|
|
| Author |
Message |
FearlessFerret
science forum beginner
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
|
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any religion. At least,
any that include the concept of heresy.
/ff |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:32 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
| Quote: | jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
|
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger. The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
I've alsmost decided that religion is necessary to compensate
for herd mental hardware. I'm still working on a premise that
deals with a major religion started and maintained within the
upper middle class.
Islam used to take care of their own berserkers; in the past,
these berserkers did not target the lower classes. The difference
now it that their own lower classes are the targets. But I don't think
anybody is going to realize this until it's too late. The only
way the lower class common sense can be communicated with these
politican-religious leaders is through mass riots. It's a powder
keg, the fuse it lit, the only unknown is the length of the cord.
I can extrapolate based on past patterns of certain individuals.
However, the Christian rogues have been studying what the Muslim
rouges have been allowed to get away with. So they are starting
to coopt successful techniques. Yet the UN dithers.
And I don't understand Europe at all. They cry foul when they
shouldn't and don't say a word when they should. I cut a
string the length of my globe's distance from North Korea to the
US. Then I did a rotation keeping the origin at North Korea.
It includes Europe. Yet they are willing to leave Japan be
the target and the US the fall guy.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
| Quote: | In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
|
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
| Quote: | The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god. |
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bret Cahill
science forum Guru
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:29 am Post subject:
Megatechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
Sorry. You've pissed off some POWERFUL people on Capitol Hill.
Everything will have to be giga from now on.
Bret Cahill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:11 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
| Quote: | In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
|
Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it. It's
an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic. Right now I've made the
assumption that 95% of people are incapable of analytical thinking
w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into details but you'll
understand what I intend to say. As a result, the head of
government has to use this tactic to herd the populace towards
overall goals. I don't like this one.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
| Quote: | In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.
|
Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.
| Quote: | It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.
|
Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.
| Quote: | Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.
|
Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)
| Quote: | As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.
|
It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.
You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue. In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine. What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.
| Quote: |
And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection, |
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:20 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
| Quote: | In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.
Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.
|
Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.
| Quote: |
It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.
Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.
|
Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.
| Quote: |
Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.
Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)
|
yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again  .
| Quote: |
As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.
It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.
|
I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.
| Quote: |
You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.
|
Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.
| Quote: | In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.
|
Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.
| Quote: | What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.
|
The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.
| Quote: | And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.
|
Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.
It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill
science forum beginner
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | Radium wrote:
Yes. Nanotech is the cure for almost everything. It can make life
eternal and can keep each and every portion of the brain eternally
active at peak metabolic rate.
Until a vaccine against nanites is developed, they also represent the
next generation in WMDs.
Imagine self-reproducing nanotech devices that are engineered to seek
out and destroy anything with, say, blood type B-negative or perhaps
anything with a certain ethnic 'marker' gene.
|
THEY'RE CALLED VIRUSES (VIRI for the more literate people here),
and we are quite accustomed to dealing with them.
simply put, molecular nanotech does indeed have the potential to
do everything that radeon has purported, but we are a long ways from
that level of tech (50-200 years). I would suspect that the removal of
the negative emotions would be done on a voluntary basis at the time
like "I am sexually frustrated, please reduce my testosterone levels
until I find a willing female" or "I have a sudden urge to kill people,
some sedatives might be advisable".
The real issue with exploiting the potentials of nanotech is in 2
parts, 1 is a breakthrough, and the other is a lot of leg work.
the breakthrough is the development of the first "drexler
assembler" it's a programmable nanite with communication gear and the
ability to self-replicate.
The leg-work is..... okay, now you have to program them, we're
having trouble getting windows to work, and you want to put one of
these things in my brain!?! nanotech cannot really be exploited
without code editing artificial intelligence. and once we get those 2
things working, I rather doubt the point of losing our humanity will be
relevent any longer.
This isn't the matrix future we're talking about, nor is it star
trek. These are all things that are very likely to happen, many of
them within the lifetimes of those present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <e901i0$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
| Quote: | In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.
Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.
Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.
|
Well, the indirect addressing is valuable, as it affords nearly full
authority, yet escapes full responsibility. But, I agree, that's a
technicality.
| Quote: |
It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.
Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.
Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.
Yes, very true. |
| Quote: | Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.
Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)
yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again .
As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.
It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.
I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.
|
Sure.
| Quote: |
You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.
Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.
|
Of course. But being told is not enough, they need to actually want
to do what they're told.
| Quote: |
In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.
Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.
What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.
The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.
Yep. |
| Quote: | And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.
Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.
It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.
This "absence of the hardware" you're talking about is not necessarily |
all bad thing. A stable human society is made of a stew of followers,
spiced with a dash of leaders. With too many bright, independent
minded and critical individuals societies lose stability. Consider
ancient Greece.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill
science forum beginner
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
| Quote: | When are you 13?
I am 22. I am also aware of a high probability of nanotechnology
providing immortality -- *not* invincibility -- to living organisms
such as humans.
Really? In what episode of Star Trek was this in?
Here's a hint - discuss the impact on Earth of an immortal humanity.
Well, how about making all non-human life immortal and ridding
non-human life of negative emotions? Us humans have traumatized other
species since our existence, it is time we do something to benefit
them.
Not really valid from a science point of view to ascribe either human
emotions or the notion of emotions being positive / negative (by human
standards) to non-human life.
Does a tree have emotions that a human would recognise? When a lion takes
over a pride and kills all the young belonging to the old alpha male, does
he have negative emotions about that?
Animals are animals, they think "differently" to humans. It is only a
problem when people try to make that term mean something more or less than
it does. Just because animals think differently doesn't mean they are any
better or worse as life forms.
|
No, they think exactly the same. both use neurons to do their
thinking, the only difference is a level of development in the cerebral
cortex. animals have been found able to comprehend and even create
language, to use tools, and to plan agead. This bullshit about animals
not having emotions, or thoughts comes from 1 line in the bible "god
made man in his own image". it just isn't true, we are no more than
the animals, and the sooner we remember that, the less people in need
of prozac there will be (although geeks like all of us will go back to
getting beat up more). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gordon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
On 11 Jul 2006 09:41:07 -0700, "bill"
<ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: | Animals are animals, they think "differently" to humans. It is only a
problem when people try to make that term mean something more or less than
it does. Just because animals think differently doesn't mean they are any
better or worse as life forms.
No, they think exactly the same. both use neurons to do their
thinking, the only difference is a level of development in the cerebral
cortex. animals have been found able to comprehend and even create
language, to use tools, and to plan agead. This bullshit about animals
not having emotions, or thoughts comes from 1 line in the bible "god
made man in his own image". it just isn't true, we are no more than
the animals, and the sooner we remember that, the less people in need
of prozac there will be (although geeks like all of us will go back to
getting beat up more).
Some interesting thinking here, Bill. It seems to me that most |
animals...those with vocal ability...do indeed use a simple form
of language. This is not a sophisticated level of language, such
as "some" humans use, but might be described as a collection of
verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. Squeals, grunts, barks, roars,
etc., along with a variety of tonal inflections and tempo
variations can convey a lot of information. Whales and porpoises
seem to "talk" with each other. Elephants have been observed
communication vocally across great distances, by means of their
very low frequency audio trumpeting. Some creatures, such as
rabbits, communicate by thumping the ground with a hind foot.
This thumping sound seems to transmit through the air, close to
the ground, and is easily perceived by another rabbit, even
several yards away. I think this is a very simple
"Attention...wake up and be alert!" sort of communication, but it
works.
We are more than the animals, only in that we are at the top of
the pyramid. We document our experiences (learning) and pass this
information along to future generations if they will be receptive
to it.
It is pointed out in the Bible - Revelation 2:20 that Adam used
nouns. That is, God brought the creatures to Adam and Adam gave
them names. It is an interesting conjecture that this Adam was
the first hominid with the ability to use nouns. Using nouns
would require a much more sophisticated level of development of
the auditory cortex.
In Genesis 3:16 Eve was informed that childbirth would henceforth
be a major problem. Again, it is interesting to make conjecture
that this was because the brain (and the brain box) would
necessarily be too large to pass through the birth canal as
easily as it had been with the earlier hominids who didn't have
this speech ability.
Gordon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill
science forum beginner
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
Gordon wrote:
| Quote: | On 11 Jul 2006 09:41:07 -0700, "bill"
ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Animals are animals, they think "differently" to humans. It is only a
problem when people try to make that term mean something more or less than
it does. Just because animals think differently doesn't mean they are any
better or worse as life forms.
No, they think exactly the same. both use neurons to do their
thinking, the only difference is a level of development in the cerebral
cortex. animals have been found able to comprehend and even create
language, to use tools, and to plan agead. This bullshit about animals
not having emotions, or thoughts comes from 1 line in the bible "god
made man in his own image". it just isn't true, we are no more than
the animals, and the sooner we remember that, the less people in need
of prozac there will be (although geeks like all of us will go back to
getting beat up more).
Some interesting thinking here, Bill. It seems to me that most
animals...those with vocal ability...do indeed use a simple form
of language. This is not a sophisticated level of language, such
as "some" humans use, but might be described as a collection of
verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. Squeals, grunts, barks, roars,
etc., along with a variety of tonal inflections and tempo
variations can convey a lot of information. Whales and porpoises
seem to "talk" with each other. Elephants have been observed
communication vocally across great distances, by means of their
very low frequency audio trumpeting. Some creatures, such as
rabbits, communicate by thumping the ground with a hind foot.
This thumping sound seems to transmit through the air, close to
the ground, and is easily perceived by another rabbit, even
several yards away. I think this is a very simple
"Attention...wake up and be alert!" sort of communication, but it
works.
We are more than the animals, only in that we are at the top of
the pyramid. We document our experiences (learning) and pass this
information along to future generations if they will be receptive
to it.
It is pointed out in the Bible - Revelation 2:20 that Adam used
nouns. That is, God brought the creatures to Adam and Adam gave
them names. It is an interesting conjecture that this Adam was
the first hominid with the ability to use nouns. Using nouns
would require a much more sophisticated level of development of
the auditory cortex.
In Genesis 3:16 Eve was informed that childbirth would henceforth
be a major problem. Again, it is interesting to make conjecture
that this was because the brain (and the brain box) would
necessarily be too large to pass through the birth canal as
easily as it had been with the earlier hominids who didn't have
this speech ability.
|
An anecdote from the farm.
My mother raises sheep for reasons known only to her. for a time,
we had a sheepdog, not the kind that chases the sheep, but the kind
that lives with them and fights off the wolves.
This dog could stand and bark all day long and the sheep would
ignore him. But on many occasions, I observed the dog give a different
bark, in response to which, all the sheep stopped eating and ran home.
There was a monkey a while back that was taught sign language. a
few dozen words, like crap, food, jump, like that. at some point in
his training, his trainer refused to give him food, to which the monkey
responded by calling him a s**t-head. without any introduction of
insults.
We are no different to the animals, we are just the next very
small step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:51 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <aks7b2110vppon45nijjcqhu71kcudor8i@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: | In Genesis 3:16 Eve was informed that childbirth would henceforth
be a major problem. Again, it is interesting to make conjecture
that this was because the brain (and the brain box) would
necessarily be too large to pass through the birth canal as
easily as it had been with the earlier hominids who didn't have
this speech ability.
|
You need to spend more time with animals.
/BAH
>Gordon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <1152653416.715421.298360@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Gordon wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 09:41:07 -0700, "bill"
ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Animals are animals, they think "differently" to humans. It is only a
problem when people try to make that term mean something more or less
than
it does. Just because animals think differently doesn't mean they are
any
better or worse as life forms.
No, they think exactly the same. both use neurons to do their
thinking, the only difference is a level of development in the cerebral
cortex. animals have been found able to comprehend and even create
language, to use tools, and to plan agead. This bullshit about animals
not having emotions, or thoughts comes from 1 line in the bible "god
made man in his own image". it just isn't true, we are no more than
the animals, and the sooner we remember that, the less people in need
of prozac there will be (although geeks like all of us will go back to
getting beat up more).
Some interesting thinking here, Bill. It seems to me that most
animals...those with vocal ability...do indeed use a simple form
of language. This is not a sophisticated level of language, such
as "some" humans use, but might be described as a collection of
verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc. Squeals, grunts, barks, roars,
etc., along with a variety of tonal inflections and tempo
variations can convey a lot of information. Whales and porpoises
seem to "talk" with each other. Elephants have been observed
communication vocally across great distances, by means of their
very low frequency audio trumpeting. Some creatures, such as
rabbits, communicate by thumping the ground with a hind foot.
This thumping sound seems to transmit through the air, close to
the ground, and is easily perceived by another rabbit, even
several yards away. I think this is a very simple
"Attention...wake up and be alert!" sort of communication, but it
works.
We are more than the animals, only in that we are at the top of
the pyramid. We document our experiences (learning) and pass this
information along to future generations if they will be receptive
to it.
It is pointed out in the Bible - Revelation 2:20 that Adam used
nouns. That is, God brought the creatures to Adam and Adam gave
them names. It is an interesting conjecture that this Adam was
the first hominid with the ability to use nouns. Using nouns
would require a much more sophisticated level of development of
the auditory cortex.
In Genesis 3:16 Eve was informed that childbirth would henceforth
be a major problem. Again, it is interesting to make conjecture
that this was because the brain (and the brain box) would
necessarily be too large to pass through the birth canal as
easily as it had been with the earlier hominids who didn't have
this speech ability.
An anecdote from the farm.
My mother raises sheep for reasons known only to her. for a time,
we had a sheepdog, not the kind that chases the sheep, but the kind
that lives with them and fights off the wolves.
This dog could stand and bark all day long and the sheep would
ignore him. But on many occasions, I observed the dog give a different
bark, in response to which, all the sheep stopped eating and ran home.
|
Yup. Anybody who has been on a farm knows when something is wrong
or the animals are just cranky and having a bad hair day.
| Quote: |
There was a monkey a while back that was taught sign language. a
few dozen words, like crap, food, jump, like that. at some point in
his training, his trainer refused to give him food, to which the monkey
responded by calling him a s**t-head. without any introduction of
insults.
|
<grin> Good story. I wonder if somebody was called a shithead for
being stupid one time.
| Quote: | We are no different to the animals, we are just the next very
small step.
|
Well, there are days when I wonder if we're not.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:02 am Post subject:
Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
|
|
|
In article <ahQsg.13$45.1124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
| Quote: | In article <e901i0$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.
I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.
Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.
Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.
The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.
Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.
Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.
Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.
Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.
Well, the indirect addressing is valuable, as it affords nearly full
authority, yet escapes full responsibility.
|
Sure. I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't important; but
that's for the marketing people. I'm trying to figure what
people do to keep things working.
| Quote: | But, I agree, that's a technicality.
|
It's something that has to be included in the design spec but
will be useless unless the cold start has been thrashed out.
I'm still trying to define cold start essentially.
| Quote: |
It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.
Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.
Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.
Yes, very true.
Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.
Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)
yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again .
As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.
It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.
I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.
Sure.
|
I'm still having problems with this one. It doesn't explain
third world people who do have to know all about politics in
order to survive. Also between the Revolutionary War
and the Consitutional Convention, the colonies did intensive
tests of different political systems and governing systems.
So everybody had to be very intelligent w.r.t. to this
stuff [I can't think of the word I want]. The above observation
also contradicts the general assumption that an "educated"
populace is needed for a democracy. This one has led me down
a path of trying to define educated now. It cannot have the
meaning the ivy-stuffed heads say it is. I ran across a
person who had a major in science but dismissed coal miners
as unskilled workers. Where did this kind of attitude start?
And is it new?
| Quote: |
You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.
Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.
Of course. But being told is not enough, they need to actually want
to do what they're told.
|
Of course. You don't want a design decision that will lose
sales by making the piece of gear emulate a boat anchor in Kansas.
| Quote: |
In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.
Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.
What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.
The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.
Yep.
And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.
Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.
It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.
This "absence of the hardware" you're talking about is not necessarily
all bad thing.
|
Oh, no. I'm not assuming it is. Since it exists, there must
have been an advantage of survival.
| Quote: | A stable human society is made of a stew of followers,
spiced with a dash of leaders. With too many bright, independent
minded and critical individuals societies lose stability.
|
These are the anarchists; I seem to be tripping over this
attitude, right and left, over the past year.
| Quote: | Consider ancient Greece.
|
I have no information to do this. I'll have to watch out
for a book on this one. Didn't Greece have a common culture
rather than a common politics that unified it such that we,
wearing hindsight glasses, can clump it as a civilization?
Thus, if culture is unifying force, it will eventually disintegrate
when the competition is to produce more bizarre art forms (however
those art forms are defined). s**t..this gets me into art which
I know I know absolutely nothing about. I don't want to study
philosophy right now.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:18 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Debt Help | Bankruptcy | Debt Consolidation | Photoshop Tutorials | Debt Consolidation
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
