Recently, I StumbleUpon an article whose premise is solely that we aren't whom we think we are. You should be responding to this particular premise as "NO DUH" and if you aren't, well, you'll probably never catch up.
The article, which I can no longer find, unfortunately, posits that we are a combination of various influences we have through our lives (media, parents, friends, yada yada yada).
The article seemed to forget some very important factors on the people we think we are. There are aspects of ourselves we don't like. We use a mask on ourselves, even as we use a myriad of masks to the various socials situations we find ourselves in. We really aren't defined by the things in which we are subject to, anyway; those things just influence our judgement over what all it is that we do.
Naturally, the question is begged: are we what we do? Are baseball players just baseball players? Is that who they are and who they will ever be? Maybe in our memories, maybe in some books/websites of statistics, but in terms of how they are defined as a person, that is a minor, surface facet that makes up for, mostly, their physical identity, not so much their self.
Are we our names? Obviously not. Names are designations to tell each of us apart while giving us the illusion of personalizing our family as to be our own, and not of society on the whole. We are rather territorial about our families, are we not?
Our self, who we are, is far from a simple explanation and there is no true formula to describe each individual's self as we all are different, inside and out, repressed suppressed or expressed, both from the influence of outside influences and our own genetic influences.
We are masks. The best, and only real solution for us to be happy with ourselves, is to find the mask that we feel suits us best when we are alone at night, contemplating ourselves, our relationships, and the world in general. That is the mask we should hold strong to, because we will never truly be one with true selves, mainly because our true selves contain things that we don't like, from a social stand point or not, religious stand point or not. We don't like ourselves, and we never will.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
10 Technology Innovations Needed for Deep Space Exploration
10 Technology Innovations Needed for Deep Space Exploration
This has things that we feel, as a society on a slightly more scholarly level than usual, are needed to go into "deep space." You know, that place passed the moon.
The first, well tenth, and most laughable, suggestion are giant solar sails. While that may be fantastic as a backup source of relative movement, we still would have no real control over its movement, especially backward or laterally which can be very important when moving out of the way of things like...planets. Also, if that does succeed in getting us passed the Neptune and Uranus and the solar energy that was powering it dies out, does it just float out there? Unless it's a robotic mechanism or the energy we gain is much greater than needed throughput, we'd be dead in space, asking astronauts (or whatever) to die for a little information. Naturally, something else may occur passed the planets...more than one energy source moving in different directions. How could a unilateral sail handle two contradicting source of movement or one that pushes from the side instead of relatively dead on? Laughable attempt at primary propulsion.
The ninth is "Super-high-speed Optical Communication"which is a technology we already, technically, have accomplished at FERMA. We don't need to necessarily use purely optical technologies, just patterned arrays of energy shot across on different bandwidths of light, speed, much like a strobe combined with Morse code with a dash of how they had been talking computer hard drives operate by now; pulses of light going from one side to another, the speed, color, bandwidth all being an indication of data that's being moved. Optical communication can be compressed and decompressed; asserting a purely optical form is the only or best way is the best way to kill long distance, timely communication.
At least the eighth suggestion is much more reasonable, finally finding and using a way that truly centralizes time measurement, but it would still be too parred with earth's atomic time and not necessarily the atomic time that the various elements in space (especially lack of gravity) could cause...not to mention time doesn't quite indicate direct unless I've been mistaught about the functionality of a compass. Star Trek probably had the best solution for navigation in space; charts, maps, just like we used when sailing the ocean black...I mean blue.
Seventh is robotic advance teams. I don't know how good of an idea it is to robotize everything, especially with the robots having the ability to learn, to evaluate. We can sense various elements by their colors using different modes on our interstellar telescopes; I feel harnessing that in a smaller module, for smaller distances, is a much more logical course, not to mention one that can be more easily carried around with you than a drone that just looks for good places to land. Things can change in the atmosphere that it may not detect in time relative to yourself. That robot just did you no good.
