natural looks were achieved with makeup. Additionally I realized that I liked certain styles. A classic favourite was the smokey-eyes. Dark outlines seem to enhance the eyes a lot and look more appealing to me. It’s somewhat similar to anime eyes since they are enhanced and more expensive in a similar way. I also somewhat like the E-girl look but what it’s usually associated with makes it seem a bit cringey. I learned Makeup can be seen as an art form and many people are very talented and I give them respect for their work. Being a guy and not having to worry about makeup and is pretty great and I respect the extra work women go through to be seen in modern times. Also there are other expectations of men that society has, but that’s another story.
The Contemplation of It’s History
The concept of makeup is interesting. In recent times women are far more interested in makeup than men and it’s without a doubt a feminine product in the eyes of society. Apparently in old times, it was popular with men such as Pirates, Royalty, and Pharaohs. Men that do wear makeup now are stereotypically rock or metal bands. Why did the public changed its opinion and deemed it gender specific? Makeup can enhance femininity, but if used right, it could also be used to enhance masculinity too.
It’s possible men developed an immunity to facades and competitiveness was based on true potential. An example would be makeup was used as to appear more intimidating but humans aren’t as fooled as most animals so if a man was challenged, then his intimidation would fail and would have to resort to natural strength, thus having real superior attributes would be desirable. Also could be a situation of waving around a gun but the gun isn’t loaded. You provoke a fight but you aren’t equipped to participate. Thus makeup became less popular with men and using makeup was a sign of weakness, and weakness was heavily frowned upon in old times.
Women, since men reduced to be only desired as wives in old times, took that culture and made it into a competitive sport in a sense. Adopting similar behaviours to animals, women compete for the attention of men and try to be more appealing. Beauty also couldn’t be easily challenged as the wearer had to remove it to see the natural potential so it was more effective than masculine intimidation. This resulted in drastic fashion trends that were far more attention grabbing and diverse than men. These cultural phenomenon has existed for many centuries and has only evolved to match the current conventional beauty standards.
Societal Views in Modern Times
In modern times, some people may not realize that there are many makeup styles and can be influenced by the culture of the country. Japan is very into the Kawaii or “cute” culture as seen with anime girls, so the women wear makeup in a similar style. Western countries try to increase sex appeal so the style makes them look more mature. Music and many other genres and communities influenced unique makeups styles such as Emo, or in more recent times, E-girl.
Makeup can be seen as harmful as it’s can be perceived as a facade that may hide a more unconventional attractive appearance. Another point of view can see it as a form of expression, helping individuals show their individuality. Additionally makeup can be used as a self confidence boost which can help those who feel less confident in their bodies, tho that says a lot about are current society.
My Personal Take
I used to hate the concept of makeup. Women would look weird and not as appealing as the natural look. As I grew older I became less ignorant and understood the value of makeup and aware some natural looks were achieved with makeup. Additionally I realized that I liked certain styles. A classic favourite was the smokey-eyes. Dark outlines seem to enhance the eyes a lot and look more appealing to me. It’s somewhat similar to anime eyes since they are enhanced and more expensive in a similar way. I also somewhat like the E-girl look but what it’s usually associated with makes it seem a bit cringey. I learned Makeup can be seen as an art form and many people are very talented and I give them respect for their work. Being a guy and not having to worry about makeup and is pretty great and I respect the extra work women go through to be seen in modern times. Also there are other expectations of men that society has, but that’s another story.
-
NovariusHaze
- Donor
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:19 am
- Gender: He/Him
- Location: Canada
What is Life?
If you asked someone what things would be considered alive, most would basically say any complex organic organism. From single cells to human beings, we are considered living creatures, but if we thought about it a bit deeper, could we expand our definition?
Humans are, without a doubt, living creatures. We have sentience and sapience. We can understand complex concepts that no other creature can. We experience emotions that influence our behaviour and is itself influenced by our experiences. We have evolved complex societies and technology. Developed vasts amount of different cultures and languages. We are the prime example of a living creature.
If we expand to other organisms we can acknowledge their similarities to us and recognize them as living too. Dogs can express emotion such as happiness and sadness. They can also be taught tricks and tasks. Crows are very intelligent and are good problem solvers. Apes and monkeys are very close relatives to humans thus express very similar behaviour in terms of social interactions and problem solving.
Now some animals such as sparrows and mice are mostly instinctual. Surviving by avoiding predators, eating, sleeping, and reproducing to continue the survival of their species. Mice however can show impressive capabilities in a domesticated setting, showing that most animals can reveal intelligence when survival isn’t an issue.
Insects and other invertebrates are at the point of near pure instincts. One could say they act based on set commands and rules encoded in their genetics. Insects such as ants have very little individualism and work solely for the survival of the colony.
Single called organisms. The basic form of life. With the simplest organs possible. It can eat. It can reproduce. Its existence is based merely on these simple actions, yet even then we consider them alive.
