The Happiness Box

[Hellbound]

I tried saying something like that over here. However, no one made any mention of the movie reference I used.

That is just INCONCEIVABLE!

Well, with luck, Jeff's brain is only mostly dead.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

At least it was apt, tho, to represent the OP as a stage show, b/c I take this grand distraction as an indication that you have no evidence that souls exist, and no soul research to stand alongside the genuinely fascinating brain research going on right now.

I'm glad I read over this again. I missed that the first time. The second time, too. I have to skim over this thread in a hurry. My time is limited.

Piggy, man, you strike right at the heart of the matter. Bulls-eye, buddy.

No, I have no laboratory evidence that souls exist. My little construct is---currently, anyway---entirely theoretical. I don't KNOW for a solid scientific fact souls exist.

But I ask.

What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that souls DON'T exist?

If you can't cite any scientific evidence---you don't KNOW for a solid scientific fact they don't. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, as the scientists say.

You know, if I want to prove evolution I can cite any number of papers by respected scientists in refereed journals. Ditto for relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism.

But souls---nothing. Nothing I know of, anyway.

So what's the laboratory evidence? I want name and papers published in refereed journals, just like with evolution, relativity, and so forth.

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so I've only skimmed the thread, so please forgive me if I am stating something that has been mentioned a dozen times...but...

"The Happiness Box"--it's the Bible, right? This is satire, yes?

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm glad I read over this again. I missed that the first time. The second time, too. I have to skim over this thread in a hurry. My time is limited.

Piggy, man, you strike right at the heart of the matter. Bulls-eye, buddy.

No, I have no laboratory evidence that souls exist. My little construct is---currently, anyway---entirely theoretical. I don't KNOW for a solid scientific fact souls exist.

But I ask.

What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that souls DON'T exist?

If you can't cite any scientific evidence---you don't KNOW for a solid scientific fact they don't. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, as the scientists say.

You know, if I want to prove evolution I can cite any number of papers by respected scientists in refereed journals. Ditto for relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism.

But souls---nothing. Nothing I know of, anyway.

So what's the laboratory evidence? I want name and papers published in refereed journals, just like with evolution, relativity, and so forth.

There is no need to prove, with scientific evidence, that souls do not exist. The onus is upon providing evidence that they do exist.

The notion of proving souls don’t exist isn’t even possible anyway, hence why it is not considered falsifiable. Ideas that are not falsifiable carry no weight in science. There is no way, consistent with the scientific method, to prove something considered undetectable does not exist without knowing everything that does exist.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

I am trying to be civil here, so let's just put it simply: I would like and appreciate it if you would try to rationally defend your theory rather than just repeating it over and over.

I understand you can't respond to everybody. But perhaps you can choose the most potent counter-arguments and at least respond to them. If your theory makes that much sense, it shouldn't be difficult for you to take on these arguments head-on. To paraphrase a common saying that would violate forum rules: either defecate, or remove yourself from the porcelain human-waste repository.

Okay, I'll give it a shot. Remember it may be a good while before I reply.

If the statement "If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath." is not clear to you, then let's drop it altogether.

Let's just consider this Happiness Box thing.

Would you do it? Let's assume you had a family that depended on you, emotionally if nothing else. Would you leave them to go and live in a Happiness Box? Remember, to you reality is just a stream of sensory impulses into your brain, and the Happiness Box offers you a perfect one.

What is your choice?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

I'm sorry, but you are making a hugely ridiculous leap here.
What makes you think that because a person does not believe in a soul, they view reality as a stream of sensory impulses and nothing more?

Sensory impulses stream into your living brain and are processed in various ways.

Your brain dies----and all your perception of reality blinks out and you zero out and disappear, gone, like a light bulb going out.

Ergo, reality is a stream of sensory impulses into your brain being processed in various ways.

 

[delphi_ote]

What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that souls DON'T exist?

What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that dragons DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that hobbits DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that the Greek Gods DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that the X-Men DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that psychic powers DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that perpetual motion machines DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that zombies DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that angels DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that your imaginary friends DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that miracles DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that djinn DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that vampires DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that wizards DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that Jedi DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that philosophers' stones DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that unicorns DON'T exist?
What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that magic wardrobes DON'T exist?

As you can see, this is not a very good way of thinking.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

As a catholic, I do believe in a soul, but I know full well I can't back that belief up in any way whatsoever, and so for all rational discussion purposes, I fully agree with the athiest position here.

I can back it up.

People have been arguing about the existence of the soul the assumption has arisen the problem can't be solved by science.

Not true.

I think it makes much more sense to say that people act the way they do because they are built to act that way.

Once upon a time the watchmaker may have been blind.

But he isn't blind anymore.

Soon people will be able to change themselves in any way they want. If they don't like the way they're "hard-wired", then they will change it.The question then will become what changes they will choose to make.

People don't rationalize themselves into soicopaths.

[long sigh]
No, they don't. It's an unconscious assumption.

 

[Roboramma]

Would you do it? Let's assume you had a family that depended on you, emotionally if nothing else. Would you leave them to go and live in a Happiness Box?

No, I wouldn't.

Please respond to Dr.Adequate's post regarding flowers if you have any interest in understanding my reasoning or that of others.

Remember, to you reality is just a stream of sensory impulses into your brain, and the Happiness Box offers you a perfect one.

No, it isn't. You have been told this a number of times. Try to listen:

reality is not just a stream of sensory impulses into my brain.

I've tried to be civil, Jeff, I really have. But it's apparent that you aren't interested in listening to what anyone else says. This is obvious by the fact that you've repeated an assertion about us that we've already pointed out to be false. Right now all you're doing is this:

 

[Jeff Corkern]

reality is not just a stream of sensory impulses into my brain.

This is not a proof. This is just a statement.

Suppose you were drugged while you were asleep and placed into a Happiness Box without your knowledge.

How would you know you were in the Happiness Box? What physical experiment could you perform that would tell you? All connections to your physical body have been cut. The only input to your brain is coming from the computer.

 

[CurtC]

What LABORATORY EVIDENCE do you personally know of that souls DON'T exist?

In order to figure out whether souls exist, the first step would be for you to define what you mean by "soul." I mean, exactly. What is it?

My definition of a person's soul is simply the electrochemical process that's going on inside his head. Is that different from yours?

If the statement "If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath." is not clear to you, then let's drop it altogether.

Drop it??? Wasn't that the whole point of your thread here? I don't understand how sociopathy follows from having no soul. Can you explain it? If you can't explain it, then that's a good sign that you don't understand the link yourself.

Ergo, reality is a stream of sensory impulses into your brain being processed in various ways.

This is backwards from what we normally hear from the woo crowd. It's us materialists who say that there is an objective reality, and the woos who state that everything is perception. Can you not see that this is the reason we reject your point? There is an objective reality. Abandoning my wife and kids would be hurtful to them, those beings that exist there in that material reality, not just in my thoughts.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

This is the twenty-seventh time you've used the word "rational", and, if my count is correct, the sixth time you've been asked to say what you mean by it.

Pretty please?

Good question.

"Rational" is defined as "in conformity with physical law."

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by oh, casting seashells and trying to read the future is not rational because it's not in conformity with physical law.

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by measuring barometric pressure, humidity and so forth is rational because it's in conformity with physical law.

 

[CurtC]

Suppose you were drugged while you were asleep and placed into a Happiness Box without your knowledge.

How would you know you were in the Happiness Box? What physical experiment could you perform that would tell you? All connections to your physical body have been cut. The only input to your brain is coming from the computer.

To answer your question directly, assuming a perfect Happiness Box, you wouldn't know. Any experiment that would show the difference would simply show that the Box is not yet perfect. With a perfect Box, that couldn't happen.

There, happy now? I answered your question. Does it have any relevance to this discussion? I don't see it.

 

[Roboramma]

I can back it up.

People have been arguing about the existence of the soul the assumption has arisen the problem can't be solved by science.

Not true.

Did you read the post directly above yours?

Soon people will be able to change themselves in any way they want. If they don't like the way they're "hard-wired", then they will change it.The question then will become what changes they will choose to make.

Assuming this is true, what do you think will influence the changes they will choose to make?
Might it have something to do with the way they already are? An ability to influence our biology doesn't mean that we can escape it. It just means that we can change it.
Do you think that if people didn't have souls, but did (for biological reasons) love their families, that they would, if they had the power, decide not to love their families? Why? Is that the only rational course of action?

By the way, how do you explain the following result based on your theory that we are rational beings making decisions based on the fact that we know we have souls?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-13.html

The hormone oxytocin (applied as a nasal spray in this experiment) increases an individual's willingness to trust someone.

 

[Roboramma]

This is not a proof. This is just a statement.

Suppose you were drugged while you were asleep and placed into a Happiness Box without your knowledge.

How would you know you were in the Happiness Box? What physical experiment could you perform that would tell you? All connections to your physical body have been cut. The only input to your brain is coming from the computer.

We're not talking about whether or not that's true, we're talking about what I believe to be true. I don't believe that reality is just a stream of sensory impulses in my brain, therefore I don't act as though it were. I care about the people in my life because I really do believe that they exist separate from my experience of them.
When I look away, they're still there, and even if I'm not there to see it, their suffering is real.

Edit: Again, I'm not trying to prove that these things are true. I'm not interested in that debate right now, and it isn't pertinent to this question because your point doesn't rest on whether or not there is an objective world but whether or not I believe that there is an objective world. I do.

 

[delphi_ote]

Good question.

"Rational" is defined as "in conformity with physical law."

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by oh, casting seashells and trying to read the future is not rational because it's not in conformity with physical law.

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by measuring barometric pressure, humidity and so forth is rational because it's in conformity with physical law.

And souls?

 

[Lynx2174]

I can back it up.

People have been arguing about the existence of the soul the assumption has arisen the problem can't be solved by science.

Not true.




Once upon a time the watchmaker may have been blind.

But he isn't blind anymore.

Soon people will be able to change themselves in any way they want. If they don't like the way they're "hard-wired", then they will change it.The question then will become what changes they will choose to make.




[long sigh]
No, they don't. It's an unconscious assumption.

1. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

2. so, you're saying that people will genetically modify their children to act like they have no souls? I doubt that will pan out, if they become selfish and uncaring, or sociopaths, then they will not be successful. remember, there is still social selection. people who don't care for their families won't exactly have the men/ladies lining up to pass on those genes.

and what possible evidence for the soul is that anyway? aren't you just admitting there that the behavior that you attribute to having a soul is a result of selective pressures and mutation which has shaped our species into a social animal? and that if these adaptations are removed, or don't work because of mutation or a disorder such as sociopathy, then the person will act differently? meaning the behavior you attribute to souls is caused by hereditary traits?

Besides, the part of the brain which processes higher thinking also does value judgements such as the social stuff, so I doubt that you can remove logical thought from illogical biologically guided social behavior.

3. I'd say that it's more a hereditary/socioeconomic thing than something like what you're describing. otherwise, then, wouldn't rich people go around killing people just as much, or more than the less monitarilly endowed? because they know that they can get off from punishment far easier, have the leisure time to ponder everything, and can afford the tools and knowledge that could keep them from ever getting caught in the first place?

if it were merely an unconcious assumption, wouldn't there be no physical difference on average between an average person and someone disposed to violence? because there is a noted difference in the prefrontal lobe IIRC.



I don't think you definition of rational fits the discussion. if it merely means "in conformity with physical law." then it doesn't really have any application to the brain. (well, unless you find something about the brain's function irrational, and go about discovering where the soul attaches or something.) thought processes are AFAWK the result of biological processes in the brain. so nothing of that definition of rational comes into the decision not to use the happiness box. people have to protect their offspring in order to pass on their genes, so we have instincts which work in a certain way, which make us think certain things in certain situations. there's (very likely) a completely ordinary and unimaginably complicated physical mechinism for this, which is by your definition, entirely rational.

mabye you're looking for the word logical? that seems like it'd fit better in all the places you put rational.

furthermore, there is (exceedingly likely) an objective reality. just because your perception of it consists soley of nerve impulses coming from your senses doesn't mean the real world doesn't exist out there. in the box, you might not know the difference, but there is one. and solipsilism just pisses me off. usless quasiphilisophical muck.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Good question.

"Rational" is defined as "in conformity with physical law."

This is not how the word is normally used.

Consider the statements:

(1) "It would be in conformity with physical law for Dr A to cover himself in bacon rind and pretend to be Joan of Arc."

(2) "It would be rational for Dr A to cover himself in bacon rind and pretend to be Joan of Arc."

We would not usually consider these statements to be equivalent.

Moreover, this definition vitiates your argument. You have said it is "rational" for Hailslanesh to accept the Happiness Box. If you mean "in conformity with physical law", I agree. But then it would be equally rational not to accept it, since this is also in conformity with physical law.

In the same way, by your definition it is indeed "rational" (i.e. possible) for your "Michael Stone" character to shoot skeptics. But it would be equally rational for him to go bowling instead.

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by oh, casting seashells and trying to read the future is not rational because it's not in conformity with physical law.

Trying to tell if it's going to rain tomorrow by measuring barometric pressure, humidity and so forth is rational because it's in conformity with physical law.

Your example seems irrelevant: neither Hailslanesh nor Michael Stone are portrayed as seeking empirical knowledge --- and if they were, then certainly accepting the Happiness Box would be the silliest thing one could possibly do, since it is guaranteed to yield false information.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And souls?

You may have missed this thread

 

[Dr Adequate]

Remember, to you reality is just a stream of sensory impulses into your brain...

People have been pointing out your error since at least the tenth post on this thread, e.g. me:

You seem to be confusing disbelief in the soul with solipsism.

Which is probably a first even for amateur philosophers.

Can you not see that someone who believes that his thoughts and feelings are a consequence of objects in a real world which exists independent of his sensations must necessarily believe that there is a real world which exists independent of his sensations?

It is the believer in the soul who must accept or reject solipsism --- the believer in the brain has already rejected it.

Your brain dies----and all your perception of reality blinks out and you zero out and disappear, gone, like a light bulb going out.

Ergo, reality is a stream of sensory impulses into your brain being processed in various ways.

You see the problem here?

You are tacitly assuming that which is to be proved --- that you can conflate perception of reality with reality.

Now if you rewrote it as:

Your brain dies----and all your perception of reality blinks out and you zero out and disappear, gone, like a light bulb going out.

Ergo, all your perception of reality is a stream of sensory impulses into your brain being processed in various ways.

--- then the statement would be logical (and, IMO, true) and more or less unremarkable.

Now, clearly someone who believes that the mind is instantiated in a material object (the brain) believes firmly in the existence of material objects which exist independent of his qualia. And this belief seems to us to be a good reason to reject the Happiness Box.