Let's all be grateful that your Wikipedia links update themselves then. ;) On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> *** notes that he has an 18 year old CRT TV, a 15 year old car and has > only 4 very old plastic patio chairs to sit on in his living room, one > in his bed room along with a padded roll chair pulled from a dumpster > for free *** > > On Jun 7, 8:15 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป
