Human behavior as it has been exhibited over the last 6,000 years. 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Where's Pat when we need him? > > > > > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, [email protected] 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<[email protected]> 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< > > > > > > >> [email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > > > > 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< > > > > > >>>> [email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > > 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<[email protected]> > > 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<[email protected]> > > > > 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 -
