Nicole Small

Roanoke, VA, United States

Someone is shy

Nicole hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
Thank you to everyone for participating in this discussion. I knew it would "stir the pot," but I wasn't quite prepared for the volume of passionate arguements. This forced me to "defend" a proposal that I didn't fully agree with in the first place (a good learning experience for myself.) When someone asks what my "religion" is, I do say that I believe in Science, however, that is often the only way to word it when you want to express such a firm position to a "religious" person. From experience, I've received better reactions from CHRISTIANS when I refer to Science as my "religion." They typically recognize the word "religion" as a set of beliefs. It's an easy word for them to comprehend. I think that what I learned from this is that most of us HERE believe that Science is not a religion; not just because religion is theological, but also because science isn't a belief at all. Science is a tool. It only APPEARS to be "branching" away from "classical" thinking like theology and philosophy. In reality, though, it's still moving "forward" and "pointing" towards an "ultimate" goal, which would be to discover the meaning of life, the universe and everything. I hope this gave everyone a chance to explore more introspectively and discover something new about themselves.
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
Unlike some other people, I can tell that you are looking at this thought logically and without the visor of emotion covering your eyes. When I postulated the idea, I wasn't prepared for the outcome. I'm accustomed to receiving that sort of passionate response from Christians, but not Science-minded people (many of whom claim to have no beliefs beyond what they can experience-Atheists.) Atheism, in a sense, could be refusal to believe in the mechanics of the quantum (unseen) world. The mechanics of the quantum world (now, more than ever with new discoveries) allow for possibilities like space and time travel, multiple dimensions, extraterrestrial contact, A.I., replicators (molecular assemblers,) man-made gravity fields and weather-control. I believe that some day we'll design a way to transfer conscious thoughts through biologically-based man-made brain tissue patched to the brain that acts as transmitters and receivers for brain waves between others who possess the same technology. If a killer could telepathically feel/experience the pain and fear their victims experience, this may deter violent crime. It would be like a technological improvement on the psychological theories explored in A Clockwork Orange- forced empathy. In addition, having telepathic abilities could lead to an asexual race. If we could read our partners' thoughts, we'd all have strong feelings about how others see us. You may discover that your partner isn't as interested as you are, you could see who they actually are attracted to, etc. To avoid the pain of rejection without being forced to give up the new technology, humans would decide to use the tools we already possess now and procreate in labs without the need for emotions. I know this all sounds like far-fetched Science Fiction, but there are A LOT of Science Fiction ideas of the past that are now mass-produced in factories. Why shouldn't we believe that even more of that is possible?
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
What's up with the latest new cosmogony theory. . . The Big Chill?
This is why so few people understand what I'm talking about in other conversations. I think it says a lot about those who claim to be "science-minded." There are only 52 statements from 9 members here (with a day left) on a really important question that challenges what we accept as fact. On the other hand, there are almost 300 responses on a different "debate" (as of now) based solely on OPINIONS about Science and religion. People have one major question about what existence is. The fact is that the answer will be found on a quantum scale-not some "apparent" macro-scale like the sun or the big bang. What made us is too tiny to see. There is a hierarchical structure to everything that came into existence. The more we learn about the fundamental materials that create matter and life, the closer we get to answering our greatest and most debated questions. Thanks, Edward Long, for bringing this to my attention. At the time the Higgs was discovered, I was visiting my father (about 1,000 miles from home) for the first time in 16 years. By the time I returned, I'd actually forgotten about it (a lot going on in my life.) When Mr. Long posed this question, I was reminded of the new discovery I'd forgotten to study. Once I started digging around, I realized that it's possible that some of my extreme beliefs (reflected in other conversations) might not be as extreme as they seem on the surface. The possible futures I suggested may not be as far as I thought.....maybe closer, now, than I ever imagined.
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
