Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LTK]

I would imagine that the intercranial communication would work similarly to either email or actually phoning someone, you would either get a message from someone that you could open whenever you please or you could choose whether or not to answer the com when someone calls. In the case of a message you could check it and edit it if you wished. You would probably have to turn it off in class and such, perhaps teachers (only the particularly stogy ones) would have some sort of device that would be able to see who has their com on and who doesn't, especially during tests.

If this wasn't the case and someone could send you stuff at any time then I definitely would not want one, to much constant conversation would be tiring, also I'd be terrified of the chance of someone hearing my thoughts. And the ability to sway someone's opinion this way would be so much easier. Not to mention the prospect of hacking, guh.

I think you underestimate just how dramatic the effect is of unlimited, instant, omnidirectional communication. You don't need to wait for the sound waves to move through the air, or for your eyes to move over the words. Receiving the equivalent of a text message and sending a reply may take only a second. You may never have to read another book, because the contents can be crowdsourced from a number of people who've already read it. You could get a profound understanding of any field of science just by listening to an expert for a day, after which you can teach the same things to a new person.

And not just knowledge. Imagine if you had an intimate perception of another person's feelings when you tried to do harm to them. If a mugger knew exactly how scared their victim was when being threatened with a knife, how could they go on? For that matter, if the victim knew exactly how desperate a mugger is for money to resort to robbing people, how could they deny them some charity?

Frankly, if you're scared of other people hearing your thoughts, you're just not seeing the bigger picture.

[TinPenguin]

If this technology worked in the way you are suggesting (which sounds exaggerated, to say the least), it seems like humanity would just become an unwilling hive mind. That doesn't strike me as good in any way. Individuality is the cornerstone of our society, and taking away the privacy of our thoughts would not be good.

[MillionDollar Belt Sander]

I would imagine that the intercranial communication would work similarly to either email or actually phoning someone, you would either get a message from someone that you could open whenever you please or you could choose whether or not to answer the com when someone calls. In the case of a message you could check it and edit it if you wished. You would probably have to turn it off in class and such, perhaps teachers (only the particularly stogy ones) would have some sort of device that would be able to see who has their com on and who doesn't, especially during tests.

If this wasn't the case and someone could send you stuff at any time then I definitely would not want one, to much constant conversation would be tiring, also I'd be terrified of the chance of someone hearing my thoughts. And the ability to sway someone's opinion this way would be so much easier. Not to mention the prospect of hacking, guh.

I think you underestimate just how dramatic the effect is of unlimited, instant, omnidirectional communication. You don't need to wait for the sound waves to move through the air, or for your eyes to move over the words. Receiving the equivalent of a text message and sending a reply may take only a second. You may never have to read another book, because the contents can be crowdsourced from a number of people who've already read it. You could get a profound understanding of any field of science just by listening to an expert for a day, after which you can teach the same things to a new person.

And not just knowledge. Imagine if you had an intimate perception of another person's feelings when you tried to do harm to them. If a mugger knew exactly how scared their victim was when being threatened with a knife, how could they go on? For that matter, if the victim knew exactly how desperate a mugger is for money to resort to robbing people, how could they deny them some charity?

Frankly, if you're scared of other people hearing your thoughts, you're just not seeing the bigger picture.

Resistance is futile.

[Milesb]

I suspect you would have a very hard time indeed selling anyone a product which could expose them to the thoughts of others without their explicit consent. Essentially a mobile phone built in to your head (in terms of features or usage, not physical size..) would sell; you could pick up - or not - receive messages, etc.

Also there's a massive flaw with the concept of gaining expertise/understanding of science etc due to such a device - you don't merely need knowledge for such tasks - you need intuitive abilities which are well honed by experience. We can essentially go and read or listen to hundreds if not thousands of hours of academic material by using the internet, but even if you enjoy reading about it and walk away knowing more, you haven't increased your expertise because you have to carry out the studies/experiments/whatever tasks of a profession to know to do it well, as opposed to reading the results.

Does this post make sense? (I know what I'm trying to say but I'm struggling to say it)

[LTK]

If this technology worked in the way you are suggesting (which sounds exaggerated, to say the least), it seems like humanity would just become an unwilling hive mind. That doesn't strike me as good in any way. Individuality is the cornerstone of our society, and taking away the privacy of our thoughts would not be good.

The part about collective emotions is exaggerated, yes. But a man can dream, right? I think that, if given the chance, humanity could very well become a willing hive mind.

I don't believe for one second that 'individuality of the cornerstone of our society'. Give me one example of how humanity would be worse off as a hive mind. Don't be selfish, not you; humanity.

[Kugai]

Resistance is futile

[LTK]

Does this post make sense? (I know what I'm trying to say but I'm struggling to say it)

Ah, I know exactly what you're trying to say. Just as many physical skills depend on muscle memory to execute, cognitive skills depend on stereotyped processing of patterns of information. A master chess player has many different patterns of chess pieces stored in his memory, all of which have specific moves and strategies associated with them. It's similar with other cognitive skills, and this is not something you can learn by reading or hearing about it, but accelerating the rate of communication could certainly help in providing immediate feedback, when another person can see what you see and do.

[TinPenguin]

Give me one example of how humanity would be worse off as a hive mind.

Art.

[DSL]

Considering bow easily the mob mentality takes over, I don't think a hive mind is that implausible at all. Whether that's good. ... I have plenty of doubts. Individuality achieves; hive mind maintains and conforms.

[Redball]

This thread is well into the realm of science fiction, and since I haven't been a serious reader of S-F in 40 years, I'm thinking of the science fiction of my young adulthood. Humankind wouldn't take quickly to a hive mind, it seems to me. It would take generations to accomplish such a swerve in our individuality and our associations and groups. I'm not sure that groups, large or small, couldn't accomplish or achieve, or innovate or create great art. And I don't think anyone today can do more than speculate with a probability factor of a few percent.

[jwhouk]

That very scenario (about "the thoughts of others") was dealt with very well in the last movie of Natalie Wood - Brainstorm. That's one reason why I voted No.

[Is it cold in here?]

Give me one example of how humanity would be worse off as a hive mind. Don't be selfish, not you; humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[JRDelirio]

Station seems kind of frustrated that humans insist on "ways to do things" and limits that do not make sense to him (such as search rules). Hanners is telling him she'd rather not have the direct connection and that using her regular senses to communicate works fine;  Station insists because he sees no reason why she'd prefer that when they could communicate so much more efficently; ISTM it boils down to is she does not want to install such a device inside herself - she'll stick to superficial body modifications - because it violates some sort of personal limit;  but how to explain that politely to Station, whose very being is modular and upgradable.

As to whether Station has friends, the nature of what he is and does is probably not very conducive to developing the skiills necessary for making human friends, except for a special child like Hannelore, who also finds herself in a world that does not work right.   


Comm implants?  Only if the end user has absolute control of what content is allowed uplink and downlink and can command it off.  Heck, I've got "push" disabled on my mere smartphone.  I reserve the right to not be reachable at all or to look at your message when it's convenient to me.

[Carl-E]

you might be able to make them run on glucose in the future. Like Kim's.

Good lord, I hadn't realized how far behin I was on that one... another hour down the tubes! 

An I have to agree with JRDelirio, I can't imagine anyone willingly implanting such a device without an "off" switch, or at least the ability to filter and reserve time for your own  thoughts.  LTK's version is a little too "sharing" for many people, I think, and it would have to be marketable unless it's adapted by the military or tested on prisoners. 

[lepetitfromage]

Give me one example of how humanity would be worse off as a hive mind.

Art.

Thank you SO MUCH for saying this.

[duskirises]

One thing to keep in mind is that the human mind isn't built to take in the thoughts of everyone at once, there would be an overload.

Ignoring that, in a perfect world, yes, a hive mind for knowledge would work, sadly this is not a perfect world. I would think that, because people are selfish and would not want their memories looked at for a variety of reasons, access to a person's mind, even a very knowledgeable person, would be limited at best. To get around this, I could see where there might be a database where such knowledge would be stored (like the web today) but as we are not dealing with a perfect world, you'd have to pay to have access to this, probably on a subscription basis, because where money can be made, you'll see someone trying to make it.

Another thought that came to mind is that there are several reasons that someone might not want their thoughts looked at. Assuming there is still individualism at all in the world of a hive mind (I can't see people willing to submit to the hive mind if there wasn't). How many times has someone gotten angry at someone else and thought of doing harm to that person? They may have no intent to follow through with this but they still thought it, and in a world where a hive mind is the other person could see/hear the thought and would see it as a threat, even though the person has done nothing at all save think and feel emotion, the other person would still feel threatened.

Look at a job like a diplomat, in a world that the other party could see into a diplomat's mind, the diplomat wouldn't have a chance of swaying the other party one way or another.

The entertainment industry would be completely gone, because you can just look into the minds of the creator's to be entertained. In this way there would be nothing left behind for future generations once the past ones have moved on and their minds are no longer connected to the link.

And if someone can access another's memories, how long will it take for them to be able to change it. True, if it was already on the hive it would take time to alter the memories of everyone, but I would not be surprised if it was eventually possible.

And now I'm just rambling, so I'll stop here. Sorry.

[lepetitfromage]

No apologies needed, that was a really interesting post to read 


I like the points you made. Related to the thought of doing harm- that could REALLY get out of hand. How long before they start arresting people for thinking about committing a crime? And as far as memories go...what about the ones you don't want to remember? There will always be someone else who will remember it for you and then you could never truly leave it behind you. Some memories are repressed for a reason...

And secrets! Anything you want to remain private would be available for everyone. That little white lie you told your friend/mom/teacher/kid/boss? All out there.


I've really been enjoying the WCDT this week.

[Is it cold in here?]

ISTM it boils down to is she does not want to install such a device inside herself - she'll stick to superficial body modifications - because it violates some sort of personal limit;  but how to explain that politely to Station, whose very being is modular and upgradable.

As to whether Station has friends, the nature of what he is and does is probably not very conducive to developing the skiills necessary for making human friends, except for a special child like Hannelore, who also finds herself in a world that does not work right.   

That is an insightful post.

Body modification must indeed be a more natural thought to AIs than it is to us. So it was only to be expected for Momo to propose a fitness program for Marigold.

AIs do seem to be fond of humans, and Station could always assimilate a social protocol database if he wanted to. He was courteous to Hannelore's friends, though maybe it was mere formality.

[StevenC]

In my years of experience with intercranial communications from playing Metal Gear, I can say that the sending and receiving of messages would be activated by applying pressure to a certain spot on your skull behind your left ear.
As to how they choose WHO to call, I have no clue.

[LTK]

Art.

Why would humans connected to a hive mind suddenly stop producing art? Being connected to other people's thoughts doesn't immediately make you an unfeeling automaton. People's desires and impulses remain the same, they can just be shared much more easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Interesting phenomenon, but to my understanding, one of the causes of groupthink is self-censorship and individual miscommunication. If the barrier for communication, so to say, is lowered to the point where anyone can share their doubts uninhibited, groupthink does not need to occur.

That very scenario (about "the thoughts of others") was dealt with very well in the last movie of Natalie Wood - Brainstorm. That's one reason why I voted No.

Will check that out; was it made recently?

[Carl-E]

She drowned in what was ruled a boating accident in 1981 (which led to the joke, "what kind of wood doesn't float?"), and the movie came out in '83. 

She is arguably best known as Maria in West Side Story. 



Oh yeah, and that snotty kid in Miracle on 34th Street...

[Is it cold in here?]

If you could feel, in your head, the disapproval of everyone in the world who disapproved of your thoughts, wouldn't that be inhibiting?

[LTK]

If every other person understood your thoughts and why you think them as well as you do, how could they blame you for thinking them?

[DSL]

After a while, thoughts that met with the disapproval of the majority would die a-borning. Oh, there'd be "rebel" thoughts at first, and some would succeed on either strength or merit, but things would evolve past consensus and groupthink and eventually -- well, hello, hive mind..

[Milesb]

The concept of a Hive Mind scenario isn't one I particularly like. I know why but it's hard to put into words.

A hive mind as a form of collective conscious implies a direct loss of individual identity for each person. Now consider your beliefs; why do you hold them? Presumably because you think or feel that they are right. In a hive mind what defines the prevailing belief? - would it be majority? would it be after countless years of argument until the issue was actually decided within the hive mind?  

If a hive mind is the composite of all it's components, do you think the human race is ready for that? We have racism, extremism, sexism, exploitation and a lot more that we do as a race that is terrible. What if there were more people who believed in any one of those things than people who did not in a hive mind?

I think I've got it down to an understandable sentence or two! woo! here we go:
Just because a decision or belief is collective doesn't actually make it right (or wrong) because there's no evidence (That I'm aware of) that the wider the group-base the more accurate/right it is.

