Let's forget about the pre-historics. :-)
Well, there are other criteria to judge what is real, for instance:
magical realism, augmented reality, various distortions or visions,
etc. Is reality measured in physical or mental terms? Why does reality
need a scientific/logical or spiritual definition if it actually
exists unless the senses are judged to be faulty? Does that matter?
Well, yes- as several people can each have a different explanation for
the same reality. And the individual can also have different opinions
about the same fact for various reasons- greater understanding or even
just time/experience, etc. Plus- one can cancel reality- in a sense-
due to mental states/diseases, drugs, heightened emotional states and
so on.
Historians also struggle with what was real but so do individuals with
their memories- it is difficult not to distort reality with bias. Do
laws- of religion or states- assist or control reality? What about the
impact of technology?
On May 31, 6:00 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> To be honest, I'm not even sure what 'human nature' means.
>
> As to reality, I think that we all struggle to try and understand it.
> Scientists want to define it with logic and theologians want to define it
> with religious belief.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you think human nature will change- ever? Then it really doesn't
> > matter about reality.
>
> > On May 29, 7:36 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer of our understanding
> > of
> > > the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go before we actually
> > > have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality.
>
> > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws <menfra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hi everybody!
> > > > Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him to say God's
> > > > things, because for me when you are talking about nanotech makes me
> > > > thing about God and ask myself this question; Is this nanotech the
> > > > link between us and God? Perhaps once we have learned enough about
> > > > this nanotech we be able to understand how God works? Who knows? it is
> > > > just a thought.
>
> > > > On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Where's Pat when we need him?
>
> > > > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest. As far as I
> > > > > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this.
>
> > > > > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum
> > > > > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result.
>
> > > > > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the
> > > > > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold
> > > > > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time.
> > The
> > > > > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading'
> > > > > > the data it remains unchanged.
>
> > > > > > On May 20, 10:17 pm, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the
> > > > stuff I
> > > > > >> meant:http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html
>
> > > > > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling<
>
> > > > > >> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from
> > > > reaching
> > > > > >>> its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new
> > applications
> > > > of
> > > > > >>> materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create
> > > > robots
> > > > > >>> smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new
> > > > life.
> > > > > >>> As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics.
> > But
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on
> > > > quantum
> > > > > >>> spin. That still hasn't happened yet.
> > > > > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics
> > > > industry and
> > > > > >>>> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry.
> > > > > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling<
> > > > > >>>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear
> > to
> > > > > >>>>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete
> > redefinition
> > > > of what it
> > > > > >>>>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to
> > > > live longer
> > > > > >>>>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles
> > come
> > > > next.
> > > > > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-)
> > This
> > > > is a
> > > > > >>>>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To
> > > > accelerate
> > > > > >>>>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid
> > > > prototyping,
> > > > > >>>>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at
> > the
> > > > beginning
> > > > > >>>>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an
> > explosion
> > > > > >>>>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and
> > operate a
> > > > multitude
> > > > > >>>>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library
> > of
> > > > modeled
> > > > > >>>>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real
> > > > world to
> > > > > >>>>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is
> > > > apparently the
> > > > > >>>>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems
> > can be
> > > > > >>>>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by
> > expert
> > > > algorithms
> > > > > >>>>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people
> > over
> > > > vast
> > > > > >>>>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the
> > potential
> > > > universe we
> > > > > >>>>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to
> > > > ourselves and
> > > > > >>>>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate..
> > > > > >>>>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize
> > > > pretty
> > > > > >>>>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future.
> > Assuming
> > > > that any
> > > > > >>>>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get
> > here
> > > > would
> > > > > >>>>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that
> > they
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > > >>>>>> need anything we'd have to offer.
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> There is another good reason to develop our technologies as
> > a
> > > > species,
> > > > > >>>>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies
> > as
> > > > vast
> > > > > >>>>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip
> > mined
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring
> > species,
> > > > that would
> > > > > >>>>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and
> > picking
> > > > all the
> > > > > >>>>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way
> > of
> > > > those
> > > > > >>>>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I
> > know
> > > > it's
> > > > > >>>>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but
> > something
> > > > might have
> > > > > >>>>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at
> > > > making the
> > > > > >>>>>>> leap.
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell
> > if a
> > > > planet
> > > > > >>>>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a
> > relatively
> > > > massive
> > > > > >>>>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the
> > smallest
> > > > planet
> > > > > >>>>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth.
> > > > > >>>>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century
> > > > technology
> > > > > >>>>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow
> > and
> > > > wrought
> > > > > >>>>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is
> > like a
> > > > new
> > > > > >>>>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a
> > log
> > > > can float. At
> > > > > >>>>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we
> > can
> > > > actually
> > > > > >>>>>>> mount an expedition to another star.
> > > > > >>>>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually
> > exploring
> > > > other
> > > > > >>>>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I
> > think
> > > > you are
> > > > > >>>>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could
> > just
> > > > make the
> > > > > >>>>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;)
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets
> > > > enough like
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They
> > claim
> > > > there
> > > > > >>>>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current
> > space
> > > > travel
> > > > > >>>>>>>> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere
> > near
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology
> > won't
> > > > do,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something
> > > > other than
> > > > > >>>>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in
> > which
> > > > > >>>>>>>> distance is an illusion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and
> > > > quite
> > > > > >>>>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of
> > > > evolution
> > > > > >>>>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an
> > opportunity to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to
> > direct
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of
> > > > conscious
> > > > > >>>>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth
> > > > attaching
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or
> > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment