The Black Vault

Starman....you are a realist who has faith in mankind to utilize technology for the benefit of the many. Interesting combination.


Death is an integral part of life. Our society lives life with very little preparation of what is coming towards us every day. Death is unavoidable. Your reasoning for what technology could be used for to benefit man seems sound enough but I can't help thinking your thoughts on evolutionary technology is only to the benefit of the living (nothing wrong with that) who are suffering emotional stress due to a loss, not for the dying. I could be wrong.

well death is the only certanty that people have in life, lol its something that you can count on. "All life bears death from birth, all life fears death, yet lives only to die." A nice littlequotes from final fantasy IX but so true.

starman wrote:Moore's Law states, basically, that computer power will double every 18-24 months. When this phenomenon will end, is anyone's guess. Today's cell phone has more processing power than the Lunar Module had in 1969. Our advancement in technology is changing how we think of ourselves as a species. We are a species beginning to take control of who we are. We, as a species, are beginning to see through the religious dogma that has permeated our society for centuries. The number of people that associate themselves with Christianity is on the decline. The reason for this decline is clearly evident. Scientific discoveries in new technologies has greatly improved our understanding of the Universe. Through science, we now know we are all connected from one common ancestor, not Adam and Eve. As I see it, science is not only helping us to understand the outer shell of our existence, science is turning inward, penetrating the very fabric of our being. In other words, science is fundamentally changing what it means to be human.

There is dogma in science as well as christianity.

The leading edge of science today, IMHO, is quantum physics. Yet, I also believe the philosophers of yesteryear conquered that eons ago. The old school philosophers, from Buddhism, Tao, Hinduism, etc. knew what modern scientists are starting to justify through mathematics.

Then, there is the persuit of quantum computing. Yet, sometimes I wonder if our own brains don't already have that capability, but called by another name...such as psychic, intuitive, etc.

Maybe our own technology isn't "leading the way", but following in the path that is already laid out by our own brains. Maybe, we just didn't have the words for it at the time?

inja wrote:Technology has done some wonderful things and I think it is right to say that it has brought the universe closer to us. Science is not fundamentally changing what it means to be human.....for that you got to think first. Technology also has a side that is smelly, loud, hectic, time consuming, and an attention hog and has managed very well to extinguish in a lot of people self reflection. It is the few that look at our technology today and view ourselves in a different light.

As with every tool, there is a side that kills and another that saves lives.

Look at the laser.

Look at a gun...a sword...an axe...

Nesaie wrote:

inja wrote:Technology has done some wonderful things and I think it is right to say that it has brought the universe closer to us. Science is not fundamentally changing what it means to be human.....for that you got to think first. Technology also has a side that is smelly, loud, hectic, time consuming, and an attention hog and has managed very well to extinguish in a lot of people self reflection. It is the few that look at our technology today and view ourselves in a different light.

As with every tool, there is a side that kills and another that saves lives.

Look at the laser.

Look at a gun...a sword...an axe...

Tools don't matter people do. Or in other words our free will is what counts. I get what you are saying but I find certain famous quotes to be ridiculous such as

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well duh!!!! Well a house doesn't shelter either unless I place myself inside. A car doesn't drive unless I step on the gas. Clothing doesn't warm me unless I put them on. A knife doesn't cut unless I place it in my hand and use it. Etc.

Yes all things have two sides and yup I agree and never the less it is man who decides the course of the future.

darkharbinger wrote:well death is the only certanty that people have in life, lol its something that you can count on. "All life bears death from birth, all life fears death, yet lives only to die." A nice littlequotes from final fantasy IX but so true.

Very comforting, indeed.

Yup, Death is just the beginning...(The Mummy)

Nesaie wrote:
There is dogma in science as well as christianity.

To say that science is dogmatic doesn't even come close to making sense. The two are at complete odds with each other. Dogma is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. "Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process". Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, non dogmatic. To say "science has it's dogma", is simply wrong. Knowledge is always more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, regardless of how comforting it might be.

starman wrote:

Nesaie wrote:
There is dogma in science as well as christianity.