Edit: Essentially it creates conformity, but there's no guarantee that the conformity it creates would actually be equal, fair or just, which to me seems to be the driving reasons for a hive mind situation. (at least personally)

[Kugai]

Agreed

That was the point of my little one liner above.  Humans becoming a hive mind has it's dangers, the best 'Example' of how such an idea might go wrong is The Borg from Star Trek.  It shows how what might have started out as a good idea of sharing thoughts and concepts etc can go badly wrong and lead to the kind of corrupted 'Search For Perfection' scenario that created the Borg and lead them to become what they are in the Series.

The flip side of that, just to show there is one, is the Bynars who featured earlier on in TNG.  Also a hive mind species of humanoids.  They, however, represent a much more benign version of the hive mind.  It's a pity they didn't feature more, especially after the introduction of The Borg.  It would have been interesting to see the two play off each other.

[Carl-E]

OK, I think the whole hive-mind thing, while fascinating, and an area of speculative fiction for several decades, it really beside the point.  We're talking an intercranial comm device, something that exists QC-side, and hasn't created a hive mind.  It's a comm device, and like any other comm device, you can control it (no matter how addicted you are to your phone, you can  turn it off).  I imagine you can choose to answer an incoming call or not. 

So the drawback is not that everyone can see/hear/feel every thought, the drawback is that they can always  reach you... and if you don't answer, you can't claim you forgot your phone, or that the battery died, or whatever.  It's in your head.   Not to mention that the GPS will find you, whether or not you want to be found...


Your bosses are on line two, and they're pissed... what are you doing at the beach today when you called in sick?

[Kugai]

Your bosses are on line two, and they're pissed... what are you doing at the beach today when you called in sick?

Doctors orders Boss, he said to relax somewhere warm, and get some fresh air and exercise.

[Milesb]

Completely valid Carl-E, though it's a Saturday so no comic and the discussion seems to have moved away from the WCDT (perhaps if someone feels strongly they can create a separate thread)

Edit: Ta Pwhodges.

[pwhodges]

This could run and run, like the space stations discussion - so I've given it its own identity.

[LTK]

The concept of a Hive Mind scenario isn't one I particularly like. I know why but it's hard to put into words.

A hive mind as a form of collective conscious implies a direct loss of individual identity for each person. Now consider your beliefs; why do you hold them? Presumably because you think or feel that they are right. In a hive mind what defines the prevailing belief? - would it be majority? would it be after countless years of argument until the issue was actually decided within the hive mind?  

If a hive mind is the composite of all it's components, do you think the human race is ready for that? We have racism, extremism, sexism, exploitation and a lot more that we do as a race that is terrible. What if there were more people who believed in any one of those things than people who did not in a hive mind?

I think I've got it down to an understandable sentence or two! woo! here we go:
Just because a decision or belief is collective doesn't actually make it right (or wrong) because there's no evidence (That I'm aware of) that the wider the group-base the more accurate/right it is.

Edit: Essentially it creates conformity, but there's no guarantee that the conformity it creates would actually be equal, fair or just, which to me seems to be the driving reasons for a hive mind situation. (at least personally)

No, you're completely missing the point. How can, for example, sexism against women be held if the minds of half the world's population can disprove whatever erroneous belief someone holds about women in general? We all know that most racist and sexist beliefs are factually wrong. They can't persist if the people they are held about are there to dispel them.

Agreed

That was the point of my little one liner above.  Humans becoming a hive mind has it's dangers, the best 'Example' of how such an idea might go wrong is The Borg from Star Trek.  It shows how what might have started out as a good idea of sharing thoughts and concepts etc can go badly wrong and lead to the kind of corrupted 'Search For Perfection' scenario that created the Borg and lead them to become what they are in the Series.

The flip side of that, just to show there is one, is the Bynars who featured earlier on in TNG.  Also a hive mind species of humanoids.  They, however, represent a much more benign version of the hive mind.  It's a pity they didn't feature more, especially after the introduction of The Borg.  It would have been interesting to see the two play off each other.

What, do you really expect me to argue with "Hive minds are bad, just look at the Borg"?

[Milesb]

No, you're completely missing the point. How can, for example, sexism against women be held if the minds of half the world's population can disprove whatever erroneous belief someone holds about women in general? We all know that most racist and sexist beliefs are factually wrong. They can't persist if the people they are held about are there to dispel them.

As much as I'd prefer to be missing the point, I politely disagree with your opinion. Sexism against women can be perpetuated by women very easily - if you assume you need to be a man to be sexist against women then I'm afraid you are woefully ignorant of the sexism displayed towards women by women (as absurd as it sounds) and goes to show exactly my point: assuming a hive mind is entirely factual is an assumption - If it's not factual, what is it? - it is potentially the very worst beliefs we all share as well as all the best ones.

You're assuming everyone is like you - but that's the point - Everyone thinks a Hive Mind situation would somehow end up with the "right" "correct" and "just" ideas winning out - wether that's based on logic, fact, belief or emotion doesn't matter, all that matters is that everyone thinking about a Hive Mind situation essentially assumes their opinions would be passed on to everyone.

And that makes it  highly improbable for any individual to be correct when you consider everyone can't be right all at once.

[LTK]

Yeah, I think I see what you're getting at. You're justifiably suspicious that I'm assuming everybody in a hive mind will be able to see my point of view, but it's not really that. I just assume that everybody in a hive mind will be able to see the correct point of view. My personal point of view is that humans gather knowledge with which they build their viewpoints, knowledge which may be incorrect or simply incomplete. If you gather more knowledge, you're able to refine or adapt the viewpoints that were previously built on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. If this knowledge can be transferred easily from person to person, everyone's viewpoints are able to be refined efficiently. So it's actually highly improbable that any individual is incorrect if knowledge can be shared collectively.

Of course, this all hinges on all humans actually being able to critically evaluate their own viewpoints. I still can't be sure if everyone really possesses this ability.

(Regarding sexism toward women by women; you're right, I have no idea.)

[DSL]

... And that makes it  highly improbable for any individual to be correct when you consider everyone can't be right all at once.

Which, one would hope, would be an obstacle toward establishment of a hive mind. However, "majority" and "right" aren't necessarily the same. Pick an election, any election, and look at how many people voted for the bum you didn't like, especially if s/he won.

[jwhouk]

... And that makes it  highly improbable for any individual to be correct when you consider everyone can't be right all at once.

Which, one would hope, would be an obstacle toward establishment of a hive mind. However, "majority" and "right" aren't necessarily the same. Pick an election, any election, and look at how many people voted for the bum you didn't like, especially if s/he won.

Or you could just look at what's going on in my home state of Wisconsin.

[TinPenguin]

Art.

Why would humans connected to a hive mind suddenly stop producing art? Being connected to other people's thoughts doesn't immediately make you an unfeeling automaton. People's desires and impulses remain the same, they can just be shared much more easily.

And who is your audience? Who is there to appreciate your artwork, when they were all there along the making process with you?

Art is expression, a manifestation of what cannot be explained otherwise. With connected minds, you could just convey your exact feelings without the middle man. Art would simply become a transmission of impulses, no more elegant than a radio wave. Perhaps people would still make art for old time's sake. But you asked what would be worse. And art is something that would suffer for the lack of individuality. How many of our species' greatest artworks have been made in solitude? Or because of solitude?

[Carl-E]

Van Gogh springs to mind.  If others understood how he felt, there would be no need to express it. 

[duskirises]

Here's a thought that came to me: imagine being an attractive celebrity, it's one thing to know that fangirls/boys think of you as very attractive and fantasize over you, it's another altogether to experience their fantasies. Ugh.

Here's another thought, what happens if you bring mentally unstable people into the hive mind? I'd assume people who are already crazy wouldn't be allowed into the hive but what if someone who is already in goes insane. How would that effect other people in the hive?

[LTK]

And who is your audience? Who is there to appreciate your artwork, when they were all there along the making process with you?

Art is expression, a manifestation of what cannot be explained otherwise. With connected minds, you could just convey your exact feelings without the middle man. Art would simply become a transmission of impulses, no more elegant than a radio wave. Perhaps people would still make art for old time's sake. But you asked what would be worse. And art is something that would suffer for the lack of individuality. How many of our species' greatest artworks have been made in solitude? Or because of solitude?

I see. I agree with you that a collective consciousness makes some forms of art (but not all of them! think literature) redundant. I disagree that this somehow constitutes a fundamental loss of culture. Consider how a poet tries to communicate his feelings through a medium that attempts to use words in a way that's beyond their dictionary definition. Then a layman takes a look at their poetry and says "That's just a bunch of nonsense." While sharing your thoughts in a collective consciousness can be accessible to anyone. How much is the physical manifestation of art worth to you if it excludes the vast majority of the population?

Here's another thought, what happens if you bring mentally unstable people into the hive mind? I'd assume people who are already crazy wouldn't be allowed into the hive but what if someone who is already in goes insane. How would that effect other people in the hive?

Interesting point. There's a psychopathological phenomenon called folie à deux (folly of two), where a delusional person is able to involve another, normally healthy person in believing in their delusions, or possibly even two delusional people strengthening each other's delusions. This seems like a very real risk in a collective consciousness. Of course, we may already be dealing with the problem, in the form of religion...

[Carl-E]

Oddly enough, the hive may work to correct mental instability ("your hallucinations aren't really there, here, see it through our eyes").  Delusions are normally self-feeding, they come from being separated from "normal" reactions in some way.  If there's a loss of self, would there be anything to feed a delusion? 


On the other hand, would common delusions (grandeur, for example) encompass the hive?  "Hey, we really are  great!"

[lepetitfromage]

And who is your audience? Who is there to appreciate your artwork, when they were all there along the making process with you?

Art is expression, a manifestation of what cannot be explained otherwise. With connected minds, you could just convey your exact feelings without the middle man. Art would simply become a transmission of impulses, no more elegant than a radio wave. Perhaps people would still make art for old time's sake. But you asked what would be worse. And art is something that would suffer for the lack of individuality. How many of our species' greatest artworks have been made in solitude? Or because of solitude?

I see. I agree with you that a collective consciousness makes some forms of art (but not all of them! think literature) redundant. I disagree that this somehow constitutes a fundamental loss of culture. Consider how a poet tries to communicate his feelings through a medium that attempts to use words in a way that's beyond their dictionary definition. Then a layman takes a look at their poetry and says "That's just a bunch of nonsense." While sharing your thoughts in a collective consciousness can be accessible to anyone. How much is the physical manifestation of art worth to you if it excludes the vast majority of the population?

The beauty of the arts is heightened by the fact that any of it is open to interpretation. I may create a painting that means something specific to me but means something completely different to someone else because of the images I've chosen to use. On some occasions, one can research the motivation behind works, but it is up to them. If the meaning behind each piece is laid out blatantly for everyone, it loses some of the magic and mystery that quite a few viewers are so fond of. One of the most enjoyable aspects is the analysis, the interpretation, the deep and meaningful conversations that come about because of two or more people discussing the emotions that rise in them because of a work of art and how it relates to their personal history. If the meaning was obvious to everyone, I feel that that particular aspect would lose its appeal and instead of being enjoyable....people might just feel silly- because the meaning is already obvious to them, so the analysis "game" would be a moot point and also because (if we're talking about everyone knowing everything about everyone) no one would need to hear your stories because they already know them. Takes all the fun out of getting to know someone.

[idontunderstand]

I think one thing which hasn't been said out loud that if everyone knew what everyone else was thinking and feeling, they would effectively become the same person. I guess there could be smarter individuals and more sensitive individuals, but they would only be important as organs in a body. You don't worry that your feet don't like being walked on all the time. You don't worry that your brain does not like thinking too much. At least, most people don't. Feelings of an individual would be the feelings of the whole society. I suppose this could both mean that the fewer people share the same feeling, the less it would matter, and that every time someone has a very strong feeling, everybody around would rush to help, since it would be in their own interest.

But then compassion wouldn't mean anything, because, I mean, you can't be compassionate towards yourself, you can only act in your own interest.

Then I guess that may just be human vanity.. we are all little meat lumps composed of billions of cells, none more important than the other. Dunno. I'll leave it. Interesting thread.

[DSL]

Unless the hive mind produces art (the medium or media I leave as a matter of speculation) for the appreciation of itself ( haven't you ever created something just to create?) or of another mind (s).


Probably in Olaf Stapledon territory here. Haven't attempted to read him since high school.

[Carl-E]

I've been catchig up on this comic ever since it was mentioned in the Robots / love thread. 

Thought this one was appropriate...

[LTK]

Well, how about the ending to Deus Ex: Invisible War?

Helios will speak.

[crazy20164]

STATION IS LYING the intracranial communication device is a ploy to remove the behavioral modification chip he implanted years ago. ( is there a conspiracy thread?)

[Carl-E]

It would be easier to figure which threads aren't  conspiracy threads... 

[Is it cold in here?]

That's what they want you to think.

[Kugai]

The conspiracy is that there is no Conspiracy Thread.

[celticgeek]

Later on, we'll conspire
As we dream by the fire...