Thought Experiment 198: Dreaming of Life

Here’s another Question for you. I’d love to know what your answer is!

Question 198: If you could pass your whole life cared for in every way as you slumbered peacefully, entranced by wonderful dreams, would you do so?

Of course, my first thought is of  The Matrix, where people live their whole lives in a virtual world. But in that movie they never knew it and it was against their will so they could be used as batteries. Also it wasn't always pleasant for them.

In this thought experiment, you get to choose to go into the sensory deprivation tank where you'll live out your whole life. In this scenario your life will be whatever you wish and can be completely positive. Also, once you're in the tank and dreaming, you won't remember that the 'real' world exists.

So would you do it?

My initial reaction is to say Hell Yes! Life in the real world is tough, painful, sometimes sad and lonely. So yes, a part of me would love to say yes. I wouldn't have to die, or if I did I could make sure it was peacefully at a very old age after a fantastic life full of love, happiness and laughter, surrounded by loved ones.

But after a minute I realize this is not such a good idea. First, I see it this way, I think we make our own purpose in life. Living so that others have to care for me and I am a drain on society isn't a good thing. Especially if I'm not giving anything back to them. That's the real problem. One goal I have in my life is to leave the world a better place than it was when I was born. I can't really do that if I'm dreaming my life away.

It also brings up the question. Are you really living if you're all in your head? I think if you thought that your dream was reality it wouldn't matter to you. You wouldn't know you were dreaming so it would be your reality.

Wasn't there a movie recently .. I can't remember what it was. It was Repo Men. It was an okay movie, but it sort of had to do with this exact idea. I don't want to give the plot away, though.

So what about you? Would you dream your life away if you could, in bliss? Why or why not?

 

 

Thought Experiment 59: Medical Research

Here's another Question for you. I'd love to know what your answers are!

By controlling medical research funds, you are in the position to guarantee that a cure will be found in 15 years for any disease you choose. Unfortunately, no progress on any others would be made during that period. Would you target one disease? If so, which one and why?

This one would be tough. If I control funds to channel them all to one disease, people who have all the other diseases would come after me with burning brands and pitchforks. But it could mean a cure that we don't have now. I think it would be a great idea, if after finding the cure, we could then do it again with the next disease for 15 years and again find a cure. It would take awhile, but it would be guaranteed success.

But then I have to choose a disease. I would choose something that gave the greatest life return to the most people. For instance, it would probably be something that affects children because they would have the greatest life expectancy after the cure. They would benefit the most. But it would have to affect a significant part of the population. So it would have to be something really common.

Also, I think it would be best to target a disease that kills, or kills over time, as opposed to a disease that can be managed with medication, such as depression, even though that would be awesome to cure.

So I'd have to crunch the numbers to say for sure. Maybe heart disease? Because that would affect people of all ages, and it's one of the top killers, if not number one.

When I was thinking about my answer, I remember hearing on a science podcast recently that science is really scattered and disjointed. Each institution does its own thing. No one coordinates studies or findings. There is no protocol that is implemented so that findings can be combined. (Yes, meta studies are done, but they are often very flawed and unreliable because the data is collected in such diverse ways and under different conditions that aren't really conducive to comparisons with other studies)

What if there were a central data pool? What if great minds pooled the data, saw what had been done, figured out where the gaps were in the current research and suggested new studies that would be really useful, and suggested protocols for studies that would help make them useful to more scientists?

So for example, say my specialty is depression. There would be database for all brain-related research, then mood disorders, etc, so that you could filter the data appropriately. Then once I got to depression research, I could look over a chart to see what has been done, how long ago, what the results were (both positive and negative, instead of the file drawer effect we have now where only positive studies get any attention), and on and on. Then I could see that there is a gap in depression research regarding sunlight/ vitamin D exposure in children. So then I could log in and put my name and research facility in that spot to tell others that's what I'm working on.

When I publish my findings, I'd have them added to this database so that there is a central repository, instead of information scattered all over the place, not working together.

Then other scientists can come along and see that I got promising results in my study so they can do other studies that replicate what I did or do something similar to expand the findings.