I actually had to rewrite what you wrote just so I could understand what you were saying. Here's what I translated this comment as: That may be the formula for something, but the problem is that there are so many definitions of science and logic. Don't you notice that we have a tendency to put everything into a "box?" One of the biggest setbacks in solving real world problems is defining the limits of the system. How can we measure it? Compartmentalization leaves large, undefined, unknown spaces. Knowledge is bound by the confines we place over reason. How do we discover what it is that we don't know? Perhaps we shouldn't try to bind philosophy into branches because in most instances we try to explain existence by seeing the order within the chaos. I believe the most relevent question to be, "What is the single template of functions that all of existence is based on?" This would create an effective grouping of knowledge. Truth is the sum of the circumstances relevent to it. By answering this question, we will have a template for answering all other questions. Logic should be grouped according to relevence; not by how it works. You can determine it's relevence by understanding how existence evolves; when a label can be given to science. There should be only one method of thought with different degrees of relevence. I believe this is the basis of the theory of everything as it relates to what we can observe. I don't mean to sound disrespectful. I just feel that the evolution of scientific compartmentalization is irrelevent. Based on what I gathered there, it sounds like you're throwing the hierarchy model out the window. Check out this link to wikipedia and scroll towards the bottom, where it says "Further Applications." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
I know this is going to make me sound like a total jerk, but I have to note that you use too many unnecessarily large words. I am FULLY capable of understanding them, but when you use too many of them in one paragraph, the writing and hence, the thoughts you're trying to communicate are no as quickly comprehended. The fact that you do this instead of simplifying the statement you're trying make indicates to me that your language skills (being apparently high) need to be compartmentalized. That's the fundamental basis of scientific experimentation. In Theoretical Physics, certain symbols don't just represent a number; they represent the theory or fact that gave them that number. They represent this idea as a symbol. Theoretical physicists pretty much read formulas like a musician reads sheet music. They don't always need to know the math behind the symbol; just the theories and facts they represent. I'm sure most of them do understand the math, I'm just saying that it's possible to learn these things BECAUSE they're compartmentalized- like chapters in a book. Laws in government are compartmentalized, etc. Language works the same way. That's how we compute information; in a hierarchy of "code."
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Asexuality: An Ideal Future?
I don't think our Founding Fathers were expecting us to be wiring nanotechnology into our bodies, spending hours talking to people on the internet (using little more that our brains/eyes and our fingers) or discovering the Higgs Boson. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/04/god-particle-michio-kaku-interview.cnn
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, though I'm too polite to use words like "stupid." I don't really see these views as stupid at all; just lesser-evolved. If you were to graph out the evolution of thought, it's essentially a straight line, starting with self-awareness and ending with fact as the ultimate goal. It looks like this: Self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory (introduces experimentation to philosophy,) and ultimately, fact. Many see Science as diverging from the path, but I see that emotions and opinions still drive people to want to separate the two, when you pretty much can't have one without the other.
167436
Nicole Small
Posted almost 3 years ago
Asexuality: An Ideal Future?
Thanks for the informative video, however, it's just a bit off from what I'm suggesting. I'm not indicating that the cause is due to PHYSICAL differences like a common birth defect. I'm saying the changes occur by shifting your thoughts willfully. Some people are so curious about the world that they begin to get the same joy from the Eureka effect as they would from sex. Scientists, writers, musicians, artists and even body builders like Arnold have said that the elation they get is similar to the joy received from sex. I'm not saying that we immediately give up procreating, but if more and more people chose to spend more and more time learning, exploring and inventing, then through evolution, we could end up with several different outcomes depending on countless possibilities. Among those possibilities is that some day, similar to the sci-fi movies, we might design a way to leave our bodies. Another possibility is that as we evolve, our organs will shrivel up and we'll be forced to find another form of reproduction. I guess that's why- as crazy as it sounds, people's descriptions of grey aliens makes sense to me. I can understand their claims that the aliens have no sex organs, tiny mouths, speak telepathically and absorb nutrients through their skin rather than oral ingestion, etc. If I could travel into the distant future, I would not be surprised to find that grey aliens are "human."