"normal" is psychotic? Or shallow? (What happened to your
Objectivism?) Our "own experience" is not unique- it is a way of
identifying with moral stuggles in a universal sense. Societies may
become dazzled with their innovations but human character really
hasn't changed much over the centuries- a liar is still a liar- a
thief is still a thief, etc.
On Jun 5, 9:46 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I believe that social norms are simply a metric for fitting into a society.
> The closer one is to achieving the 'norm' within that particular society the
> more integrated and accepted he is in that society. Being 'normal' is a
> subjective quality that only applies in the society where it is defined.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:59 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the greatest teacher is still our own experiences unless
> > life is vicarious. Education can expand our options. It takes some
> > time to shake off family or tribal/clan behaviors. Ethics responds to
> > real time/historical eras- what is a good life?- how ought we behave?-
> > so that branch of philosophy remains active. I don't think that what a
> > society accepts as norms should be so readily accepted as a guide but
> > should be examined and tested.
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:05 am, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > If by education you mean learning from the experiences of others then by
> > > definition that would be a social behavior.
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:56 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I disagree- our behavior options have changed- radically. We change
> > > > more from education than our enviornment as long as learning is a life-
> > > > long affair.
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 10:09 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I think that if you're going to talk about human behavior you should
> > > > > differentiate between social and individual behavior. I don't think
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > behavior of humans as individuals has changed much since we climbed
> > out
> > > > of
> > > > > the trees. As social animals I think we are constantly evolving and
> > > > adapting
> > > > > to our environments.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Maybe we should reduce the time frame to 3 or 4 thousand years.
>
> > > > > > I dragged you into my midnight thoughts and remembered a film-
> > > > > > Japanese- "Roshoman" which I saw later than its release time of
> > 1950
> > > > > > which got into this "what is reality" business and made somewhat of
> > an
> > > > > > impact on my thinking along with "point of view". I suppose this
> > might
> > > > > > lead off into empathy but it still would not solve the definition
> > of
> > > > > > "What Is Reality?".
>
> > > > > > Will post another topic that is related to "human nature"- "human
> > > > > > rights".
>
> > > > > > 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.comwrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment