This weeks Science stories

Grey, a merry merry to you and yours.

Maybe, but my take is, if you don't think about it when you have the opportunity to, then it is sure to run you over and turn your life into "road kill". Just ask Mel.

flow....;)
 
heya flow. Yes but if your life turns to roadkill, scrape it up and fix it or start all over again. I did. Im probably too caught up with the practical things in my life that I have little time for the spiritual. and yet, I enjoy the discussions on these forums. I have a new philosophy, "Be Your Own Hero". What do you reckon, flo?
 
Not many people are talking about the creation of artifical/synthetic life, especially theologians. But IMHO they should be. Here's an interesting blog entry which addresses the issues very well. What do you think things like this will do to traditional beliefs over time ?

About twenty five years ago some of us in the science/technology business thought this was a critical set of issues to be discussed. But we've only seen divisive and unproductive political/religious warfare thus far. Time to wake up folks !


flow....:rolleyes:

God and Small Things - Bits - Technology - New York Times Blog
 
Kindest Regards, Flow!
flowperson said:
Not many people are talking about the creation of artifical/synthetic life, especially theologians. But IMHO they should be. Here's an interesting blog entry which addresses the issues very well. What do you think things like this will do to traditional beliefs over time ?

About twenty five years ago some of us in the science/technology business thought this was a critical set of issues to be discussed.
Click to expand...
This link is blocked from where I am. Sounds interesting though, care to hit the high notes?
 
HI Juan...Sorry the link doesn't work for you. Since the NYT eliminated their $50 fee for access to certain articles and areas of their site, I thought that this sort of blocking was no longer operative. Oh well. let's just say that I'm doing this under the "fair use" doctrine and doesn't necessarily violate the letter or the spirit of copyright law. Enjoy !

January 11, 2008, 4:36 pm God and Small Things

By Barnaby J. Feder
Tags: Chris Toumey, nanotechnology, Ray Kurzweil, religion, University of South Carolina NanoCenter

There may not be a lot of agreement among the world’s religions on exactly what constitutes humans “playing God,” but you never hear a preacher or rabbi suggesting such behavior is wise or laudable. So you would think they might have a lot to say about nanotechnology. After all, nanotech involves rearranging not just DNA and the other building blocks of life — already a source of controversy in biotechnology — but the very atoms and molecules that make up all matter. If that is not messing around in God’s closet, what is?
So far, though, according to Chris Toumey, an anthropologist at the University of South Carolina’s NanoCenter, religious voices have been noticeably absent from nanotechnology discussions. That relative silence is the subject of an essay by Mr. Toumey (titled “Atom and Eve”) in the most recent issue of the scientific journal, Nature Nanotechnology.
Nature declined to let Bits publish an open link to the essay. (It is $30 to read.) The gist is that not only have religious leaders missed the significance of nanotechnology, but what little attention they have paid has been misdirected, in Mr. Toumey’s view, toward highly speculative issues.

Mr. Toumey cites as his main argument the debate about transhumanism — the general term for technology advances that could muddle what it means to be human by integrating our bodies and minds with machinery and information technology systems. A somewhat parallel line of thinking was popularized by Ray Kurzweil and Dr. Terry Grossman’s “Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever” (Rodale, 2004).
Some writers, Mr. Toumey says, have suggested that one of the most compelling reasons for pursuing such developments is that success would put conventional religion “out of business.” And not surprisingly, a few representatives of these religions have risen to the bait to decry such ambitions.
Mr. Toumey says that such a longterm view is “an unnecessarily troublesome” to view nanotechnology. He says it is likely to trap religious voices in stances where they are “systematically hostile to a very broad technology.” He frets that focusing on transhumanism might lead organized religious to oppose the near term use of nanotechnology in positive ways, like creating better ways to deliver drugs into diseased cells.
It’s a curious argument. Religious leaders who have expressed qualms about practices like cloning animals have not objected to using genetic engineering on bacteria to make better drugs. Why would they be any less discerning about the differences between narrow applications of nanotechnology and those with more sweeping implications about the very nature of life? The lack of religious comment to date may not represent nano-ignorance so much as unwillingness to see any spiritual problem with re-engineering the molecular structure of textiles to improve stain resistance.
That fact is that the most interesting spiritual questions raised by nanotechnology stem from the most speculative applications. Mr. Toumey indirectly concedes the point right from the beginning of his commentary, which starts with a scene from“Halo,”) a short science fiction story by Charles Stross in which a Muslim scholar is wondering whether bacon assembled from scratch by a molecular assembler is forbidden food like all pork products. And what if the Koran and other sacred teachings have been downloaded onto a computer that is then programmed to analyze and act on them like a good Muslim? Is it Islamic? What are its sacred rights and duties?
As the world gets closer to real-world variations on such quandaries, nanotechnology will undoubtedly be getting plenty of attention from religious leaders."



And remember Juan, this is the issue that the late and great physicist Richard Feinmann believed had the potential to destroy civilization as we understand and know it. But do have a nice day anyhow. Sure enjoyed your discussion re: cave art.



flow....;)
 
So True Q ! But it does appear that we were designed such that one follows from and/or leads to the other, except for the ultimate state of love, Agape.

flow....;)
 
"Machines will achieve human-level artificial intelligence by 2029, a leading US inventor has predicted."
Keep in mind that 'human-level intelligence' is not the same as human. Its a common misconception that AI is headed toward being human and therefore is far in the future. In fact AI is done all the time. Its a joke in the AI forums that AI actually refers to "almost implemented" because every time they finish an AI product and market it, people no longer consider it to be AI.

For example, its a frequent complaint of gamers that the computer opponents AI isnt really "I". AI is teaching a program to recognize that the best route from A to B is a straight line. But in a game that would quickly be exploited by the players. To be AH (artificially human) instead of AI, it would need to also use flanking, feints, sneaking around to the rear, and even some crazy moves which might work just because you didnt expect a crazy move. In gaming-AI forums is its considered a giggle (or maybe a statement on humanity) that to turn an AI into AH involves deleting some of the intelligence and replacing it with more random actions.

Achieving "human-level artificial intelligence" does not include art, creativity, and the ability to jump in a new direction. AI might proceed up a straight line in an area of research but wouldnt jump to a completely new path to invent new areas of research.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/13/science-bat-flying.html

I thought this was interesting since it involves one of the holes in the theory of evolution. Its nice to see it get plugged.

Of course one of the biggies still left is mammals.

Gandalf Parker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top