Looks interesting; thanks!

On Jun 9, 10:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I did find this site -http://www.humansfuture.org/- but haven't
> explored it much yet.
>
> On Jun 9, 5:51 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps pairing up is not the miracle, rigsy03; biology doing its
> > thing. Perhaps staying paired is the real miracle.
>
> > On Jun 8, 3:30 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > No- I am a beautiful elder female. :-) However, you may be used to a
> > > different mindset regarding interests and ideas from your experiences
> > > with females so I understand your confusion about my gender though I
> > > do think it is a miracle that males and females have managed to pair
> > > up at all sometimes. We really are quite different. I am also
> > > different from many females I have known in my lifetime and I suppose
> > > that is traced to my family and a different kind of childhood from my
> > > peers among other influences. For the most part, I grouped with middle
> > > class and beyond liberal-progressive-Democrats but found them
> > > insincere and I can't abide insincerity.:-)
>
> > > In regards to manipulation by culture/ads and the advantage of
> > > education and it continuation in adult life, I would say it allows us
> > > to see through the obvious exaggeration, lack of logic and attempt to
> > > create an artificial want/need/desire. In fact, the exercise is pretty
> > > humorous but I do admit to having a few shopaholic moments in my own
> > > life so I have also been gullible.
>
> > > On Jun 7, 10:15 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,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to