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.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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment