Fitting into what??? Nazi Germany? The Spanish Inqusition??? What if "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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
