Prax

doesn’t matter to me.

oh. Your posts read as though you were speaking of one all guiding intention for all of us, not individual ‘ultimate’ intentions. I would agree…to each his own definition of ultimate intention.

sounds fair. From what I thought you were stating (see preceding quote and reply) , I was offering an alternative. I stand corrected. Its funny how dialogue can lead to better understanding.

I apologize, that was me asking you a question. Im just learning the forum standards…sorry for being confusing.

The question was why do you think things should change?

certainly not. I am saying, however, that the concepts and our perception of them are dependent on each other. In order for us to define something as pleasurable we need a contextual reference, which would be “a”-pleasurable, as a benchmark to compare the current, pleasurable situation to. Without that frame of reference you would never perceive a pleasurable experience as distinguishable from than any other experience.

ok.

I agree, but nothing I do changes the _nature_ of the universe.
this is a difference of type, not degree. One type of change works within the system (changes my life have on the world around me), the other types of changes we are discussing change the nature of the system…all together different.

I guess I am, but not without reason. Anything that limits our experience limits our ability to think about ourselves, our situation, and to make critical decisions about our needs and desires.

the problem of evil.

I agree with you 100%…that a ‘loving’ god wouldn’t have created evil and pain and suffering.
however, a balanced one may have, though. one totally aware of the need for action and reaction, cause and effect.

[QUOTE…but is there a world that you would like best that he could give you, or would it be impossible for God to satisfy you even if he wanted to?[/QUOTE]

but what I don’t agree with is that ‘evil’ as we are calling it is in some way wrong or in need of elimination.

The concept of a loving god is incompatible with the world around us. Doesn’t that mean there is a problem with the way in which we define ‘god’, not that there is a problem with ‘evil’, per say? I keep coming back to this because your OP presupposed that there was a need for a change…and that you were looking for some discussion on an issue you had been thinking about…and my contribution to the discussion is essentially that maybe you should take a step back and think about whether or not there really is a need for any change…

what capacity do we lack that is keeping us from making a rational decision?

we already have the freedom and capacity to make rational decisions. Not everyone does think critically, obviously, but the capacity is there.

absolutely. we need children or we won’t exist anymore. I wouldn’t wish us out of existence. On top of that there is nothing wrong with teaching them the reality of natural existence on this planet, on the contrary, educating children to that primary concept is the first and most effective step we can take to instilling a sense/ habit of reasonableness in our species…not redefining the concept of a creator. That concept is flawed, imho, but that is another forum.

i would appreciate that!

Hopefully not offensive,

/doda

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]</p>

hedonologist

This is my prototype of an ideal world. I am open to suggestions for how it might be improved. If God gave me unlimited power, I would do unto others as I would have done to me:

1) I would create as many souls as I could.

2) They begin as beings who have no limit as to their ability to make logical inferences.

3) They experience nothing against their will, except their initial existence. They can choose to experience things "against their will", by entering a "sub-world" where they become "vulnerable". They can make whatever sort of sub-worlds they want to, and invite others to exist in their sub-world. They can create any natural laws that will control these sub-worlds, so long as they are logically possible worlds. These sub-worlds could be set up so that "people" can die forever at some point in their lives, live forever, or have an "afterlife". They could create a world just like this one, except with only participants who chose to come. They can create sub-worlds with legal laws that are unbreakable or breakable, with punishments or not. Basically, mutually consenting people can do anything they agree to, so long as it is logically possible.

4) If the following are logically possible: They can program their own minds to desire or enjoy whatever they choose. They can make their sub-world with suffering or without, and they can have as much pleasure as they choose. (I don't know whether or not any of these are logically possible. Maybe pleasure is "intrinsically" connected with certain things, such that even God cannot change this, in which case a loving God could have created a world where only limited pleasure [ie limited freewill] was possible, etc, because he had no choice.)

5) Before someone enters a world the "world-maker" cannot lie as to what is in the world, but can disclose as little or as much info about the world as he/she wants to.

6) The benevolent God (or me if God gave me the power) makes his own sub-world(s) right along side everyone else's created worlds, and "people" can freely choose whether or not to enter the God's sub-world or someone else's, or to make their own sub-world.

