| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Last Question | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:05 am (321 Views) | |
| Etra | Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:05 am Post #1 |
|
Level 22
|
http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm Read and discuss. |
![]() |
|
| Bravo | Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:47 am Post #2 |
|
Helping Women Everywhere Recover From Boring Boyfriends
|
Yeah, okay Etra, like anyone is going to read that. Geek. |
![]() |
|
| Username | Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:59 pm Post #3 |
|
Level 9
|
Hahaha, good story. I really like Isaac Asimov. I must have read his Foundation series 4 or 5 times. I don't think thats a bad way for the universe to end. It was relatively peaceful, and certainly better than us blowing ourselves up through nuclear war before we are able to expand off the planet. Kind of an interesting way to think of God as well, he was Man's creation. That's what a lot of people say now, but for athropological reasons. 'The gods were created to explain certain phenomena that could not be explained ect.'. It wouldn't make sense to speculate on how plausible the story is, because it assumes crazy technological advances, but it does fit in with everything else he's written, and if you accept those advances, the social movements he describes make sense. I think it's reasonable to believe that people will get less and less interested with the physical world as we are able to do more and more with information. Eventually I suppose if we had the technology to explore the universe using our minds, most people would do it. Physical sensations wouldn't even be comparable. The idea of the computer's building themselves also makes a lot of sense. Already we have programs that learn, in a simplistic way. The firewall software I downloaded yesterday learns how I use my networks, and adjusts it's warnings accordingly. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine a program that could actually re-program itself, and then a computer with robotics that could built a new model of itself. Good story.
:( |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:12 pm Post #4 |
|
Level 39
|
Brilliant. I love Asimov's stuff, and this short story is no exception. As for the plausibility, he stays very true to the foundations of his work, and it makes the story believable. I've honestly considered a similar circumstance being the cause of the "big bang" before, in lieu of a divine inspiration. I assume the reason that you posted this is the clear relation to our own shortages of natural ways to produce energy. Thank you for the link, I enjoyed the story and have passed it on. =) |
![]() |
|
| GhosTy | Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:32 pm Post #5 |
![]()
When Plan B fails, go back to Plan A and surprise them
|
o_O Didn't bother to read all of it.. kinda skimmed through it because it looks like something I read for an exam once because it involved Multivac, however I'm not too sure if it was the same thing. The story I read involved some kid undergoing some sort of graduation and he had to ask Multivac a question. I don't remember it too well though |
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:33 am Post #6 |
|
Level 18
|
This is much better than tealage's topic. Story was great. Had I not accidentally read the last line, I think it might've caught me a bit by surprise. I don't know if there's much to discuss. The ideas that this story revolves around are quickly becoming reality. Techonological growth is exponential. We have not developed true, terminator style AI yet, but once we do, I can't even imagine the future. |
![]() |
|
| Hanabito | Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:15 pm Post #7 |
![]()
Level 26
|
that was awesome |
![]() |
|
| Loki | Sat Jan 3, 2009 7:15 pm Post #8 |
![]()
Level 17
|
Good story, kind of mind-fucking though? Lol. I agree with Sifl though...kinda. |
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:30 am Post #9 |
|
Level 18
|
Well, here's my staunch republican friend's thoughts on the story: "I thought the other story was propaganda because it is: it is the selling of a false idea under false pretenses masquerading as truth, which is what propaganda always is. However, Asimov's, in this case, was double inverse propaganda, making it just as positive--just like the mathematic formula where -2 X -2 equals +4. Fiction X Fiction = truth, in the mind's eye. Asimov's supposed speculative story is one of those that gets the mind going. It lends the mind to an inquisitive "what-if" scenario, and thus more contemplative energies are spent pondering that "what-if" scenario then those that surround us constantly. Thus, even though the story presents what is openly false, the mind begins to consider that it might be true. Through this same system, the modern media promotes its agenda of false paradigms under which false truths--alternative gospels--masquerade as absolutely real. I.E., by being presented as fiction, the idea holds more relevance than it possibly could if it were to be presented as fact, and thus has a greater impact. Asimov is not alone in his musings that the universe is a singular entity. The writer of the comic Dilbert, whose name eludes me, (something adams) wrote a very similar work in novel form entitled "God's Debris", and you'll find that the same viewpoint permeates almost all history; namely, that we are "all one", and "interconnected in a life that is cyclical". It's basic Hinduism, really; the idea of death and rebirth. If God were a gargantuan computer that created everything, and was thus created by man in order to be destroyed by inevitability, and inevitably to create again, then the same scenario would continue to play itself out from infinity to infinity. Basic Hinduism, disguised as science fiction. You'll find the same ideas in the worship of Isis by the egyptians, and so on. Therefore, in my book, it's all propaganda from the other side; a false alternative to distract away from the boring ole' truth. After all: which is a more exciting idea; the idea that God created Man, or that Man created God? Mankind is always drawn to the sensational." Maybe that'll light a fire :O |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:18 am Post #10 |
|
Level 39
|
Your friend is a fucking retard and needs to stop trying to sound smart. Asimov is a science fiction writer, and your friend doesn't seem to understand the extended metaphor that is the underlying point of the story.
