The Happiness Box

[delphi_ote]

I leave it up to the reader to decide which one.

Or ones.

Nice post! Fun stuff.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You can't do it 100%, but you can do it 99.999%.

I once asked somebody to do that, cite scientific experiments.

It NEVER happened.

On the contrary, this is the third time I have made the same post:

I have a very simple way to test your proposition concerning the soul. If people's thinking and feeling is being done by an invisible intangible entity ("the soul") then it follows that injuries to the brain should not impair these faculties. This is false, refuting the soul hypothesis.

Why do you wish to pretend that this point has not been answered, when it has been answered repeatedly?

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you guys want to prove me wrong, it's s-o-o-o incredibly easy. My entire thesis revolves around the existence of the soul.

Cite detailed scientific experiments conducted by reputable scientists published in refereed journals that fail repeatedly to detect souls...

All of them.

Every single scientific experiment ever done has failed to detect a soul.

You're right, that was easy.

NOW GO AND LEARN SOMETHING --- ANYTHING --- ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

 

[aggle-rithm]

People don't rationalize themselves into soicopaths.

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

Really? You were unconscious when you made this assumption?

That explains a lot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've had ten people jumping my case for the last few days and I'm tired.

This is nothing to what we're going to do to you in the afterlife.

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[gnome]

I would happy run an experiment testing for a soul, but nobody's proposed a method by which a soul can be tested for. So now it's got about as much going for it as snorgs. Everyone has an invisible, immaterial snorg that helps keep them alive. If you don't believe me, prove that there are no snorgs.

 

[Rasmus]

I would happy run an experiment testing for a soul, but nobody's proposed a method by which a soul can be tested for. So now it's got about as much going for it as snorgs. Everyone has an invisible, immaterial snorg that helps keep them alive. If you don't believe me, prove that there are no snorgs.

Now don't be silly, please! Everybody knows about snorgs. Mine is orange and called "Fred".

 

[drkitten]

I would happy run an experiment testing for a soul, but nobody's proposed a method by which a soul can be tested for..

Well, I will be happy to propose an experiment.... but the problem is that no one's even got a convincing definition of what soul is.

E.g., people with souls will send their next paycheck for deposit into drkitten's personal bank account, and thereby assure themselves of an abundance of good karma in the afterlife.

Bank details available upon PM.

I suspect that running this experiment will result in a clear failure-to-find of any souls whatsoever.

Alternatively, of course, since snorgs are what prevent people with souls from sending me all the money, perhaps I've proven the existence of snorgs instead.

 

[Beleth]

Well, I will be happy to propose an experiment.... but the problem is that no one's even got a convincing definition of what soul is.

Jeff did a passing job earlier in this thread, IMHO:

The definition of soul people are using is this:
An eternally existing, thinking and feeling structure that cannot be destroyed by any means whatsoever.

There's gotta be a test for that. Well, except for the "eternally existing" part, since no one could ever prove that.

 

[Rasmus]

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?

No, I would not go into the Happyness Box.

I must make the descision to go ro to not go in the here and now, and in the here and now I do have that family that I love and care about, and I need to decide if I want to desert them.

As soon as I was to wake up in the box I would no longer know about the box and my descision. But that doesn't mean much. I just no longer have to decide if I want to do something bad; now I have to decide if I want to do something bad and not know about it afterwards.

Consider the descision to rob and kill an old lady in a dark alley. Sure, it might be easier to get it done totally drunk and without any memories of the crime the next day, but that doesn't make it any better ads such. Better for me, sure. But I do care about my beloved family the old lady, remember?

So, no, I would not decide to do it. To care about other peolpe means to put their own happiness over mine. (Not always and to any degree, but it does.) So because I do care about my fmaily I will not go into the box, regardless of what I will remember the next day.

So that's the interesting part of the issue dealt with ...

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.

True, I would not know that I was in the box, and to the best of my knowledge I'd just find myself in the reality that I knew before I went to sleep.

Free clue: I would be mistaken!

I simply do not see how anyone could say "The reality would be what I experience i nthe box even though here I am talking about the box, burried in the ground of the real real world where the beloved family suffers."

Ask yourself this: How would you describe the reality, if you were the person that put the box with me in it under the surface? Suppose we could have a conversation (you could project yourself into the program that feeds my brain.)

Suppose we were talking about "reality". You would tell me I was burried in a box in the ground; whereas I would tell you that no such thing would exist, that I am clearly not in a box and that you should please go away because you were keeping me away from all the money, fame and hot chicks (that I just got lucky to have, whilst you claim you programed them for me... come to think of it, I would not tell you to go away and jsut buy you tons of drinks just on the off chance that you were not a complete looney ...)

... anyways, we would have two opposing ideas of what "reality" looks like. Would we both be right? Are there, in fact, several different realities?

Remove the box fro mthe picture for a moment: If I cheat on my wife and she doesn't find out - ever - did I cheat on her?

 

[Trifikas]

If you guys want to prove me wrong, it's s-o-o-o incredibly easy. My entire thesis revolves around the existence of the soul.

So, all we need to do is come up with an instance where someone's behavior changed radicaly from what we'll call for convenience from good to evil (or back) , and didn't involve an exorcism or some rite to seperate the soul from the body, or forcibly install one into someone?

Trif

 

[TjW]

When Jeff writes both sides of his debate, the debate arrives at his desired conclusion.
Jeff cannot see to comment upon posts that show his conclusions do not logically follow from his stated conditions.
Jeff apparently sees those posts as comments from other people that they are simply devastated by his great insight.
Jeff then apologizes for upsetting people with his great insight and unassailable logic, and withdraws.
Jeff seems to already be in his Happiness Box.

 

[Piggy]

Jeff cannot see to comment upon posts that show his conclusions do not logically follow from his stated conditions.
Jeff apparently sees those posts as comments from other people that they are simply devastated by his great insight.
Jeff then apologizes for upsetting people with his great insight and unassailable logic, and withdraws.
Jeff seems to already be in his Happiness Box.

Could this be his Happiness Box?

If so, then is it a sign of hope that he retreats?

Maybe so. Maybe those who persist for dozens of pages and hundreds of posts are the ones who are likely doomed to an eternal residence in the Happiness Box.

If that's true, then perhaps our Jeff has a better chance at escaping the Matrix of the Spotless Mind?

 

[Jess]

If that's true, then perhaps our Jeff has a better chance at escaping the Matrix of the Spotless Mind?

Personally, it reminded me of Brave New World.

Anyway, I think Jeff really just needs to acknowledge that his arguments are steeped in his personal religious beliefs, and it's not fair to ask others to accept such premises as valid ones. The world won't end because we aren't buying his argument, nor will it end if he continues to believe it.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Jeff did a passing job earlier in this thread, IMHO:

Thank you.

There's gotta be a test for that. Well, except for the "eternally existing" part, since no one could ever prove that.

Yes, I agree. The "eternally existing" part can't, I think, be demonstrated in the lab.

I am not an experimental physicist or even close, but I propose the following scientific experiment.

There are these thingies called SQUIDs, Superconducting Quantum Interference Detectors, that have the property of being able to detect VERY small electromagnetic fields.

I propose building a sphere out of these things big enough to hold a living being. I think you could use an animal, but let's say you use a human being in order to be certain.

Some volunteer, somebody with a terminal illness, crawls into this thing and dies. I bet you could find some religious person who thinks he has a soul to do it. Shouldn't be a problem for him/her, as they are theoretically not afraid of death as it is not a big thing for them, just passing on to somewhere else.

If he's got a soul, then hopefully the SQUIDs will pick it up when it leaves his body and passes through the detectors. Assuming, of course, that the soul has electromagnetic properties, and they are intense enough for the SQUIDs to pick up.

That's at least a reasonable first experiment.

Waddya think?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Jeff then apologizes for upsetting people with his great insight and unassailable logic, and withdraws.

People, y'all apparently live here but my time is EXTREMELY limited. I am not able to drop by here for hours every day.

Sorry.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

So, all we need to do is come up with an instance where someone's behavior changed radicaly from what we'll call for convenience from good to evil (or back) , and didn't involve an exorcism or some rite to seperate the soul from the body, or forcibly install one into someone?

Trif

No, I want truth that meets the gold standard of all truth.

Scientific laboratory experiments, performed by reputable scientists, published in refereed journals.

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.

 

[Roboramma]

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.

You did it again. You repeated your assertion without addressing any of the posts that challenged it.

Once again, to make it easier for you, here, pick one:

Anyway, here are the posts, one of which you should try to respond to:

Beleth: #110: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=110
Piggy, #105: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=105
delphi_ote, #87: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...1&postcount=87

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

Jeff, you are a quasiretard and you hurt my brain.

No, you don't hurt it by making me think.

You hurt it by making me wish I didn't waste a couple of picoliters of brain chemicals trying to figure out if you even have a valid point you're trying to get to.
Then I get to the end of your long, boring, pointless internet screed and realize you've stolen 2 minutes or more of my admittedly short life.
No pressing questions answered, and no really good questions asked.
You are a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. I don't say that to hurt you, but I say it out of the desire to let you know that your level of intelligence doesn't muster up to those even middling authors like Clive Cussler, whose character dialog is so forced it makes his books an unintentional study in horrible unrealistic character reactions.
Augh.

 

[Piggy]

No, I want truth that meets the gold standard of all truth.

Scientific laboratory experiments, performed by reputable scientists, published in refereed journals.

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.

Why should you expect something as silly as that?

Why should you expect experiments disproving the soul anymore than experiments disproving snorgs, floobers, zombies, angels, vampires, Jedi, unicorns, invisible dragons, my mother's virginity, flying purple people eaters, mutant ninja turtles, alien ventriloquists, mind control waves, hyperdimensional pizza, the marriage of King Arthur and Brunhilda, or the transubstantiation of Winnie the Pooh?

Wait for Godot, Estragon.