If this were the way the world/universe was the challenge (for the God or anyone else) would be to make the "best" "sub-world". How to balance things such as the amount of people's freedom to hurt one another or themselves (supposing they would), with trying to teach them the way to true happiness. It is like trying to find the government, which were best at empowering its citizens.

hedonologist

A comma would have communicated that to me. That is just me, others may have known what you meant. Now I would know what you mean.
Well if I accidentally set my hand on the stove, and felt some excruciating pain, I might ask myself. "Why move my hand? Is there anything 'wrong' with experiencing this pain or debilitating my survival functions?" To me this would be a similar question as what you ask. I'm not sure what you mean by "suppose" (supposed by who?), or "wrong"/"should" (according to what standard?).

I might appeal to a moral standard, if I knew of a particular standard that you had, but I was saying only what changes I would make, and asking what the reader would change about the world. In a sense this is still a "moral" question, if we would act on "morals".
If all we chose to have, were gradients of pleasure, than we could compare more pleasure with less. If a person wanted to have nothing but infinite pleasure, they may forget any concept of more or less, but would this make it any less pleasurable? Maybe there is some reason that having a more complex life is necessary for the greatest pleasure. A more complex life appeals to me, presently.

I might not persistently try to stop you from making yourself suffer, if you wanted to have a greater "depth of experience", besides using methods were you were freely choosing to use, such as by communicating with you. So I'm not sure how what you are saying makes the point that the world I would call "ideal" would not be better for us, than the real world.
No matter how much power we gain through technology, etc, we do not change the nature of this universe, by definition. I agree that the universe I would make would be very different.
That depends on what the limitation of experience is. Walking from one room to another limits your experience to that of a different room.

In the world I suggested as ideal, you could do your experiment of making yourself suffer (such as by staying in a world such as the real one) for whatever reason you are suggesting, while I could go try my experiments with making a world I would like more. You wouldn't want to let me go? I would probably still talk to you, if you would allow yourself to receive messages from "other unnatural worlds". hehe
Whose need is it to have "action and reaction, cause and effect"? If that is everyone's need, why would a loving God not create a world in which this need were fulfilled?

The world which I suggested as ideal, there would be "action and reaction, cause and effect". In fact, a person would have much greater control over the effects they would experience, except that they couldn't have the experience of "forcing" their will on others.
If "evil" is lack of freedom (freewill), or suffering, a need would be defined according to what is removing these "evils".
If god doesn't love us, we defined god wrong? What is your purpose in defining god one way or another?

If "evil" is not a "problem" by definition, how are you defining it?
My need for change is to have greater freedom or pleasure.
Maybe you lack nothing. Maybe you lack having thought through these issues. Maybe if I weren't here you would never realize the point I'm making. Maybe I will realize something you are saying.
Dogs can also make some rational decisions, but there is certainly much more I feel I need to know.
That would not be true in the world I am calling ideal. In my ideal as many people the god could make, who do not exist now, would exist (assuming there is no god who made an 'infinite' number of beings).
I don't know what you mean. Can someone cause someone to cease to exist by wishing? Am I doing this?
I thought that is basically what I am doing.
What did a "creator" used to mean, and what new definition am I suggesting?
If you would appreciate it, in what sense is the real world preferable to you, than the world where you had that knowledge?
I'm just about never offended in these forums anymore, though it is difficult to communicate that even when I am talking to a person in person. Maybe I will have to use smilies, though I wouldn't really be smiling. If you read my questions as "non-rhetorical" and my statements as just patiently trying to get to the truth, be that by learning from you or me, for our mutual benefit, you will probably see them for what they are.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

Prax

cool...i can dig what you are saying. and thanks for elaborating on your concpet of a better world.

i agree that everyone having 100% freedom to define their own existence would be better...if that meant they could create their own worlds.

can this converstaion be summed up, in a simple manner, as:

'if everyone had the power to have whatever they wanted whenever they wanted we would all likely be better off'

i guess a world like that would be better than the one we have.

to answer your questions:

i guess its not so much as a need as it is simply the way i think a physical world works. im having a hard time wrapping my head around a 4-dimensional physical world without cause and effect. the displacement matter causes at the very least. but we are speaking hypothetically about hypothetical omnipotence, so i guess if someone wanted a world like that they could *poof* one into existence.

your OP defined god as being un-loving because we have suffering in our world. i was running with your definition, and making the point that:

a. either our concept of love is flawed
b. or our concept of god is flawed
c. or our concept of suffering is flawed

since our reality is inconsistent with the existence of a loving god, then i say there isnt one (a loving god).

since, as you pointed out, reality as it exists around us doesnt jive _at all_ with the concept of a loving god...and we're pretty sure suffering exists, and we're pretty sure love is what we think it is (as best we can define it...which is limited also, imho), that leaves our concecpt of god. of those 3, i think its most reasonable to chose to believe that the part of this equation humanity made up is the part thats flawed. (at least the one we cant demonstrate, even if you dont think we made it up)

evil, pain, displeasure, pick your word.

i define it as the neccesary conterpart of the concept of good/comfort/pleasure. its the 'opposite end' of the sliding scale of pleasure you talked about.

you cant have a 'sliding scale' of pleasure without being able to distinguish between 'more' pleasure and 'less' pleasure.

i define evil as 'less' pleasure...but 100% neccesary for their to be 'more' pleasure.

to quote a dear friend of mine: "stirring the water only makes it murky, not deeper." defining pleasure as a sliding scale is no different than defining it as 'pleasure' and 'pain'. both are simply degrees of experience which we have labeled. we can call it 'more pleasure' and 'less pleasure' if you want to, but that seems to be stirring the water to me.

at this point, the contextual nature of pleasure becomes obvious, and your model of letting each person create their own ideal works for me.


the OP used some harsh language with regard to having and educating childern in the nature of the world around us. the implication there was that you didnt think we should have or educate children.

it would be nice, but isnt neccesary. we have all the capacity we need to figure it out as is.
it might take us another 150,000 years to get the knowledge we need to churn on in order to figure it out...but i personally dont think we have diminished capacities, as is.

your solution for instantly providing all the knowledge, yet still allowing for the human factor to make their own decisions would, i guess, be better than what we have now...which i think is all the capacity but not all the knowledge.

personally, i like the challenge, i like thinking about it, i like talking about it. it is pleasurable to me. id likely be bored to tears with all the answers...knowing me id be busy trying to find new questions!

peace,

/doda

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]</p>

hedonologist

I hear you, but I still want to make some points.
Not just suffering, both suffering and "constraint" (lack of freedom/freewill). In the world I suggested as ideal, there could be suffering, but if there were, it would only be consensual suffering. (There are exceptions to that statement, which I won't get into just yet.) There is another sort of "ideal world", where God wouldn't let a person even hurt themselves. This would be a world where God forces pleasure on everyone, or creates everyone such that they could never have any preference for any course of action involving suffering. Maybe the nature of pleasure is such that the very idea of being forced, or being made without the "ability" to choose to suffer, would be a form of suffering or less pleasure, in which case, maybe these two ideal worlds would be the same world.

Assuming that benefit is only freedom or pleasure, my point is that no matter whether you consider benefit to be freedom or pleasure, or some combination of the two, this world is not the most beneficial world possible. Finding exactly what would be the most beneficial world we could imagine, is difficult if you try to maximize both freedom and pleasure. The world I suggested simply maximizes freedom, because I think I would rather have freedom, than to have pleasure "forced" on me.
Love I would define as doing whatever is beneficial to the loved one.

I'd define God as at least as powerful as a person (ie intelligent creator of the universe), thus God would have the opportunity to love/benefit many people who do not get what they need, if he/she existed.

I think I would replace "c" with, "our concept of benefit or harm is flawed". This is what many would say. But if God could love someone, yet let them be tortured by someone else, because it were somehow beneficial to the victim that they be vulnerable in that way, wouldn't this mean that a loving human would allow the same thing?

This goes to show that people say that any harm is for our benefit in the long run, to cope with the suffering, but if they really believed that, they would (subconsciously) bring such "harm" on their loved ones. That is why I think it is a false and dangerous belief. Such theism can lead to nihilism, if one follows the logic.

hedonologist

What about the idea that there is a God who has some purpose other than our benefit (love for us)?
I can't imagine the motive of a person who would say they wouldn't like a universe where they could do whatever they want besides force their will on another.
How did you deduce that "implication"?

I would rather begin to exist in this world, than to have never been born. It would have been even better if I could have began to exist in my ideal world and have infinite reasoning abilities, before I decided what sub-world(s) to live in. This is not to say that I would be better off to have never been born, in comparison to being born into this world.

In my ideal world a person could make a sub-world, just like this one but with only willing participants, so the sub-world-maker could only *request* that a being decide to become a baby in his/her sub-world, before anyone might choose to. Come to think of it, I have heard that, that is somewhat how the Mormon's think it happened. They think we choose to come to this "sub-world", however they don't mention us having many other options, but I could imagine an "over-world" just like the one I suggested, where we chose to come to this world which would be a sub-world. I say this is probably impossible, because this is not the world I think I would have chosen to live. But it is an interesting hypothetical, which shows that I not only have to prove that the "over-world" is better (because the over-world, "could" exist), I also have to show what sort of ideal sub-world I would create, which would be more preferable than this world. That I have yet to do, so I am back to the drawing board.

hedonologist

OK, I pick "problem", "unnecessary", and "constraint" (ie lack of freewill).
To figure what out?

Why is it nice, if it is not necessary? Is it that you are not sure whether or not it is necessary, so it seems like it would not necessarily bring any more pleasure, freedom, etc?

I would want to know how to meet any need that I have (including the desire to help others). In the real world this would require a seemingly endless knowledge of technology, psychology, philosophy, economics, many studies.
Maybe you would not have the desire to learn anymore. Is there nothing else worth living for? Love maybe?

If you like the challenge you could always enter a world where there are many "problems"/challenges as this world, but with only gradients of pleasure to reward you for your findings. That is, if such pleasure is intrinsically possible in such a world.

I am like you in some ways. If I had the power now, I might not ask for something like super-intelligence, right away. I would ask instead for some things I would imagine.

Remember that there would be still, at least two things that you would not be able to control: other beings (including God) and the nature of logical necessity. This could create challenges, if you choose to keep some of your old desires or if the nature of pleasure happens to have laws such that you could not just re-associate pleasure or desire with whatever you choose, by logical necessity.

I would peer into my brain and see exactly what does what, in slow motion. See where the memories are stored. See if I could find a physical causal beginning to a choice I made, or see what determined my choices.

I might try to win the heart of some people who I like. I would have all the time I wanted to find ways of doing that. Maybe offer them beauty. I sometimes hear music in a dream. I would make this music into tangible sound, along with other forms of art-- functional art like architecture, ergonomics, edible landscaping and wildlife. We could grab a steak off a cow like it was a replicator, without the cow suffering or dieing. I'm not sure anyone would want to be a cow, if not, animals would be like zombies, but maybe look like they do now. One thing I probably would change is that I would give everyone the freedom, so many would disappear from the Earth so no one would have to be an animal, etc. It would probably be useless to want to make fake animals in that case. Oh well, no animals… unless they were highly intelligent varieties.

How would we manifest ourselves to others? We could manifest ourselves as any sense and any experience. Like a writer would become an experience maker. We could make bodies like organisms for ourselves. I would start with the human model. Would I cater the body to the environment or the environment to the body? There would be something like an Internet. This would be a porthole of communication, and at the same time, the open window to the homes or vacation areas of anyone who wanted to let you in. They are right there in real time, speaking to you while they are doing whatever else they do. Maybe getting a massage, jogging to their destination, formulating recipes, unraveling their psychology and neurology, building a full body vibration machine, a suspension device to hold the body in any position imaginable for comfort and bone health, robots to automate any repetitive chore we used to have to do. Ahh the fresh air of the ocean. Your friends are everywhere. Tribal drums spell out patterns that subconsciously teach us of some mystery as the blissful brilliant children are running through darkly shaded forest to the underground mall of sorts. Down through the spacious earthen tunnels to private rooms of all sizes with couches and tremendous aquariums you can swim in the mystery of our unique consciousness-- why of all the people who could be, are we the ones who exist? Museums of the horrid past and a large protruding sun roof, which is a green house with booth seating as a pick-your-own salad bar. A dark skinned man shimmies up a large palm tree to fetch a coconut.

I would slowly build my sub-world piece by piece, with experiments and share my ideas with other people. Is the nature of pleasure such that it would always be "addictive" meaning that it would compete with any other "objective goal"? Some pleasures seem like they would not be addictive in that sense, such as happiness.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

hedonologist

I've been discussing this topic in other places. I made some amendments to my prototype over-world, and some of the reasons for this are noted below. The major amendment is under #4, with minor adjustments to #3, and elaborations throughout.

1) I would create as many "experiencers" (ie "persons" or "souls") as I could. (How would you like to be one of those people who never existed?) Created experiencers could not create experiencers (no "procreation" as the beginning of an experiencer), except in the sense that an experiencer (including the God) could *chose* to forget all he knew and become a "baby" in a sub-world.

2) They can make whatever sort of sub-worlds they want to, and invite others to exist in their sub-world. The area where they exist alone, before they have chosen to enter a sub-world, is called the over-world. They can create any natural laws that will control these sub-worlds, so long as they are logically possible worlds. These sub-worlds could be set up so that experiencers can die forever at some point in their lives, live forever, or have an "afterlife". They could create a world just like this one, except with only participants who chose to come. They can create sub-worlds with legal laws that are unbreakable or breakable, with punishments or not. Basically, mutually consenting experiencers can do anything they agree to, so long as it is logically possible.

3) The only things they experience against their will are these: their initial existence, the nature of logical necessity (they can't have impossible things), initial knowledge of what any experience would be like (reasons for this are given below), and that they cannot force their will on others. They can choose to experience things "against their will", by entering a "sub-world" where they become "vulnerable". They can choose to completely forget that they chose to come to the sub-world so they will have no knowledge that they ever made a choice to be vulnerable unless maybe they consider this sort of hypothetical in their life and conclude that they would have made such a choice if they began their existence in a similar over-world.

4) Created experiencers *begin* to exist in their own personal over-world, with the knowledge of what any possible experience would be like, so no sub-world maker could trick them into entering a world where they didn't know what to expect and they would always choose the same sub-world, thus there is no need to limit the time of their commitment to a sub-world for their protection. Created experiencers (and the God assuming this is possible) don't necessarily know what anyone else chooses to experience or even whether or not these other experiencers exist, thus everyone has as much privacy as they choose.

5) Before someone enters a sub-world the "world-maker" does not have the choice to lie as to what is in their sub-world, but can disclose as little or as much info about who is doing what in the sub-world, as he/she wants to. The experiencer who would be considering entering the sub-world would know only every possible thing that anyone *could* be doing in the sub-world and thus what may or may not happen to him/her if he/she enters.

6) If the following are logically possible: Created experiencers can program their own minds to desire or enjoy whatever they choose, ie they can choose *what* it is that is enjoyable or desirable to them. They can make their sub-world with suffering or without, and they can have as much pleasure as they choose. (I don't know whether or not any of these are logically possible. Maybe pleasure is "intrinsically" connected with certain things, such that even a God cannot change this, in which case a loving God could have created a world where only limited pleasure [ie limited freewill] was possible, etc, because he had no choice.)

7) The benevolent God (or me if God gave me the power) makes his own sub-world(s) right along side the sub-worlds which everyone else created, and "people" can freely choose whether or not to enter the God's sub-world or someone else's, or to make their own sub-world.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

hedonologist

There are other reasons this topic is interesting to me besides its implications regarding the Problem of Evil. Considering this hypothetical is a way of using philosophical introspection to resolve conflicts/stress between your own intentions and desires. For example, if you have a desire to love another person, in order to do that you have to know what is truly beneficial to that person. In this hypothetical you are omnipotent, so this makes the analysis of what is beneficial as simple as possible, because the only rules we have to keep in mind are from logical necessity. So after we at least harmonize our desires and principles, so they are not conflicting each other, than we can apply these principles to more realistic and complex situations.