Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10845
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:31:52 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
In a message dated 2/25/00 8:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wtnewton@nc5.infi.net writes:
> It took nature over 3 billion years to create
> us and pack together the number of elements necessary to make something
> alive and conscious of its environment... to think us dumb humans can
> do it in 50-100 years is... no comment.
Yes, but nature did it randomly. We have systems in place to ensure more
timely outcomes. If you say it can't be done, then for sure, without a doubt,
you won't do it. It takes the starry eyed dreamer who is to stupid to realize
what he's doing is considered impossible in order to achieve it. Of course,
once it's accomplished, suddenly it was not so impossible. I can think of
dozens of impossibilities that became common place with the advent of a
simple device or idea. Besides, you are arguing from an unknown premise. Just
what is a soul anyway? Just what is consciousness? Do dogs have conciseness?
Their brains are much less complex than ours. At just what level does
consciousness appear? No, I think you are making assumptions based on present
knowledge and levels of technology, that's always a mistake. I also think
your argument is heavily biased by western religious dogma. Possibly, if you
were Hindu, you would consider all life to contain a soul. No matter how
basic or simple. Making achieving the gold ring of consciousness a much
closer goal. If indeed, what you say is true, then Mr. Brooks is wasting his
time and a lot of lab fees. He should just pack up and go home to sell
cheeseburgers. I don't buy that, and thank God Rodney doesn't either. And if
you can't realize the importance of fiction, dreaming, and tenacity, than I
have no comment. Except to say, the next time you are driving in your car,
make sure not to exceed 30 miles an hour. It is impossible for the human body
to withstand speeds greater than that. It will explode. This was common
knowledge 100 years ago. Now ain't you glad someone didn't believe in the
impossible?
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10846 Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:38:35 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Robert Stein
>Delivered-To: rastein@dakotacom.net
>From: JVernonM@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:31:52 EST
>Subject: Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
>To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45
>Sender: owner-beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>Reply-To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
>X-Comment: Send unsubscribe requests to
>
>In a message dated 2/25/00 8:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>wtnewton@nc5.infi.net writes:
>
> > It took nature over 3 billion years to create
> > us and pack together the number of elements necessary to make something
> > alive and conscious of its environment... to think us dumb humans can
> > do it in 50-100 years is... no comment.
>Yes, but nature did it randomly. We have systems in place to ensure more
>timely outcomes. If you say it can't be done, then for sure, without a doubt,
>you won't do it. It takes the starry eyed dreamer who is to stupid to realize
>what he's doing is considered impossible in order to achieve it. Of course,
>once it's accomplished, suddenly it was not so impossible. I can think of
>dozens of impossibilities that became common place with the advent of a
>simple device or idea. Besides, you are arguing from an unknown premise. Just
>what is a soul anyway? Just what is consciousness? Do dogs have conciseness?
>Their brains are much less complex than ours. At just what level does
>consciousness appear? No, I think you are making assumptions based on present
>knowledge and levels of technology, that's always a mistake. I also think
>your argument is heavily biased by western religious dogma. Possibly, if you
>were Hindu, you would consider all life to contain a soul. No matter how
>basic or simple. Making achieving the gold ring of consciousness a much
>closer goal. If indeed, what you say is true, then Mr. Brooks is wasting his
>time and a lot of lab fees. He should just pack up and go home to sell
>cheeseburgers. I don't buy that, and thank God Rodney doesn't either. And if
>you can't realize the importance of fiction, dreaming, and tenacity, than I
>have no comment. Except to say, the next time you are driving in your car,
>make sure not to exceed 30 miles an hour. It is impossible for the human body
>to withstand speeds greater than that. It will explode. This was common
>knowledge 100 years ago. Now ain't you glad someone didn't believe in the
>impossible?
>
>See ya,
>Jim
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
>ICQ# 55657870
One has to tame fantasy and imagination with reality. I am not
arguing one way or the other, just pointing out that your dead-set belief
MAY be just as foolish. I am sure examples can be found, where people
shared your optimism, and were dead wrong. It goes both ways.
I have worked in research lab where we DID knowingly waste time
and money. Many times that is how government research goes. Once you get
the money, weather or not you soon determine viability, you spend the
money. If not, it is harder than hell to get grants in the future. Even
failed experiments yield useful results. Just because it is an ongoing
project doesn't meen that it it is going in the intended path. I also
agree that we need to have tenacity, but a dose of current reality also
needs to be factored in.
Home