It seems like if we had a central repository for research it would be really helpful, and research facilities would make better use of their grants and time.

So what is your answer about the question? And what do you think of my idea?

The Haneford Question

As you know, I love geeky podcasts. One I really like is Science Weekly from the Guardian. It's witty, smart and educational. They started something recently from a listener named Haneford. He asked them to ask the physicist Brian Cox a question. The question was so good they now ask the question on a regular basis.

Here it is:

If you could have one question in the world answered, what would it be?

So? What would it be? I am still mulling it over. But I would love to know what matters to you and what you'd ask. Assume the answer would be accurate and honest, of course.

Thought Experiment "J" Followup

Last week I posted the following hypothetical Thought Experiment J:

You represent a human aid organization in central Africa and help refugees and victims of a gruesome tribal war based on local religion. It is a country without natural resources, the UN won't intervene. You make no distinction and help the hungry and wounded of both factions/tribes. For your organization to work safely in that area, both war lords demand payment in terms of food and money. You give away a part of your resources (food, medical aid supplies) for your aid workers to be safe. Here's the dilemma:

- You help and treat both sides. Since there is no distinction between civilians and soldiers (there is no army, they do not wear uniforms and do not know the Geneva convention), once wounded combatants drop their AK47 and report at your hospital, you identify them as civilian and you treat them. But when they leave healed, they pick up an AK47 somewhere and start fighting again. The warlords have food, manpower and money, so the fighting continues. While 50,000 die each year, you save an estimated 200,000 lives each year. You feel you make a difference. The bad side is, this war has raged for 10 years already and will continue at least another 10 years, if not longer.

The alternative:

- You stop giving aid. About 250,000 people die each year of famine, sickness or fatal wounds. Because of the high casualty rate, one side claims victory in 2 years, but the county is a graveyard (think Rwanda). Still, peace settles in after the war has ended.

As a rational thinker, you can do the math (500,000 dead in both cases). On moral grounds, you meet difficulty. Still, you'll have to make a choice: Will you stand by and watch genocide happen or will you intervene, but let the war continue? What will you do? This is a very hard question, if not a bit of a sick one, I admit. But it has tested my thinking and ethics. Also, when people are acting/intervening based on religious grounds (especially if one side is christian!), what would happen?

Thanks so much to all of you who tackled this hypothetical question. My favorite answer came from Jay Knight who said he'd get a sniper rifle and go in and kill one of the leaders, then leave a note saying the other leader did it, then repeat as necessary. I love the answer even though it isn't following the "unspoken rules" of the thought experiment (that you have to stay within the parameters given). Instead of leaving the note that Jay suggested, I would leave a note from God himself (not sure how that would work) where God tells people in the note that he disapproves of war and to love one another. My other idea for a note to leave after killing one leader is to say, "This war is not cool. I will kill any leader that perpetuates it." And leave it at that.

Personally I feel the above Question is one of those lose-lose situations that I just can't stand. What would I do? I've thought about this for awhile now and I just don't know. If I stay within the parameters of the Question, I guess I'd have to not give aid because it lengthens the war and accomplishes nothing. No extra people are saved, but different people die. I think I'd have to find better ways to use my time than help perpetuate such a pointless war.

Jobson, who sent me the question, has a very long answer:

Thought Experiment "J"

Recently I was sent the following thought experiment by Jobson, a frequent commenter here on HDC. Here is what he said:

If I may add another question / thought experiment here, one I have been contemplating on for many years. It was once postulated by some woman of the UN council ( I can't remember her name) and she was heavily criticized for it. But I agree she had a very important point. Imagine the following hypothetical (but very realistic!) case:

You represent a human aid organization in central Africa and help refugees and victims of a gruesome tribal war based on local religion. It is a country without natural resources, the UN won't intervene. You make no distinction and help the hungry and wounded of both factions/tribes. For your organization to work safely in that area, both war lords demand payment in terms of food and money. You give away a part of your resources (food, medical aid supplies) for your aid workers to be safe. Here's the dilemma:

- You help and treat both sides. Since there is no distinction between civilians and soldiers (there is no army, they do not wear uniforms and do not know the Geneva convention), once wounded combatants drop their AK47 and report at your hospital, you identify them as civilian and you treat them. But when they leave healed, they pick up an AK47 somewhere and start fighting again. The warlords have food, manpower and money, so the fighting continues. While 50,000 die each year, you save an estimated 200,000 lives each year. You feel you make a difference. The bad side is, this war has raged for 10 years already and will continue at least another 10 years, if not longer.

The alternative:

- You stop giving aid. About 250,000 people die each year of famine, sickness or fatal wounds. Because of the high casualty rate, one side claims victory in 2 years, but the county is a graveyard (think Rwanda). Still, peace settles in after the war has ended.

As a rational thinker, you can do the math (500,000 dead in both cases). On moral grounds, you meet difficulty. Still, you'll have to make a choice: Will you stand by and watch genocide happen or will you intervene, but let the war continue? What will you do? This is a very hard question, if not a bit of a sick one, I admit. But it has tested my thinking and ethics. Also, when people are acting/intervening based on religious grounds (especially if one side is christian!), what would happen?

Jobson and I want to know how you'd handle this situation before we give our answers. So what would you do? It's a tough one, isn't it?

Thought Experiment 7

Here's another question for you. I really would love your answers:

Do you think the world will be a better or worse place 100 years from now?

That's a good question. Of course, no one knows. Anything can happen in an instant. Just look at Japan for example. Of course they live on 4 fault lines, and it wasn't a surprise that a big quake hit them, but how big it was, how it affected them, couldn't be anticipated properly.

I guess this question is more about the answerer than the asker. What kind of person am I?

Optimistic? Do I foresee a utopian society where everyone is happy and healthy like onboard the Starship Enterprise? Where basically everyone has all of their needs met, has satisfying work, has great healthcare, and has an exciting life?

Or Pessimistic? Is it going to be a dark, grim, distopian society where there are a few Haves and many more Have-nots? Where health is only for the Haves, as is good food, clean water, and justice. Where most of society is basically enslaved to the few Haves, and the lives of the Have-Nots are miserable and horrid.

Or, perhaps I am Pragmatic (ooh yes, that's me!) where I think things will probably be pretty much the same as they are now. Yes, that's how I see it. Although really it can go any direction, and I'm quite aware of that. But I think that there will still be some people with all the power and all the money, and most of us will be getting by here in the US. Other countries like China and India will probably change so drastically with their budding economies that no one can predict what they will be like.

Sunday Looms Menacingly

I don't want to go to church on Sunday. The last time I was in church was for a wedding. Miraculously I wasn't struck by lightning when I looked up at the huge 15 foot tortured Jesus bleeding on the cross over the doorway and said, "Jesus! WTF!" Then I proceeded to bite my cheek and bury my head in my lap to keep  from laughing hysterically all through the service after Butch pointed to the fat lady who was singing some horridly off-tune song and said, "I guess that means it's over." It was not a pleasant experience.

Before that, I'd have to go back to my troubled religious youth to remember being in church. Sitting uncomfortably in straight backed pews; singing vapid, falsely cheerful songs of unworthiness and worship to an invisible sky daddy; sipping grape juice and eating stale bits of savior; getting baptized 3 times in 3 different churches to ward off eternal damnation and gnashing of teeth in the sulfurous, burning pits of hell; dealing with fake smiles on fake faces adorned in Avon makeup and festooned in Sears and Roebuck Sunday best outfits; parroting bible stories carefully cherry-picked from the sordid pages of a book filled with murder, slavery and hate.

None of it was all that pleasant. All of it was forced. No one ever seemed genuinely kind or compassionate. When I learned about hypocrisy at the age of 12 I promptly called bullshit on the whole mess of religion and refused to go again. My parents were furious, but in the end they gave up on me, content that I'd eventually get my just reward in the fiery lakes of hell.

This Sunday we're going to the mega-church about 45 minutes away. I don't want to go but my local group wants to experience it. Since I'm the Official Cat Herder, I feel like it would be a good thing to go along. Part of me wonders what it's like in a mega-church. What is the feel of the place? Something I thought church should do for people is give them a sense of belonging, of community. How can you get that in a huge auditorium? I have no idea how big this place is. So it's only fair that I actually experience it, I guess.

I have some questions that I want to answer on Sunday. Feel free to comment with other questions I can try to answer as well. Here's what I have so far. I will take notes while I'm there.

Atheists: Have You Ever Had A Mystical Experience?

I'm reading a book called The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper. Mostly, I think it's a pretty interesting book. (there's one thing that really bugs me about it, but otherwise it's a good read). Anyway, he talks about how mystical experiences are found across cultures, which implies that there is a genetic component to them. In other words, every culture in recorded history talks about having mystical experiences so it must be something happening in the brain that is genetic. There must be genes associated with the way the brain works in certain circumstances that cause that phenomenon in people around the world.

Let's define a mystical experience first. Dan Merkur, author of Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions, lists the five most common symptoms of a mystical experience (from The God Part of the Brain, pg 134)

• a sense of unity or totality


• a sense of timelessness


• a sense of having encountered ultimate reality


• a sense of sacredness


• a sense that one can not adequately describe the richness of their experience

I was deeply religious as a child, from about age 4 to 12. I was so terrified of burning in hell that I was baptized 3 times in 3 different churches. I went to Sunday school, church, bible camp, I sang hymns, I prayed, I studied and read my bible, and had bible lessons for a short while. But in all those years, I never once had a mystical experience. I never felt god. I never felt the touch of the divine.

A New Pew Religion Survey

There is a new Pew Survey about religion of people coming of age around the year 2000 (called the Millenials) out. It's quite interesting. I've included some of the charts and tables for you.

What is interesting is how the Millenials are less affiliated, but they still believe in the afterlife, miracles, angels and demons to a high degree. I think that's where atheism is lacking for a lot of people; that comfort that there's more to life than just the natural, that life doesn't just end when we take our last breath. Personally I find that it makes life much more precious.

Let's see some charts and tables!

Note that in the Unaffiliated group are the Religious Unaffiliated, people who describe their faith as "nothing in particular" but say that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives. Whatever that means.

If you take out the religious unaffiliated, you still get a much higher group of unaffiliated than the general population. :) Note how few people are still willing to label themselves as atheists. :(

Another chart showing age composition of religions.

Answering Paul's Questions

A person named Paul commented on HDC on GMNightmare's deconversion story and I thought they were interesting questions. Both Johnny and GMNightmare already gave long answers, also worth noting, instead of letting it get lost in comments. And I added my 2 cents on at the bottom. :)



Here is Paul's comment:

I have a couple of questions that I would like answered, and you seem like the type to answer questions. First of all, what are your thoughts on supernatural phenomena (weird stuff people claim happens, i.e., someone’s ear being cut off, and growing back on)? Is it all just a big hoax?

Secondly, I know that evolution details how the earth came to it’s present state, and the big bang, (do they still call it that?) started all that, but what could have caused the big bang? And how did whatever caused the big bang come into existence? As far as I know, science clearly states that nothing can be infinite, and all things have an end and a beginning. So, if nothing is infinite, than how did the universe get started? Wouldn’t something had to have caused time to exist first, something that wasn’t governed by time, and so couldn’t even be described by adjectives like infinite?

I just have these questions, and no one can really answer them, except with some lame thing like “It just goes on and on”. And what does happen when we die? I know our bodies clearly decompose, we can see that much easily.

But what about our consciousness? It seems to me that consciousness is somewhat of a mystery in and of itself. Scientists can make a body, and they can put blood and oxygen in it, but yet they can’t make it live? So, if a consciousness isn’t something like a body, something that decomposes, what happens when the consciousness dies? Does it really just cease to exist? I can’t even imagine not existing. It just seems so foreign, to not exist.

Lastly, I don’t really get the term “gnostic atheist”. From what I’ve read, gnostics claim to “know” something, that other people don’t. So, if you’re a gnostic atheist, does that just mean that you “know” hands down, that there is not, and has never been, any kind of god?

First, here is Johnny's reply:

I’m sure GMN will have a response; but I just feel the desire to chime in.