Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Carol the Dabbler

What would you like to see invented?

Recommended Posts

This might be just my country, but I hate it that we don't have 24/7 pharmacy's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have them here. Any town big enough to have several pharmacies generally has at least one all-nighter. But that's a fairly recent development, I think. They may have existed much longer in the really big cities like New York, but I don't recall seeing any in the places where I've lived until the past twenty years or so.

 

So they're probably coming soon to a town near you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have a truth machine of some sort? It would be able to distinguish absolute truths from relative truths plus separate out the lies from the truth. It would potentially change many things such as politics and education. Obviously people who find out the truth still have the option of rejecting it but they would no longer have an excuse for not knowing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gets to decide what the machine will consider to be true?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I also wonder how to determine the relativity of the truth.

 

And furthermore, is the machine able to calculate from even the most minor sources or just the 'recognized' ones, because for subject like history, it is known that history is always written by the winners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the one problem I did come up with. I was thinking that there had to be some sort of logic applied as well as all known evidence so that certain areas such as religious beliefs would have the chaff (e.g. Lies) separated from the wheat (e.g. Truth). I use religion as my example as there are so many religions and all have some things in common but not all of them can be true as they all claim to be. There has to be one that is all true when properly followed and the rest just have some truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there are so many religions and all have some things in common but not all of them can be true as they all claim to be. There has to be one that is all true when properly followed and the rest just have some truth.

Why does there have to be precisely one completely true religion? Couldn't they all have just some truth? Or couldn't several (or all) of them be true, but looking at the truth from different perspectives?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my study of different religions I have found that they all contain some truth and many claim to be the truth. With the machine, it would determine which religion if any was actually the true religion and what parts of the other religions were true. It would do the same for all areas of study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my study of different religions I have found that they all contain some truth and many claim to be the truth. With the machine, it would determine which religion if any was actually the true religion and what parts of the other religions were true. It would do the same for all areas of study.

 

So the machine would be like the king or the seeing man in some variations of the "Blind Men and an Elephant" parable?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

 

 

I would like a device that lets me look as far back into the past as I want, from any possible perspective. It would be so interesting, I could find out who really murdered Julius Caesar, I would know what ancient statues looked like when they were new and painted, I could study living conditions of prehistoric humans... It's probably good that there is not such device because I wouldn't do anything else than use it all day long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like that. It would be able to go through all the data (rapidly), following the rules of logic (don't want any logical fallacies occurring) and the scientific method (as the latter applies) to determine what is true.

 

I would love to travel back in time just to observe but not be able to change history. I would be able to see and hear them but they would not be able to see or hear me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When any complex system is developed, it's nearly certain not to work properly the first time.  It needs testing, and won't be truly usable till the testing shows that it works properly.

 

So the big problem that I see is, how could your truth machine be tested?  If people don't agree on what constitutes truth, how could we ever agree that the machine is working or not?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be precisely one completely true religion? Couldn't they all have just some truth? Or couldn't several (or all) of them be true, but looking at the truth from different perspectives?

Agree.

 

From my study of different religions I have found that they all contain some truth and many claim to be the truth. With the machine, it would determine which religion if any was actually the true religion and what parts of the other religions were true. It would do the same for all areas of study.

And it leads back to Carol's question: Who gets to decide what the machine will consider to be true?

I thought the idea of determine which religion if any was actually the true religion is actually the main source of almost all the mess in the world.

I know you will disagree with me, no offence or any bad intention, personally, I wish there were no religion at all because of those mess. But I know it's not the answer because we will eventually still find something else to fight about.

 

I like the idea of your machine, but I think religion is probably not the most suitable subject for it. After all, human spend thousands of years for 'the truth' and we still don't really know the exact answer.

 

I think it would work well with subjects that could be easier to justify, for example geology, medical, astronomy. With the ability of unlimited data retention that we have so far from studies, researches and experiments that I assume this machine has, it should have the ability to cross-analyze, calculate, compare and finding links with precision that we human are not able to. For example, predicting natural disaster; the probability, damage and location, or in determining possible cure by calculating what our system could work with or against all the substances that we already found or the plethora of possibility from plants and animals and nature. It could probably find out that we are able to create snake venom antidote from opossum much much earlier with this machine. Or, we could find habitable planet or energy source from something outside earth, like H3 from the moon. All in much faster and higher accuracy with lower mistake probability. There is a potential to save a lot of lives from the machine that is able to distinguish what is correct and incorrect, and I would much rather see those.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is just 1 of the areas it would cover as it would be designed to cover all areas. Plus the use of logic & logical fallacies and the scientific method would be able to weed out most if not all of the untruths. Since all information in the computer would be every piece of knowledge that has ever been published (and still in existence) the system would be able to apply logic & science to make the determination of truth or not. And if we're lucky, we would be able to find nature based cures for all ailments that the FDA wouldn't immediately classify as a drug (because apparently according to them only drugs can cure not food).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't figure out how to apply objective logic to religion, and what scientific method that can be used for it, and what can be considered untruth if most of the base source is subjective 'truth', beside not being quantifiable or measurable. 
 
Religion is what it is because it's based on belief and interpretation, and to my understanding, is probably the most, and maybe, the correct way to approach: subjectively. 
And subjectivity is what it is: unreliable.
 
 
 

I would like a device that lets me look as far back into the past as I want, from any possible perspective. It would be so interesting, I could find out who really murdered Julius Caesar, I would know what ancient statues looked like when they were new and painted, I could study living conditions of prehistoric humans... It's probably good that there is not such device because I wouldn't do anything else than use it all day long.


