You are kidding, right? Woosh? Tongue in cheek?
-XT
Equal rights for women and full access to birth control.
blahblahblah…and the world was actually flat at one time, cause that was real…the sun revolved around the earth, cause that was real…blahblahblah:o
Put “quantum neuro technology” into your search bar; guess what you’ll come up with?? Doctors that practice quantum neuro technology! What a world. What a world. Going off and inventing stuff without telling you. What are things coming too?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
:D;):)
Me next, me next…Hitler!
Oh, wait…was I supposed to name a herati–I mean atheist? Okay, let me see now…there’s…wait a second…ummmm…
Whose prosperity, yours or mine? Sorry, I’ll take mine.
Even in that case, it wasn’t religion that was the problem, it was the fanaticism and intolerence. Yes, some of the beliefs of religion have changed, but it’s not like Christianity in and of itself has really changed a whole lot, most of the most basic beliefs were set 1700 years ago, but rather, its the adherent that have changed how they observe it. Yes, the situation was far worse back then, but it’s because most people have seen that science and religion aren’t at odds with eachother, can coexist and either can either help raise the level of the other.
Religion existed then, it exists now, and it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. It’s precisely the idea that those of all religious backgrounds along with the secularists being able to live together.
This argument is silly. Both boil down to people finding reasons to justify attrocities. In a world where people are strongly religious, it’s easy to find a way to justify horrible things with religion, but it’s also easy to find ways to justify things without resulting to religion as a basis, which is all this exercise proves.
Approach the problem of religious and anti-religious turmoil an idea of converting more people or removing the other is like approaching the problem of racism with the idea that the best way to bring an end to racism is just to eliminate all the other races. Sure, I guess that would technically eliminate the problem, but it’s about the worst solution possible. The way to fix the problem is to stop trying to draw all these lines and see how we can live together.
Equal Rights for men and full access to CASTRATION!
hey…it’s an option;)
Well, you should have.
“Quantum neuro technology” brought up exactly five links:
Your post in this thread
3 broken links to obscure studies
1 “medical” link, to this fine bit of quackery.
Not on Google. I see “quantum” and “neurology” in the same document, but not as a phrase; only in a sentence mentioning both neurology and quantum electron microscopy.
On Wikipedia I find a page on NeuroQuantology, which is “is a quarterly interdisciplinary scientific journal that crosses the boundaries of neuroscience and quantum physics,” founded in 2003, but its subject matter is otherwise unexplained.
Is anyone seriously theorizing that anything important in a nervous system happens at a subatomic level? Isn’t chemistry sufficient to explain how an impulse is transmitted from one synapse to the next?
Or are we using “quantum” in the sense of “It means you add another nought”?
Of course it has, even since Voltaire’s day. That only Christians can get into Heaven and everyone else goes to Hell is now a minority view; not even the RCC clings to it. That makes a big difference.
…really? I don’t hold that view myself anymore, but I was raised with it and most of the Christians I know have expressed the same. But that’s really beside the point.
Reading back, I see I did a poor job trying to say what I mean. More that it’s not religion that has changed, but rather the way people observer it. The fundamental beliefs in God or gods, how the universe and us came to be, sets of moral laws… all of that stuff is still fundamental to religion. What has changed instead are ideas like, because God created everything, the account in the Bible must be 100% literal, or that because God is the arbitor of law and morality, that the laws and methods from hundreds or thousands of years ago still have the same meaning and effect.
That is, sure, if you asked a Christian a few hundred years ago what he believed about how we were created, he would probably give you an account similar to Genesis, where one today is likely (or at least more likely) to provide some modern scientific knowledge, but if you ask either who did it or why… chances are their answers wouldn’t be all too disimilar.
There won’t BE any infrastructure. You are speaking of the annihilation of civilization. And if that tiny percentage left isn’t all in one region, you are probably talking about extinction as that 1% dies of old age without reproducing and becomes 0%.
Garbage. The difference is that religion has become much weaker in much of the world and is no longer able to slaughter and enslave like its adherents would dearly like. If my religious neighbors decided to stone me, the cops would stop them not join in.
And like it or not, science and religion are opposed to each other by nature. Science by nature erodes religion because religion is nothing but lies, and religion opposes science for that same reason, and also because religion ultimately opposes everything but itself. It is omnimalignant, an infectious virus of the mind intolerant of everything, intent on replacing everything with itself.
More garbage. Religion provides excuses that don’t exist without it, it is better than anything else at excusing and promoting evil, and it is very good at inducing what is for all practical purposes psychotic behavior.
No, religion is not the equivalent of race; it is the equivalent of racism. Irrational, worthless and malignant.
That was Communism, not atheism. Which is why religious apologists always try to equate the two when they try to disguise the worthlessness and vileness of religion by smearing atheism with blood. It isn’t like there’s any good arguments for religion after all, so all you can do is try to portray atheists as monsters.
How about you try complaining about atheism without mentioning Communism? If atheism is as bad as religion then that shouldn’t be hard. It isn’t like I can’t bash religion while avoiding mentioning, say, Catholicism or Hinduism.
Offhand the only theorists I can think of who try to claim that there’s something vital going on at the quantum mechanical level in the brain are the anti-artificial intelligence true believers who insist that true AI is impossible because it can’t duplicate the supposed quantum mechanical aspects of thought. Aspects which they never provide any evidence for which leaves me rather skeptical it exists.
And such aspects, if they exist, would seem far easier than neurotransmissions are to duplicate mechanically.
You don’t seem to be giving this much thought. Our current population (using a nice round number that we will reach shortly) is seven billion people. If you reduce that by 99%, you have 70 million people left - not exactly a ghost town. Taking my city for example because it also has a nice round number, we have one million people here. A 99% reduction leaves us with 10,000 people - again, not a ghost town. At 2.2 doctors per 1000 people (see “Medical Professionals”) (estimated), there would still be 22 doctors in town, assuming the killing agent kills all humans equally, regardless of race, geographical location, or occupation.
Some services certainly would be discontinued (commercial farming, oil and gas refining, importing cheap goods from China, etc.), and a massive paradigm shift would be required, but I wouldn’t anticipate total annihilation in one generation. Remember, all the infrastructure is left, all the books, all the tools, all the written-down knowledge, and a significant amount of people to use those tools and knowledge.
And almost all of it will fall apart rapidly without constant maintenance. And many of the people who survived the initial death event wouldn’t have the necessary knowledge to survive in the ruins of a dead civilization; and many I expect wouldn’t even try (I certainly wouldn’t). At the very least I’d expect the loss of virtually all technology.
Sure. But what if the only other life, in the whole universe, is mold on Europa. We stick a bunch of probes there, and the whole thing curls up and dies. Had we left it alone, in a billion years it would’ve evolved into a race of autistic-philosophical-savant Godzillas, but of course now humanity is doomed never to grasp that. Thanks.
Your creativity leaves much to be desired. It takes an OPEN mind to discover things like…the earth being round and it traveling around the sun. People that immediately scoff “Ridiculous!” “Fool!” “Quackery” are usually the ones that can’t “create” anything on their own, and don’t come up with profound and original work. Is this you? This may seem like disrespect, but truly it is not. I don’t know you well enough, or care enough to disrespect you. It’s just my opinion, shared by many scientists/researchers, that most intelligent humans waste so much time arguing, and don’t get enough done.(which could contribute to the argument of the impossibility of world peace) Mensa meetings are filled with people that argue incessantly. This is normal, but not constructive. This is not a challenge for you. This was merely an example of how men are constantly bickering, while the world is passing them by.
First, Stephan Hawking IS NOT a quack–he was my first introduction to quantum physics, inspired me in the work I’m doing, and who I personally find amazing, as do many others. His work was a mandatory reference for mine. Quantum is measurement–that’s it. So I’m not really sure where anyone is coming up with disbelief. There are amazing things being done with “quantum” technology, in the field of neurology and many other areas of science.
I’m working on a dissertation involving quantum neuro technology(a term I came up with many years ago and was only a matter of time before someone else put those silly three words together when they don’t belong) and the causes and (possible) cures for Autism. Quantum Neuro-Technology is mandatory. I’ve also interviewed various experts in the field to properly formulate my opinion in conjunction with my findings and theirs. It will, I’m sure, be many years more research. But, for now, it is an actual term and is being used by doctors in many clinics.
ALL science was called quackery AT FIRST. Science only is what it is now because of people like me. If science were left to people like you, we’d still be in the dark ages!
Back to the original question about improving humanity…it will never happen as long as people have negative(or bad) attitudes.Repairing a damaged area is far better than dousing it…doesn’t it then seem to make far more sense to repair damage to keep people from being violent/angry/obsessive/etc? Why would you NOT vote yes to that kind of technology, whether it needs to be created or not.
Personally, I think if world peace actually occurred, 99.99 and 44/100% of the population would not know what to do with themselves because they’d have nothing to complain about. Chronic complainers never die, they just whine(pop the cork on the bottle)by…so yes, quantum neuro technology is a reality…and no, it’s NOT a household word…but by the year 2020, I’ll bet you it will be!
On a world wide scale, that is a ghost town.
ecco477 dares us to check into the many wonderful links about “quantum neuro technology”, and I do so:
To which I get this rambling reply
(emphasis mine)Speaks for itself, doesn’t it? Invented terms, ignoring the actual response, adding in strawman arguments, and a variation of the “All science was once quackery, so we must consider all quackery to be science!” fallacy.
Far too many rabbit holes to choose from, so I’m stepping back from this particular path.
I believe it’s a corruption (by several steps) of “wapanese”. The two words are synonymous, but I’m not certain if the former originates from the latter.