Sixth - substitutes for gravity. I know I have an article that touches on this somewhat, and on this whole deep space exploration stuffs needed. Gyration is our answer, maybe with a touch of magnetic field manipulation.
Fifth is suspended animation. Generational ships maybe be better suited as too much can go so wrong with minimal, at most, of the crew, not suspended. There may also be a better solution to our life span, anyway. Assuming suspended animation causes things to be in the same state they were in when induced and as when they are reassumed, I'm sure a system of some measure could be applied only during sleeping hours on the crew of the ship. That should add, what, 8+ hours/day to their ability to operate the craft?
Fourth - force fields to black hazardous radiation. I believed that I have touched on this subject as well in one of my previous articles. Gyrational and magnetic forces that are constantly revolving should provide a sufficient initial shield.
Third is warp drives, another that has been touched upon both briefly in this but most assuredly in other articles, answers to all of the questions posed in the article.
Second, and in my opinion, most important part - nutritional sustenance to keep the travelers alive. I guess I sort of agree with the article's method, though figure it would be cumbersome in a ship that isn't pretty much the size of the moon. We can artificially grow, and speed up growth, of various plants, which may be our best bet; all travelers with basic knowledge of botany, each with its own food storage supply that can quickly regenerate more from seeds (I believe 10 day cycles is what is needed at this point). The other idea would be stem cells...of plants.
The article lists water and air as the most important things that need to be accomplished, but these have been accomplished to a reasonable level, on a much larger scale, that we don't need an upgrade, though one would certainly be good to have. Keep in mind, the spacefarers would not be using and going through the kind of waste we do here, so the system we have now that purifies so much extra crap would sufficient for a more clinically clean environment as a well-run space ship.
This has things that we feel, as a society on a slightly more scholarly level than usual, are needed to go into "deep space." You know, that place passed the moon.
The first, well tenth, and most laughable, suggestion are giant solar sails. While that may be fantastic as a backup source of relative movement, we still would have no real control over its movement, especially backward or laterally which can be very important when moving out of the way of things like...planets. Also, if that does succeed in getting us passed the Neptune and Uranus and the solar energy that was powering it dies out, does it just float out there? Unless it's a robotic mechanism or the energy we gain is much greater than needed throughput, we'd be dead in space, asking astronauts (or whatever) to die for a little information. Naturally, something else may occur passed the planets...more than one energy source moving in different directions. How could a unilateral sail handle two contradicting source of movement or one that pushes from the side instead of relatively dead on? Laughable attempt at primary propulsion.
The ninth is "Super-high-speed Optical Communication"which is a technology we already, technically, have accomplished at FERMA. We don't need to necessarily use purely optical technologies, just patterned arrays of energy shot across on different bandwidths of light, speed, much like a strobe combined with Morse code with a dash of how they had been talking computer hard drives operate by now; pulses of light going from one side to another, the speed, color, bandwidth all being an indication of data that's being moved. Optical communication can be compressed and decompressed; asserting a purely optical form is the only or best way is the best way to kill long distance, timely communication.
At least the eighth suggestion is much more reasonable, finally finding and using a way that truly centralizes time measurement, but it would still be too parred with earth's atomic time and not necessarily the atomic time that the various elements in space (especially lack of gravity) could cause...not to mention time doesn't quite indicate direct unless I've been mistaught about the functionality of a compass. Star Trek probably had the best solution for navigation in space; charts, maps, just like we used when sailing the ocean black...I mean blue.
Seventh is robotic advance teams. I don't know how good of an idea it is to robotize everything, especially with the robots having the ability to learn, to evaluate. We can sense various elements by their colors using different modes on our interstellar telescopes; I feel harnessing that in a smaller module, for smaller distances, is a much more logical course, not to mention one that can be more easily carried around with you than a drone that just looks for good places to land. Things can change in the atmosphere that it may not detect in time relative to yourself. That robot just did you no good.
Sixth - substitutes for gravity. I know I have an article that touches on this somewhat, and on this whole deep space exploration stuffs needed. Gyration is our answer, maybe with a touch of magnetic field manipulation.
Fifth is suspended animation. Generational ships maybe be better suited as too much can go so wrong with minimal, at most, of the crew, not suspended. There may also be a better solution to our life span, anyway. Assuming suspended animation causes things to be in the same state they were in when induced and as when they are reassumed, I'm sure a system of some measure could be applied only during sleeping hours on the crew of the ship. That should add, what, 8+ hours/day to their ability to operate the craft?
Fourth - force fields to black hazardous radiation. I believed that I have touched on this subject as well in one of my previous articles. Gyrational and magnetic forces that are constantly revolving should provide a sufficient initial shield.
Third is warp drives, another that has been touched upon both briefly in this but most assuredly in other articles, answers to all of the questions posed in the article.
Second, and in my opinion, most important part - nutritional sustenance to keep the travelers alive. I guess I sort of agree with the article's method, though figure it would be cumbersome in a ship that isn't pretty much the size of the moon. We can artificially grow, and speed up growth, of various plants, which may be our best bet; all travelers with basic knowledge of botany, each with its own food storage supply that can quickly regenerate more from seeds (I believe 10 day cycles is what is needed at this point). The other idea would be stem cells...of plants.
The article lists water and air as the most important things that need to be accomplished, but these have been accomplished to a reasonable level, on a much larger scale, that we don't need an upgrade, though one would certainly be good to have. Keep in mind, the spacefarers would not be using and going through the kind of waste we do here, so the system we have now that purifies so much extra crap would sufficient for a more clinically clean environment as a well-run space ship.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Playground Safety - Disputed
We use a lot of extra things to keep our children safe on the playgrounds; flexible rubber mats, air-cushioned surfaces just to name a couple.
Are we doing a disservice to our children by protecting them so much? I think so.
Children need to get hurt on accident when doing kid activities for a variety of reasons; to learn their limits, to learn that just because something is fun doesn't mean it isn't dangerous or potentially painful as well, that jumping from a one-inch diameter tube or rail to another probably won't end well, swinging way passed the bar of the swing set could end with a sore bum and bloody hands and forearms. They need to learn that there are downsides to fun and upsides to playing it safe.
Are we doing a disservice to our children by protecting them so much? I think so.
Children need to get hurt on accident when doing kid activities for a variety of reasons; to learn their limits, to learn that just because something is fun doesn't mean it isn't dangerous or potentially painful as well, that jumping from a one-inch diameter tube or rail to another probably won't end well, swinging way passed the bar of the swing set could end with a sore bum and bloody hands and forearms. They need to learn that there are downsides to fun and upsides to playing it safe.
Salud, Kevorkian
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the leader in the humane treatment to the terminally ill or of a painfully old ago.
Murder? No, murder implies it wasn't wanted. Assisted suicide? No, that implies he helped the patient in the process, but he did not, he just set the machine up. Avatar of the right to die? Oh yes. Everyone has the right to die, no matter what their religion feels is morally correct; law != religiously moral.
I may not have necessarily agreed with the method (the Thanatron wasn't too bad, but the Mercitron was) due to the length of dying and the pain of asphyxiation. While it is believed that some suffer from a certain euphoria, it is usually an interruption between severe pains. While I realize any more involvement on Kevorkian's part could be perceived as murder, as the patient wasn't the one throwing the switch, there were better ways to do it (IV to the jugular, not the arm for instance).
It is unfortunate people don't want the right to die legalized, at least until they are in the situation in which it would be utilized; people just think about themselves, not the person dying. Why should the living suffer from having their relative with them no longer through artificial means when they could linger for months or years, fuck the pain, and die naturally, you know, how God intended? I think they're also afraid of the abuses, but the abusers wouldn't need any right to die laws in order to put something like that into effect. We sure are a selfish, narrow-minded lot.