I am curious at what point you think you would turn your enjoyment curiosity into deeper curiosity that could actually affect the present?
When you start to look back at your ancestor and see the real origin story of them, or when do you start to find if there is away to fix something, say maybe find out if Stephen Avery is actually the murderer of Theresa Halbach for example? Imagine you know every answer for everything that is troubling present time, every murders, every injustices, every malpractice, you would be able to act on them based on what you could see. Would there be a lot of pressure, moral dilemma because not everything is clear cut, and you have to decide whether to give out the name of a mother who murder to protect her child but she is murderer (and Sherlock :P) etc etc etc...

When I think of it, I probably can't handle it, and would choose a device that allow me to see into the future instead. But then again, same thing would happen, enjoyment curiosity would turn into deeper curiosity..

 

 

P.S. I think I'm blabbering, this is waaaayyy pass my bed time, will look if my post sounds funny tomorrow. :D

I don't think so! :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't figure out how to apply objective logic to religion, and what scientific method that can be used for it, and what can be considered untruth if most of the base source is subjective 'truth', beside not being quantifiable or measurable.

 

Religion is what it is because it's based on belief and interpretation, and to my understanding, is probably the most, and maybe, the correct way to approach: subjectively.

And subjectivity is what it is: unreliable.

 

 

 

I would like a device that lets me look as far back into the past as I want, from any possible perspective. It would be so interesting, I could find out who really murdered Julius Caesar, I would know what ancient statues looked like when they were new and painted, I could study living conditions of prehistoric humans... It's probably good that there is not such device because I wouldn't do anything else than use it all day long.

I am curious at what point you think you would turn your enjoyment curiosity into deeper curiosity that could actually affect the present?

When you start to look back at your ancestor and see the real origin story of them, or when do you start to find if there is away to fix something, say maybe find out if Stephen Avery is actually the murderer of Theresa Halbach for example? Imagine you know every answer for everything that is troubling present time, every murders, every injustices, every malpractice, you would be able to act on them based on what you could see. Would there be a lot of pressure, moral dilemma because not everything is clear cut, and you have to decide whether to give out the name of a mother who murder to protect her child but she is murderer (and Sherlock :P) etc etc etc...

When I think of it, I probably can't handle it, and would choose a device that allow me to see into the future instead. But then again, same thing would happen, enjoyment curiosity would turn into deeper curiosity..

 

 

P.S. I think I'm blabbering, this is waaaayyy pass my bed time, will look if my post sounds funny tomorrow. :D

I don't think so! :P

I wouldn't want to actually time travel. My role would be that of a strictly passive observer. But now that you mention it, it would make detectives largely superfluous because the device would just show the crime and the criminal. So... Maybe I don't want it after all. I like detective stories... And detectives ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't figure out how to apply objective logic to religion, and what scientific method that can be used for it, and what can be considered untruth if most of the base source is subjective 'truth', beside not being quantifiable or measurable. 

 

Religion is what it is because it's based on belief and interpretation, and to my understanding, is probably the most, and maybe, the correct way to approach: subjectively. 

And subjectivity is what it is: unreliable.

 

 

 

I would like a device that lets me look as far back into the past as I want, from any possible perspective. It would be so interesting, I could find out who really murdered Julius Caesar, I would know what ancient statues looked like when they were new and painted, I could study living conditions of prehistoric humans... It's probably good that there is not such device because I wouldn't do anything else than use it all day long.

I am curious at what point you think you would turn your enjoyment curiosity into deeper curiosity that could actually affect the present?

When you start to look back at your ancestor and see the real origin story of them, or when do you start to find if there is away to fix something, say maybe find out if Stephen Avery is actually the murderer of Theresa Halbach for example? Imagine you know every answer for everything that is troubling present time, every murders, every injustices, every malpractice, you would be able to act on them based on what you could see. Would there be a lot of pressure, moral dilemma because not everything is clear cut, and you have to decide whether to give out the name of a mother who murder to protect her child but she is murderer (and Sherlock :P) etc etc etc...

When I think of it, I probably can't handle it, and would choose a device that allow me to see into the future instead. But then again, same thing would happen, enjoyment curiosity would turn into deeper curiosity..

 

 

P.S. I think I'm blabbering, this is waaaayyy pass my bed time, will look if my post sounds funny tomorrow. :D

I don't think so! :P

Made perfect sense to me. But then, I'm sleep deprived too.

 

I like the distinction you make between "correct" (verifiable facts) and "truth." I agree, truth is subjective. Although these days, facts are too, apparently. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, seems like facts have become politicized, just like everything else these days.  But let's not get into that -- pleeeeeease!   :wacko:   (If y'all really wanta discuss it, there's a nice Political Thread around here somewhere.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Em5DIHI.gif
Left - me. Right - Carol. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That better not be a political comment! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:whistle:

 

I'd like it if they could invent a way to give yourself temporary amnesia. I've often thought how much I'd love to go back and discover the things I love again for the first time; Lord of the Rings, Sherlock, Star Wars .... How cool would that be, to fall in love with Sherlock again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there *is* a way to give yourself temporary amnesia. Remember Culverton Smith's "tell them your darkest secrets" scene? Such a drug does exist, and is used during things like colonoscopies and dental extractions.

 

But unfortunately for your purposes, it's not retroactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean during those procedures I was actually experiencing pain, but don't remember it? Urgh. Somehow that seems like cheating.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that was rather the point. But do feel free to savor the full experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean during those procedures I was actually experiencing pain, but don't remember it? Urgh. Somehow that seems like cheating.....

Not necessarily. The common thing is often to give a pain killer in addition to a sedative. The sedative is the one that can mess with your memory, but it's not as reliable there as whatever made-up substance Smith uses. In addition to amnesia, some sedatives have a reputation as "truth drugs" because people in their addled state tend to blurt out things they might not have normally said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was informed that I blurted out all kinds of things whilst under the influence. To this day I don't know if they were kidding or not. I shudder to think. :smile:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.