Fool. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your friend is a deeply religious conservative. He somehow manages to contradict himself in two successive paragraphs, probably because he's more concerned with not screwing up all the big words he's using that he barely knows than saying anything important. In the first paragraph he argues that this story is being presented as truthful propaganda, and then in the next paragraph says the above quote... can you get any more idiotic? On top of that, he tries to relate arguably the most renowned science fiction writer in the world to fucking Dilbert, while still managing to put a religious spin on it and call it Hinduism. And that accusation of Hinduism is enough in his mind to discredit the author, because it's another religion and what a fool someone must be if they don't subscribe to that which your friend does.
Your friend is the one that sleeps with his Bible, he should know all about how Man created his God. Edited by FaZ-, Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:20 am.
|
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:51 am Post #11 |
|
Level 18
|
I'll be the first to admit that I have never been religious and that religious types have always usually creeped me out a little, and that my friend is no doubt unwavering in his faith, but I assure you that he knows the meanings of the words he uses and he is very intelligent. Be wary of your own prejudices and understand that religion is not synonymous with stupidity. And I'll go out on a limb as well and say that a lot of what was written you probably misunderstood because it was clouded by your predetermined ideas of religion. What my friend was saying was that the story was written in such a manner that was inclined to influence people's thoughts and beliefs regarding religion, which he disagreed with as it is equivalent to saying that religion was wrong, giving a message similar to stories that preach morals (yes, like the Bible). This is a natural response from someone who has been raised with a deep religious foundation, just as your response was natural from someone who is not religious. This is not the flames section, so let's stick with attacking the argument and not each other :). |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:37 am Post #12 |
|
Level 39
|
The story isn't even remotely about religion to me, it's about the patterns of humankind. In particular, what I already mentioned as an extended metaphor to which Asimov was concerned with and wrote about multiple times: natural resource depletion. The only thing that strikes of religion to me is the matter of the final sentence, and that's simply the easiest way to relate the beginning of life. If your friend would like to discuss, I'd prefer not to do so through a third party. If he has some long reply, tell him that he's using a computer, not a typewriter, and that he doesn't need to press enter after every line. He's blindly overlooking the entire story if all he manages to take from it is a slight against his religion. That is how I judge him to be foolish, no matter how he chooses to write. Edited by FaZ-, Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:51 am.
|
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Wed Jan 7, 2009 5:48 am Post #13 |
|
Level 18
|
Perhaps a full transcript of the conversation my friend and I had regarding it will help: (I don't know if my friend purposely presses enter on his e-mail compositions, or if whatever he uses automatically formats it. Those damn professional writers can be eccentric.) ME: Interested to see your response to this story. You might've already read it. http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm HIM: Yeah, I've read that story. Same philosophy you'll find with any new age thinker. Strikes me the same way propaganda does. BUT, still well written, and an intriguing concept if you haven't come across it before. Thanks for the cold-calling techniques, by the way. I got a good laugh out of that; but resources are always good to follow up on. ME: Yeah, I randomly torrented it. Didn't even know what it meant by cold calling techniques. How is it propaganda? By the way, I'm about 3/4 through the story. From what I've read of your other stuff, this is by far superior. The first 10 pages were not boring at all. I found them to be somewhat of a highlight, actually. HIM: You liked the balding baptists? Well, that just does me good. I thought the other story was propaganda because it is: it is the selling of a false idea under false pretenses masquerading as truth, which is what propaganda always is. However, Asimov's, in this case, was double inverse propaganda, making it just as positive--just like the mathematic formula where -2 X -2 equals +4. Fiction X Fiction = truth, in the mind's eye. Asimov's supposed speculative story is one of those that gets the mind going. It lends the mind to an inquisitive "what-if" scenario, and thus more contemplative energies are spent pondering that "what-if" scenario then those that surround us constantly. Thus, even though the story presents what is openly false, the mind begins to consider that it might be true. Through this same system, the modern media promotes its agenda of false paradigms under which false truths--alternative gospels--masquerade as absolutely real. I.E., by being presented as fiction, the idea holds more relevance than it possibly could if it were to be presented as fact, and thus has a greater impact. Asimov is not alone in his musings that the universe is a singular entity. The writer of the comic Dilbert, whose name eludes me, (something adams) wrote a very similar work in novel form entitled "God's Debris", and you'll find that the same viewpoint permeates almost all history; namely, that we are "all one", and "interconnected in a life that is cyclical". It's basic Hinduism, really; the idea of death and rebirth. If God were a gargantuan computer that created everything, and was thus created by man in order to be destroyed by inevitability, and inevitably to create again, then the same scenario would continue to play itself out from infinity to infinity. Basic Hinduism, disguised as science fiction. You'll find the same ideas in the worship of Isis by the egyptians, and so on. Therefore, in my book, it's all propaganda from the other side; a false alternative to distract away from the boring ole' truth. After all: which is a more exciting idea; the idea that God created Man, or that Man created God? Mankind is always drawn to the sensational. ME: Well-written! I commend you! I'm indifferent on the story's politics, just thought it was an interesting read. I haven't gotten to the end of your story yet, but I'm not sure about the turn it's taken. Will discuss more after I finish it. HIM: Sounds good. And to be sure, the Asimov story was an interesting read, if nothing else. |
![]() |
|
| Loki | Wed Jan 7, 2009 9:14 am Post #14 |
![]()
Level 17
|
Is your friend like umm an Author, or a college professor? That's a pretty good response that he wrote. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:24 pm Post #15 |
|
Level 39
|
In a discussion, it's not how elegantly you say something, it's what you say and how clearly you can convey it. Superfluity is failure.
Edited by FaZ-, Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:31 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:29 am Post #16 |
|
Level 23
|
I'm too lazy to read through and see if this is already addressed... Anyway, just to "disprove" (it's fiction) the story, two things I noticed. 1. If this sequence of events is a cycle (universe being created/destroyed like this) then I'm certain that the pre-existing computer's that restart the universe would be able to communicate with each other/humans in future universe generations. So basically in the second generation, the universe creating computer could tell people how to reverse whatever it's called (I read this like a week ago and didn't respond). 2. Due to random events, everything would be different in each generation. Assuming that previous universe creating computers can't effect future ones, eventually a universe would be created in which no life forms create a computer capable of such. Then the cycle would end. I dunno, I like to think about things :-) |
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:03 am Post #17 |
|
Level 18
|
Yeah, realize also that this a conversation between friends. There is much context involved that doesn't need to be conveyed, as his response was not created to be viewed by someone who didn't know him and understand what he was saying. @ Demagog: You discount the possibility of the machine having to destroy itself/everything for the re-creation of the universe. The story isn't trying to say that it's true, and my friend wasn't saying it was. He was saying it was created to give the reader a "what if THIS was what really happened" scenario that (exactly like the bible, in my opinion) cannot be proven or disproven. Everyone has contradictions in thought that are unavoidable because we, as humans, have imagination and emotion. It is impossible to see complete, 100% reason, unless you're schizophrenic (just a guess, I know there's some disorder that can cause no emotion, etc.), or you got a lobotomy in the 40s and your brain doesn't function right anymore. These parts of the brain create falsities because the truth is often too hard to face. This is what allows for "faith." Who knows which to have faith in? Science or religion? If which ever religion is right, depending on the religion of course, we're mostly all fucked except the pure ones, and even then, it might not a sure bet. If science is right, we're gonna decompose. Which is more comforting? They're both sad, to me. I'd just rather listen to the ol' conscience and do my best not to feel guilty. THAT INVOLVES NOT HACKING, FUCKERS :). |
![]() |
|
| Loki | Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:51 am Post #18 |
![]()
Level 17
|
I think a common mistake upon humans is we think science can solve and or has an explanation for everything. I however believe this is very false. There are many things that the human cannot and probably will never understand. I think one of our major flaws as humans is trying to find a "logical" answer for everything. Science can't solve everything. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:30 pm Post #19 |
|
Level 39
|
I don't see how it can be a flaw to search for answers. Human curiosity has driven the greatest inventions and discoveries in the world. We'll never know everything, sure, but if you asked someone 400 years ago if we could fly to the moon... human technology has barely just begun. I think searching for answers is one of the most important things a person can do during his lifetime. |
![]() |
|
| Loki | Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:14 pm Post #20 |
![]()
Level 17
|
What I'm saying is some things can't be answered, the shit just happens. Science cannot and will not solve every thing. It is healthy to question things in life and search for answers. However, when we don't have an answer for things we make the mistake of associating whatever it is to the next closest thing that we know. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact of the unexplained. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










3:08 PM Jul 11