Hummm... For some reason I had the impression you were male. At any rate, I don't think education or economic status has much to do with our susceptibility. We can all be manipulated into believing things that aren't necessarily true. Take the social prerogative to stay one up on the next door neighbors. Millions are spent on commercial campaigns that try and convince us that we should have a bigger TV, newer car, or better furniture.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - >
