Yes- history is a violent version of Musical Chairs. General populations with poor educations/economies believe anything in order to thrive/survive.
I am female so we obviously have different sins on our souls. On Jun 6, 10:06 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > Germany and Spain as well as every other country and culture has it's own > version of normal. Our view of the norms in Nazi Germany are that it's > repugnant. But, Nazi propaganda convinced a significant minority that Jews > were abnormal. The general population accepted the propaganda as the norm > irregardless of their individual beliefs and it became the norm. > > We are all liars and we are all thieves. Can you honestly say that you've > never stolen an extra bite of mac & cheese off someone's plate or told your > wife that you didn't mind her stockings hanging in the shower? > > - It's the norm. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:56 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
