My God!

... it's full of stars! (did I just date myself?)

Almost every culture on the planet has created gods, probably since the beginning of human consciousness. It seems like it's a natural process, to try to explain things they don't or can't understand, to have a parental figure to keep people in line, and to watch over them, etc.

There are common threads with many gods, such as immortality. But usually the individual traits of a god are made in the image of the humans imagining it. 

So here is my question to you. If you were to create a new god, what would it be like? Assume that the god you'd create would be one you'd like. 

Here is the god I'd make, at the moment. I'm sure this will change once I get some good ideas from all of you. 

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?

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.

Thought Experiment 4

Let's do another Thought Experiment. I am skipping around in the book to find interesting ones. So this is only the second that I've done. If you have any that you'd like to share, please do so! Just email me.

Question 4

If you could spend one year in perfect happiness but afterward would remember nothing of the experience, would you do so? If not, why not?

Which is more important, actual experiences or the memories that remain after those experiences are over?

My Answer

So here's my first answer. I would say no, I wouldn't want to be blissfully happy for a year if I couldn't remember afterward. Because then I will have lost a year of my life.

But, if while I was blissfully happy other people would be around me and remember that time, then that's different. Because then I'm sure the goodness that would come of me being so happy would manifest in their lives in a myriad of ways and that would be totally worth it. Maybe I'd be so happy I'd invent something wonderful or come up with a world changing idea! If that were the case, then yes, I'd definitely do it!

So I guess it would just mean my life is basically a year shorter. But if there were positive benefits for others or the world in general then most definitely, yes! :)

I think actual experiences are important, but how you remember them is too. Memories are extremely malleable and changeable, so after things happen, the memory becomes all that is left. Except of course, the results of the actual experiences are also a huge factor, which is what I was saying, it's the only thing that would make it worth my while.

What about you? Would you do it? Why or why not?

From The Book of Questions by Gregory Stock, Ph.D.

Thought Experiment "A"

Recently I found a little book on my bookshelf that I used to love. It's beat up and dogeared. It's called The Book of Questions by Gregory Stock, Ph.D. which came out in 1987. Basically it's full of thought experiments. I thought I'd pose them to you. I will put my initial answer and will eagerly look forward to your thoughts. If you think of any you'd like to have me ask everyone, email me.

So here's Question A, which is from me, not the book:

There is a guy in Britain, I think, who had ulcerative colitis.
There is interesting research into places in third world countries where people don't get this kind of thing, or allergies for that matter.

They have found that populations carry some sort of roundworm that lives in their guts there and it was thought that it conveys some sort of protection to the gut.

So this guy took a thousand roundworm eggs and swallowed them. He did it on his own but made sure his doctors knew it so they could monitor him. He had very quick and complete relief of his ulcerative colitis.

After awhile, maybe a year, he started getting symptoms again so he had his doctors test him and his roundworm population had decreased. So he took another 1500 eggs.

So here's the question. If you had ulcerative colitis (bloody diarrhea, horrible stomach pain, etc) would you swallow 1500 roundworm eggs?

If your child had it, would you have them swallow the roundworm eggs?

My answer:

I think if I were suffering, I'd do it, but I'd be totally creeped out and would probably feel like I could feel them in my gut moving around. It would be really hard for me. Eesh! Once I had relief, I think I'd pat my belly and thank them.

What about you? Would you ingest a specific type of parasite if it meant no allergies, or no painful colitis?