Howard

I’d give women the same predilection for cheap, meaningless sex as men.

I’d quadruple the storage capacity of the human bladder.

I’d make beer and chocolate cheesecake health foods.

I'd send Jesus back down as hip-hop musician.

I'd vaporize Barbara Walters and Geraldo Rivera.

sullster

I would admit that natural selection had gone nuts on this planet by producing this looney big brained ape and just float away to a galaxy far far off. See Ya

Eudaimonist

I'm reasonably satisfied with this world. I just don't believe that it was the creation of some all-good deity.

By playing laissez faire. I don't have any desire to "run this show". I might provide reasonable evidence that God doesn't exist, though I doubt I would convince everyone. If I could use omniscience to write and publish the ultimate book on human ethics, I might do this.

No brainwashing would be necessary. It would be the truth. Of course, people could also be productive and work together to minimize the rough edges of nature, but that's up to them.

tronvillain

Given that sort of power I'd make quite a few modifications, many of which would be direct modifications of humans themselves but I'd probably make modifications to the laws of physics themselves eventually.

I'd make humans stronger, faster, and more intelligent, but I'd also give them the ability to manipulate their bodies at will. They could modify their appearance, physical characteristics, sex or basic biochemistry. Bodies would be more like vehicles, and sentiences could transfer themselves between biological and machine.

Essentially I'd enjoy myself, and eventually I'd probably get around to trying just about everything. The thing is, acting as I would expect God to act would require making changes to myself that I don't care to make.

hedonologist

I would essentially be consulting the babies. How would you like to be made so vulnerable and ignorant as a baby? Even if no one happens to want to hurt you, you would be wandering around in a dream world basically for the entertainment of others.
But no one has control over anyone else in any world. How many people are going to agree to having their memory erased? That is the only history that would be important. All “physical” or “empirical” reality would be the pure manifestation of someone’s will. It would be used as a means of “communication”, and like a game. But the game could be a thousand times more profound than anything we will ever experience.
Well if you are right that everyone seeks pleasure there would be no suffering-hell. Maybe you would call some sort of pleasurable addiction a “hell”. This gets into a fascinating subject-- one fundamental aim of hedonology-- to know the nature of pleasure. That is, whether there is some reason why some things must be associated with pleasure, or some reason we could only experience so much pleasure by logical necessity.

Of course, in the real world we are obviously limited physically and we seem to have evolved to (or been created to) enjoy that which helps us survive, etc, but by “logical necessity”, I mean a reason why it would be like a mathematical contradiction to have constant pleasure. It is an issue involving trying to quantify or understand what pleasure is and what its fundamental cause is. It probably would fall in the category of the philosophy of mind. It might bring peace of mind to know that even if there were a God, suffering or lack of freedom are inevitable and necessary for some deeper sort of experience. I don’t know what that would be. They do allow for altruism. Altruism is beautiful, in a sense.
Well, the rapists would have no one to rape. The dictators would have to do without their minions. It would be utilitarian.
Hehe. When you seek “meaning”, are you seeking to maximize pleasure? If so, isn’t it pleasure that you truly desire? If so, how can their lives be without meaning when they are completely satiated with what you think you have found, yet are searching for (meaning)?

What does it mean to be without “meaning”?
Would you kill them? How about if someone drugged you so you were all happy and stupid, so you hadn’t a worry in the world, then put you happily to sleep with a total body number and killed you?

That is less benefit because it is less pleasure. A longer period of “infinite” pleasure would be more pleasure, thus more benefit.
You sound kinda bi polar. No offence. It just seems that when people get high like that, either naturally or with drugs, they come down. That is another very important question-- maybe the most important question I know of. Do we inevitably suffer as much as we enjoy? I have a sort of faith that I do not, but for some reason that seems like the way it would be. It seems hopeless if the nature of pleasure were such that we suffer as much as we enjoy, but on the other hand this would be nice when dealing with suffering, and to know that there could be no eternal suffering.

hedonologist

I mean, satisfied enough that you would say it could be created by an all good deity. If you were the deity, could you have created a world that a person like yourself would conclude is the work of an all-good deity? If so, what changes would you make?

echidna

So I take it not many people here appreciate or value the fact that each day we are presented with challenges and obstacles outside of our control.

That the struggle to overcome and sometimes to fail against these obstacles makes us part of who we are, gives us strength, independence and individuality. Take away the struggle and you leave us sterile, feeble and impotent (figuratively).

It seems true that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And the value from suffering comes mainly from our lack of guarantees, the lack of assurance and certainty, and the implicit importance of our free will in such a context.

Maybe if I were dying from the agony of terminal cancer I'd answer differently, but in health I'm happy with the obstacles placed in my path for me. That's also strongly a theme of many eastern philosophies, to value our challenges, especially the ones we cannot control from without, the ones which we must control from within.

Otherwise we create a beaurocracy deeper and more ridiculous and contradictory than the ... hmmm ... Bible ?

tronvillain

Actually, virtually all of the challenges and obstacles I value or appreciate are those I make for myself. Most of the ones outside of my control are ones I could do without.

Besides, apparently one of my God abilities is to incarnate, so I could enjoy my creations with all of their external obstacles and challenges if I so desired. I could even edit my memory so that I wouldn't realize I had godlike powers until after I died. You underestimate the possibilities which open up when you have enough power.

I've never really understood the expression "absolute power corrupts absolutely." It seems to be saying that with enough power you can do whatever you want, but I'm not sure why that would be called corruption. Perhaps it's just that whatever you want often doesn't agree with what other people want.

echidna

Even the challenges you make for yourself are made within your own constraints which you have no control over. You cannot fly without assistance for instance, and yet you have no difficulty with this obstacle, even to the point where you do not even regard it as an obstacle, but simply accept it as part of yourself.

If you choose to be unhappy about this obstacle, then you bring the unhappiness on yourself. I believe this loosely illustrates part of Taoist thinking, and to a lesser extent Buddhist.

I take it this was meant to describe Jesus ? The Jesus problem is a parable for exactly this situation.

From before :
Yes, the phrase assumes a degree of common morality, such as Hitler’s gas chambers were bad, Islamic Sharia Law is bad, and implies that human nature is such that given absolute power, it’s morality will move in commonly accepted bad directions. If "change" is the verb, then "corrupt" is the same verb with negative connotations.

tronvillain

echidna:
True, but it's not at all apparent that I'd be unhappy if I were theoretically capable of removing those constraints. For example, I believe I would quite enjoy the ability to fly without assistance.

*chuckle* I don't "choose" to be unhappy about anything - in fact very little makes me unhappy.

Well, it was partially a reference to Jesus, but I have no idea what "Jesus problem" you're talking about. There is no apparent obstacle to me having a lack of guarantees, assurances, or certainty.

Well, it only has negative connotations if you're not the one with absolute power. In fact I feel that given human nature absolute power is equally likely to move morality in commonly accepted good directions.