What about flora? Trees and plants? Flowers and vegetation? Are they alive? They are built by millions of cells just like humans, but they lack a brain. Plants survive purely on physics. They take advantage of physics to cycle water through their bodies. To absorb nutrients and then all comes collecting into their leaves which feeds the cells that undergo photosynthesis. We consider them alive.
Taking these concepts and altering them, when would something no longer be considered alive? Take a human for example. If they never reproduce, they are still alive. If they never have to eat, and just replace parts of themselves and rely on a battery for energy, would they be alive? What if every part was replaced with a machine except the brain, are they alive? What if everything was replaced and their brain is a computer that is able to function exactly the same as a brain. Are they alive?
If single cells are alive and only follow genetic commands, could a machine be considered alive if followed similar commands? AI in a way is very similar to cellular organisms. Following its programming and doing tasks it’s was designed to do. Some AI have advanced learning but are still locked to its programming. Ants can learn locations that have plenty of food but ants can never learn to create a painting or music. In the future we could have advanced AI that is very similar to a human. If that day comes, would you consider them alive?
If you asked someone what things would be considered alive, most would basically say any complex organic organism. From single cells to human beings, we are considered living creatures, but if we thought about it a bit deeper, could we expand our definition?
Humans are, without a doubt, living creatures. We have sentience and sapience. We can understand complex concepts that no other creature can. We experience emotions that influence our behaviour and is itself influenced by our experiences. We have evolved complex societies and technology. Developed vasts amount of different cultures and languages. We are the prime example of a living creature.
If we expand to other organisms we can acknowledge their similarities to us and recognize them as living too. Dogs can express emotion such as happiness and sadness. They can also be taught tricks and tasks. Crows are very intelligent and are good problem solvers. Apes and monkeys are very close relatives to humans thus express very similar behaviour in terms of social interactions and problem solving.
Now some animals such as sparrows and mice are mostly instinctual. Surviving by avoiding predators, eating, sleeping, and reproducing to continue the survival of their species. Mice however can show impressive capabilities in a domesticated setting, showing that most animals can reveal intelligence when survival isn’t an issue.
Insects and other invertebrates are at the point of near pure instincts. One could say they act based on set commands and rules encoded in their genetics. Insects such as ants have very little individualism and work solely for the survival of the colony.
Single called organisms. The basic form of life. With the simplest organs possible. It can eat. It can reproduce. Its existence is based merely on these simple actions, yet even then we consider them alive.
What about flora? Trees and plants? Flowers and vegetation? Are they alive? They are built by millions of cells just like humans, but they lack a brain. Plants survive purely on physics. They take advantage of physics to cycle water through their bodies. To absorb nutrients and then all comes collecting into their leaves which feeds the cells that undergo photosynthesis. We consider them alive.
Taking these concepts and altering them, when would something no longer be considered alive? Take a human for example. If they never reproduce, they are still alive. If they never have to eat, and just replace parts of themselves and rely on a battery for energy, would they be alive? What if every part was replaced with a machine except the brain, are they alive? What if everything was replaced and their brain is a computer that is able to function exactly the same as a brain. Are they alive?
If single cells are alive and only follow genetic commands, could a machine be considered alive if followed similar commands? AI in a way is very similar to cellular organisms. Following its programming and doing tasks it’s was designed to do. Some AI have advanced learning but are still locked to its programming. Ants can learn locations that have plenty of food but ants can never learn to create a painting or music. In the future we could have advanced AI that is very similar to a human. If that day comes, would you consider them alive?
-
fancybeb
- Donor
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:54 am
i wouldn't consider any AI to be something that is alive. to me, i would only consider something alive if it is completely organic, and has the ability to die. AI is not organic, it is normally just a series of complex algorithms, nor can it technically die because it was never truly alive in the first place (it has an on/off switch, when living things die it is often game over). other than that, while AI may be able to do a good job at tricking the human brain into thinking it is alive in the future, that will never truly be the case.
one thing you will notice in all of the types of organisms you listed is that they all function with extremely complex systems inside keeping them alive at all times, just like humans (we have tons of organs that work together seamlessly, it is organized chaos). our brains are a billion times more complex than any computer we will ever develop. we will never be able to develop a system that complex because it is impossible, all of our systems are based on logic. the best we can do is try to make it good enough to trick humans, which isn't very hard to do. it will never be alive though, even with NeuraLink, because that is still the free will of the human deciding to take that and invite the AI inside.
one thing you will notice in all of the types of organisms you listed is that they all function with extremely complex systems inside keeping them alive at all times, just like humans (we have tons of organs that work together seamlessly, it is organized chaos). our brains are a billion times more complex than any computer we will ever develop. we will never be able to develop a system that complex because it is impossible, all of our systems are based on logic. the best we can do is try to make it good enough to trick humans, which isn't very hard to do. it will never be alive though, even with NeuraLink, because that is still the free will of the human deciding to take that and invite the AI inside.