To say that science is dogmatic doesn't even come close to making sense. The two are at complete odds with each other. Dogma is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. "Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process". Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, non dogmatic. To say "science has it's dogma", is simply wrong. Knowledge is always more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, regardless of how comforting it might be.

Ah...you believe that dogma is limited to religion. That isn't so. Before really getting into this, we have to exchange our own understanding of the words we use and come to an agreement on the definition.

My understanding of dogma is that it is a staunch belief/view/paradigm of the world. I apply dogma to science such that there are many people who only want to believe what they have learned in a book. When a new scientist challenges the established belief, they have to fight harder. Many times they don't even get to live long enough to see the impact they've made in the science community because so many scientists are so, "set in their ways".

I would apply dogma to many different things. I guess my universal definition of dogma would apply to anyone who wears blinders and is not open to new ideas.

In some respects that could apply to the scientific method. (bear with me...or is that bare? ) The whole scientific method never "proves" anything. It can only disprove theories. Theories that continue to not be disproven rise to the top. Eventually they may even become laws like gravity. Yet gravity still hasn't been "proven". So, I'd say, that by the method alone, science doesn't want to be open to new ideas or theories. Instead it wants to squash change and hamper it as much as possible. In science change is very slow, just like with the Catholic church. They didn't forgive Galileo for being right until the early 1990's.

If that doesn't make sense, I'll....throw the dice...oh snake eyes...I'm blaming vodka tonight.

Nesaie wrote:

starman wrote:

Nesaie wrote:
There is dogma in science as well as christianity.

To say that science is dogmatic doesn't even come close to making sense. The two are at complete odds with each other. Dogma is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. "Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process". Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, non dogmatic. To say "science has it's dogma", is simply wrong. Knowledge is always more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, regardless of how comforting it might be.

Ah...you believe that dogma is limited to religion. That isn't so. Before really getting into this, we have to exchange our own understanding of the words we use and come to an agreement on the definition.

My understanding of dogma is that it is a staunch belief/view/paradigm of the world. I apply dogma to science such that there are many people who only want to believe what they have learned in a book. When a new scientist challenges the established belief, they have to fight harder. Many times they don't even get to live long enough to see the impact they've made in the science community because so many scientists are so, "set in their ways".

I would apply dogma to many different things. I guess my universal definition of dogma would apply to anyone who wears blinders and is not open to new ideas.

In some respects that could apply to the scientific method. (bear with me...or is that bare? ) The whole scientific method never "proves" anything. It can only disprove theories. Theories that continue to not be disproven rise to the top. Eventually they may even become laws like gravity. Yet gravity still hasn't been "proven". So, I'd say, that by the method alone, science doesn't want to be open to new ideas or theories. Instead it wants to squash change and hamper it as much as possible. In science change is very slow, just like with the Catholic church. They didn't forgive Galileo for being right until the early 1990's.

If that doesn't make sense, I'll....throw the dice...oh snake eyes...I'm blaming vodka tonight.

Dogma is a term applied to statements made by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof. More so than not, religion is associated with dogma and vice versa. I see what you're saying Nesaie, but bad science isn't dogma, it's bad science. Pure science, which Galileo initiated, has given us a better understanding of our universe. Found cures for many life threatening diseases. The history of science hasn't always painted a pretty picture, I'll grant you that. Newton was a S.O.B. Scientists often reject new theories. Only after they've been observed and tested and retested in a controlled environment, are they accepted by the scientific community. Then, not all scientists will agree. Einstein, for example, never could accept quantum mechanics.

Theories can't be called proof, though some have withstood the test of time. But they are the best we can come up with through observing and testing the “evidence” at the present time to show us just how our universe works...how we got here...who we are. On the other hand, a theory can be disproven through observations. One example of this would be the age of the earth. Science has shown us that the earth is much older than once thought. Perhaps one day, in the not to distant future, we will have a theory for everything. But that will only be the beginning. There will be new questions to ask. And, as Stephen Hawking wrote in his book, A Brief History of Time, “we will begin to see the mind of God”. Through science, we are beginning to see differently, what it means to be human.

Now, where's my brandy?