Murder? No, murder implies it wasn't wanted. Assisted suicide? No, that implies he helped the patient in the process, but he did not, he just set the machine up. Avatar of the right to die? Oh yes. Everyone has the right to die, no matter what their religion feels is morally correct; law != religiously moral.
I may not have necessarily agreed with the method (the Thanatron wasn't too bad, but the Mercitron was) due to the length of dying and the pain of asphyxiation. While it is believed that some suffer from a certain euphoria, it is usually an interruption between severe pains. While I realize any more involvement on Kevorkian's part could be perceived as murder, as the patient wasn't the one throwing the switch, there were better ways to do it (IV to the jugular, not the arm for instance).
It is unfortunate people don't want the right to die legalized, at least until they are in the situation in which it would be utilized; people just think about themselves, not the person dying. Why should the living suffer from having their relative with them no longer through artificial means when they could linger for months or years, fuck the pain, and die naturally, you know, how God intended? I think they're also afraid of the abuses, but the abusers wouldn't need any right to die laws in order to put something like that into effect. We sure are a selfish, narrow-minded lot.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Reply to "The Danger of Science 'Denialism'"
I posted the link to the article I am responding to and you can access it by clicking on the topic.(though I doubt they will ever read this, but since this blog is purely for my own gratification, that's irrelevant).
The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth. The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself. We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89). We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it? We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact? I don't think so. The article also demands that we ask for evidence. Evidence is likewise easily skewed. The article says to ask questions. We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).
I do have to agree with the article on some points, however. People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof. People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.
The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations. They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.
"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science." Interesting, I think. People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods. The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness. Isn't that what science can be, according to this article? The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well. To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.
The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth. The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself. We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89). We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it? We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact? I don't think so. The article also demands that we ask for evidence. Evidence is likewise easily skewed. The article says to ask questions. We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).
I do have to agree with the article on some points, however. People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof. People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.
The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations. They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.
"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science." Interesting, I think. People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods. The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness. Isn't that what science can be, according to this article? The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well. To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Cancer
Supposedly, people get cancer because of mutations to the genes, including oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes. I'm curious, then, why they haven't use gene replacement therapy for cancer treatment; after all, if you can replace the faulty oncogenes and tumor suppressing genes with working ones, wouldn't the cancer at least stop spreading, if not get rid of it all together?
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
I wish I had done more research on genes, gene splicing and gene replacement therapy. Even still, I'm sure there is another way to make genes more sturdy, more stable and less likely to mutate beyond things like vitamin A, or different option, add a gene or two that regulates the other genes to be sure that they stay how they were originally, or at least when they were healthy (inhibitions on carcinogenesis?). I should research this...
After a little bit of research, I have concluded some gene therapy/genetic splicing involving the cell replication process of earthworms is the best way to go to defeat cancer; due to their cell replication speed, they are the only species not to have cancer remain beyond the very beginning stages, in which no damage is done to the creature. It appears as if we have the technology to do this, at least in vitro, to prevent cancer, as well as to use this in a manner similar to stem cells to replace cancerous organs with healthy organs. The only real problem I can foresee is that it will affect aging, either speeding it up or greatly slowing down the process due to the speed of the cells' replication and, therefore, DNA breakdown speeds from constant, high speed translations.
Negation in Mathematics
-1*-1 = 1 Right? I don't think so!
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Why does -1*-1 = 1? I have searched and searched the internet for an answer, but nothing has come up with a satisfactory answer; they're all based on how English operates or they just say "math will break without it." Why would math break without it?
I think it is just based on English, or to sum it up, a linguistic translation into a mathematical operation.
Negation in math fails, particularly in economics. Let us say I owe a company $100 so my current balance would be $-100. If I tell them I'll pay them $-100, would that mean that they would pay me $-100? I think not; I would still owe them $100. Another example would be in electronics; a negative charge with a negative charge just repels each other, it doesn't combine into a positive charge.
A mathematical translation from a linguistic operation indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)