-
NovariusHaze
- Donor
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:19 am
- Gender: He/Him
- Location: Canada
A fool once said “humans will never fly” yet here we are. Humans, just like everything else, are made of elements. Elements that have properties. These properties are the laws of physics. This is how our bodies function. It’s only a matter of time when we completely understand the human body and can replicate it in an artificial body, thus an AI can potentially think just like a human.
Machines can die and they do die all the die. They are destroyed. Their batteries get old. Their parts wear out and have to be replaced. Yes they would be able to live longer than humans and as long as they are maintained regularly, they can live for long periods of time. But this could also happen with humans once medical technology gets advanced enough. So in the end it’s a matter of answering the question, can AI be alive or only mimic living beings?
Machines can die and they do die all the die. They are destroyed. Their batteries get old. Their parts wear out and have to be replaced. Yes they would be able to live longer than humans and as long as they are maintained regularly, they can live for long periods of time. But this could also happen with humans once medical technology gets advanced enough. So in the end it’s a matter of answering the question, can AI be alive or only mimic living beings?
-
fancybeb
- Donor
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:54 am
machines aren't alive though, machines are autonomous, they have no higher goal or meaning beyond that which is given to them by the creator. machines have two states, on or off, which are akin to being alive and dead, but not exactly the same. life cannot come and go at a whim in the same way that a computer can be powered on and powered off.
while we can do our best to learn about the human body, there will always be some questions left unanswered. what is consciousness and where does it come from? what about the subconscious? we have absolutely no clue... and that is very fascinating to me. perhaps it doesn't actually have anything to do with our brains at all! who knows? we don't know, and until we do, we will never be capable of creating something that could be considered "alive".
what is the definition of consciousness? Merriam-Webster:
"the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself"
this is a quality which humans have, but it is not necessarily exclusive to humans, we simply have the means of achieving higher states of consciousness than any other creature we have awareness of, or so it appears to us. truly, it is impossible to tell, as humans communicate with language in completely different ways than any other creature. who is to say how aware a crow is of itself or the world around it? it certainly is to some degree, right? it may appear so from the outside looking in, but we will never have an opportunity to have an insider perspective to find out. however, as you observed, animals can still express emotions, whether they are emotions towards humans or not. so if animals appear conscious, and act conscious through their showings of emotion, who are we to say that their brains do not give them the ability to be conscious just as our brains do for us? i would also argue that insects are conscious to some degree as well. although they may appear autonomous, they are not living out the exact same moments over and over. they are still able to convey information and emotion in other ways. have you ever angered a hornet? some are more tolerant than others, but most are very aggressive.
the AI will never possess such a thing because we have no idea how to create it. the best we can do is write lines of code telling a computer how to replicate human consciousness, but it will never actually be conscious. it will always be following a set of instructions that we give to it. although the human mind is very malleable, we are usually not born into states of executing lines of instructions over and over until death. although there are ways to achieve this state, it is not recommended. AI is created in that state, following the same instructions until it is turned off. it is not organic in any way.
while we can do our best to learn about the human body, there will always be some questions left unanswered. what is consciousness and where does it come from? what about the subconscious? we have absolutely no clue... and that is very fascinating to me. perhaps it doesn't actually have anything to do with our brains at all! who knows? we don't know, and until we do, we will never be capable of creating something that could be considered "alive".
what is the definition of consciousness? Merriam-Webster:
"the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself"
this is a quality which humans have, but it is not necessarily exclusive to humans, we simply have the means of achieving higher states of consciousness than any other creature we have awareness of, or so it appears to us. truly, it is impossible to tell, as humans communicate with language in completely different ways than any other creature. who is to say how aware a crow is of itself or the world around it? it certainly is to some degree, right? it may appear so from the outside looking in, but we will never have an opportunity to have an insider perspective to find out. however, as you observed, animals can still express emotions, whether they are emotions towards humans or not. so if animals appear conscious, and act conscious through their showings of emotion, who are we to say that their brains do not give them the ability to be conscious just as our brains do for us? i would also argue that insects are conscious to some degree as well. although they may appear autonomous, they are not living out the exact same moments over and over. they are still able to convey information and emotion in other ways. have you ever angered a hornet? some are more tolerant than others, but most are very aggressive.
the AI will never possess such a thing because we have no idea how to create it. the best we can do is write lines of code telling a computer how to replicate human consciousness, but it will never actually be conscious. it will always be following a set of instructions that we give to it. although the human mind is very malleable, we are usually not born into states of executing lines of instructions over and over until death. although there are ways to achieve this state, it is not recommended. AI is created in that state, following the same instructions until it is turned off. it is not organic in any way.
