What if we could design a place of eternal torment?

[ambush80]

In a podcast, Sam Harris wonders what the ethical implications of building a virtual reality where we could subject a consciousness to ultimate, unceasing, suffering might be. Even weirder, he wonders whether a machine consciousness might be able to suffer or experience joy in ways that we can't imagine

 

[660griz]

It would be deemed immoral and a product of the most evil minds on the planet.

 

[welderguy]

What would be the criteria for who goes there or not? And who gets to decide?

I see a flaw.

 

[Israel]

Sam brushes up against several matters that to his understanding, at least to that moment of his commentary on free will (red/blue pill), he at least appears lost in.


They are (of the least worth mentioning) matter of a deep resistance (discovered) to receiving the understanding of free will as illusory, and the issue of agreement when speaking to the rabbi, especially in regard to discussing what to them appears a "third" soul...of the psychopath.

I have a hope he may think more of what he says.

 

[ambush80]

Sam brushes up against several matters that to his understanding, at least to that moment of his commentary on free will (red/blue pill), he at least appears lost in.


They are (of the least worth mentioning) matter of a deep resistance (discovered) to receiving the understanding of free will as illusory, and the issue of agreement when speaking to the rabbi, especially in regard to discussing what to them appears a "third" soul...of the psychopath.

I have a hope he may think more of what he says.

Are souls distinct in your understanding of souls, which seems not to agree with Sam's or the rabbi's, and how do you know?

 

[smokey30725]

I worked at Kmart for 5 years. That should qualify.

 

[Israel]

Are souls distinct in your understanding of souls, which seems not to agree with Sam's or the rabbi's, and how do you know?

It's not that at all. I appreciate that understanding could go that way.

Less what they identify as "soul" but far more interested in the outworking of their apprehension of how soul is.

Sam describes, for his utility, a discussion with a rabbi. They talk about the soul and souls. Then Sam speaks about the soul of a psychopath with the given (it seems and sounds) that that is not what either of them have. He says something to the effect that "I suggested that he and I were very lucky to not be so endowed". (Reminds me of that once very popular book, published years ago "I'm OK and You're OK" but this would be "I'm OK and You're OK...but him, not so much")

Now, I must admit I am doing little less than what Sam has done. As he "took" his conversation with the rabbi finding some agreement that led then to disagreement (ask yourself this simple question if you can: "Is Sam using this conversation with the rabbi as foil for his present argument/assertion?") Even if he recounts it 100% word for word (though he admittedly and certainly inserts his own thoughts "I knew this rabbi would be just the sort of man who...") what is true about the conversation? Is it even a true conversation, at all?

How different might it have been if Sam had said to the rabbi (from his asserted thinking)

"You know rabbi, I know you are just the sort of man who..."

But...he didn't. If I try to surmise (motive) why he didn't...without Sam's presence to answer...then this is where my conversing with you, about "what Sam said" or didn't say, but admittedly thought and nevertheless did say...well, I too could be as easily found using Sam as foil. Not unlike what I see as their using the psychopath...as foil.
But we are left with what "Sam says", at least in the above. Saying he was then thinking things (but without record of saying them). And now saying them apart from the rabbi's presence.

I don't find this question useless: "is there a motive for Sam's recounting of the conversation to now "third" parties?" Broadcast broadly (or at least as such) as You Tube allows?

The conversation with a psychopath is broadly different, as I imagine some would imagine a present conversation "with Sam" (by most any believer) would be different. C'mon, don't be skeered...raise your hand if you see (your generic) believer, (which is really to you a religious person) dissolving into a shameful pool of stuttering biomass before his brilliance. Not unlike the imagining that is had in the agreement that the psychopath must fall as shameful soul before Sam's and the rabbi's agreement. They see the psychopath. Even if he can't...see himself. LOL. "Rabbi, ain't you glad we ain't like him!"

But, psychopaths...don't. At least the one I have met. He won't even admit to "being one". He resists that labeling (and when it's one on one, whose going to prove the other is crazy?) The psychopath is as normal to himself as self can be. Sure, he may be able to discern "not a lot of folks are doing what I do, nor how I do, know what I know, not a lot seem to be the way I am".

In short, really, what is more normal...sounding?

The only hope for the psychopath is to be overpowered to a complete conquering. Down to fundament. That's if any can even begin to believe...there could be any hope for him, at all.

And we all nod and say "yes, that's fine...for him". "He" needs a good breaking down. Whatever can tame him. Whatever helps...him. He needs to see...how very wrong...he is.

Who says comedy is the only source of laughter?

 

[Spotlite]

“What if we could design a place of eternal torment?”

Of course it will be viewed as immoral and unethical. With the liberal left everyone gets a trophy and there’s no personal accountability, we have a limp wristed society who thinks the electric chair is inhuman.

 

[WaltL1]

“What if we could design a place of eternal torment?”

Of course it will be viewed as immoral and unethical. With the liberal left everyone gets a trophy and there’s no personal accountability, we have a limp wristed society who thinks the electric chair is inhuman.

I do see a real danger in that. Learning to lose is as, if not more, important than learning how to win.

 

[oldfella1962]

I do see a real danger in that. Learning to lose is as, if not more, important than learning how to win.

Indeed it is! Losing is much more common than winning, and we will encounter it over & over in our lives. One sure way to never "lose" is to never leave your comfort zone - in which case you will never improve. Losing is just part of the process towards your inevitable (even if short lived) victory.