Let's all be grateful that your Wikipedia links update themselves then. ;)
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ornamentalmind
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
