New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 10:21am May 18, 2001 EST (#4080 of 4083)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm driving off to the Midwest Neurobiologists meeting in a few hours. It will be a small meeting. I very much enjoyed the last two I attended -- they seemed to me to embody scientific communication at its best.

I won't have a whole lot to show that doesn't involve negotiation issues talked about here. But there will be a lot of interesting people to talk to and learn from.

I'll be setting up a poster, with a table, and if anybody's interested I can show them things I have on my computer - either from disk or (and this is better for crosslinking) on the internet.

My poster will display: BW2203-2204: rshowalter "How the Brain Works" 1/21/01 5:10pm
MD: 2865-2866: rshowalter 5/1/01 7:09am
MD3532-3533: rshowalter 5/8/01 6:51pm
MD: 4051-4055: rshowalter 5/17/01 3:05pm

I'll also display a definition of "disciplined beauty"

Also, I'll have 10 notebooks filled with this thread since Sept 25, 2000. And some stuff from the Guardian Talk threads.

rshowalter - 10:22am May 18, 2001 EST (#4081 of 4083)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'll show some neurophysiology stuff I've shown the Midwest Neurobiologists before. But the technical point I'll be emphasizing, this time, is simple:

There's an error in an arithmetical procedure in physical modeling.

Coupled circumstances first have to be set out in terms of dimensional numbers that properly represent measurements, and physical laws. And terms involving these dimensional numbers have to be algebraically simplified in dimensionally consistent form, before they can be validly represented as abstract equations using abstract numbers.

Change that, and some equations now written down incorrectly, can be written down correctly.

The technical requirements for doing that are straighforward, though they involve some effort. The main problem is that the procedure that has to be corrected is old, so there are a lot of changes. People have to be able to make those changes without unnecessary ugliness.

I may also show the reference connected to MD2604: budrap "Black Holes and the Universe" 6/11/98 6:12pm
and some other things from "Black Holes in the Universe"

Something I hope I'll have time for, but probably won't is a show of the very crosslinked and careful setting out of basics of neural resonance theory and backgroud between BW2090 rshowalter "How the Brain Works" 12/23/00 9:16pm and
BW2181 rshowalter "How the Brain Works" 1/9/01 8:06am
Anyone who goes through that has seen the core of my argument, and a lot of context for it.

I'll be trying to interest people in some of the discourse issues discussed here. It seems to me that if neuroscientists could clean up some of their problems, they would not only do better neuroscience -- they might help us all learn ways of being safer, and cooperating better.

almarst-2001 - 12:53pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4082 of 4083)

Robert,

As I think I became a phylosophically inclined (due to my recent job loss?;) I have some question or direction of thought to share.

1. Assuming the human behavier evolved and still is evolving to provide the best chance for survival of humans as a species in a given environment, and

2. Taking into account that humans are able to and increasingly do change the environment they live in,

Does that mean we now are able and actively do change the human behavier, while not having it as our goal.

Do we force a change of ourselves without any roadmap in a process of adapting into the artificial environment we are creating?

If yes,

Don't you think that should became the major topic of our (human's) concern?

The reason for my concern is that it seems, the current trend of human evolution sets the ENRICHEMENT and EMPOWERMENT as the main goal of what we call Civilization. We even judge the virtues of different Civilizations not by asking: "What kind change in a nature of human being it acheved?" but rather: "What a degree of the power or/and enrichement it enabled?"

It seems, we can't judge the change in a nature of human being nor the value or approve the change, the first question can't be answered and that may be the rteason, is not asked.

Could we observe ourselves as we do on monkeys, what would we think observing those constantly trying, fighting and aquiering those attributes of power and what we call "wealth" while remaining the same if not even worst-natured (looking at the devastating results) species?

A time to stop and think what will we evolve into in a world we created?

This is a wery new and still very rough idea to come to my mind. But my guts feelings are I am on somthing very importand. If you and pothers aggree and be interested to discuss it here, it may help to clarify it.

Have a nice trip.

Alex

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense