This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Which "should" (or would) you take : - The Red pill (reality and the truth) / sadness or - The blue pill (illusion and lies) / happiness
I'm interested in how people would understand so to make this more interesting I pose two other questions as well:
1. If you could take a "Happy pill" which would alter your mind, (with no side effects) so that you would always be happy?
2. If you realized you were on the "Happy pill" would you stop taking it? And realize that reality is far much worse?
I personally would take + stay on the happy pill.
But it is important to remember your emotional state, and the present vs future state, will greatly impact how you make this decision.
Sorry I feel I forgot to mention in the original description, the world in this scenario is "okay" (not perfect or brilliant) and this pill is available to everybody :) (Is this changing the thought experiment "too much"?)
I apologize for not making this clearer.
I hope this debate will be taken up in good spirit! :)
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Gail . 50+
You are responsible for your thoughts.
Bernard White 10+
But if the "system" is already perfect, yet everybody is still not "happy".
Would you still not take it?
"Happiness is a choice". Not sure how much I agree with this though. I mean sue you can "choose" to be more optimistic, but this doesn't guarantee "happiness".
While you will always synthesise happiness (which isn't really a "choice") so in that sense happiness really isn't a choice. (Look up Hedonistic treadmill!) ;)
Gail . 50+
Try it right now. Stop what you are doing and choose to be happy for 10 seconds. Easy, right? Now work on extending that so that it will become a habit - no matter what is happening outside of you. Happiness guarantees happiness just as misery guarantees misery.
Bernard White 10+
There can't be happiness without sadness. Unless you alter perception. And that is what this "pill" would do.
It is quite hard to just be "happy". I mean it doesn't provide any evolutionary advantage as well. Because to "survive" you need to be happy and confident enough to deal with the problem, sad enough to deal with it.
While if there was "no problem" I can't see any reason why you wouldn't take the happy pill.
Bernard White 10+
i mean i can choose to try and be happy but won't necessarily be happy. E.G Jews in Nazi Germany gas chambers could try and "choose" to be happy, but probably wouldn't succeed. I hope my point makes more sense now!
Gail . 50+
Yes it's hard work developing the habit of being happy. But the hard work comes with its own rewards.
I don't need to be sad to deal with a challenge (as opposed to problem). I only need to be connected with my conscience, from whence all solutions come.
I wouldn't take the happy pill because I have developed healthy thinking habits AND, even if I am not 100% consistent YET, anything that distorts reality is dangerous.
I believe that happiness is a strong and distinct evolutionary advantage for those who dwell in it. Fear (the father of sadness) also has a strong and distinct evolutionary advantage, but it is an unsustainable advantage unless the mind-set changes from fear-based to consciousness-based. Look at all the troubles in the world. The current paradigm is causing them, yet I know, because I live in a consciousness-based reality, that I am fine no matter what is going on out there in the world. With a view like that, there is no room for sadness, so the pill would be meaningless.
Furthermore, if there is a mistake in my worldview (the cause of fear), and a happy pill masks that, I can't fix the mistake, and my life is all the less for that.
Bernard White 10+
I'm afraid to say I am not understanding your argument very well.
Basically I feel that you are saying : I have already achieved happiness, therefore the pill would be useless. And happiness is somehow related to conciseness, and hat conciseness has all the answers. As in another reply : Please define conciseness.
Gail . 50+
Happiness is part of being self-aware or aware of and in tune with my own consciousness / conscience. (I didn't say or imply conciseness, though I am being as concise as I know how to be as I attempt to bridge the gap of understanding between us).
You cannot understand that which you do not know. What I am speaking of has to be experienced. You have obviously never experienced your union with all that is. (universal consciousness) and you have not yet found the meaning of logic. My logic is logical, but your line of thinking is not logical. How do I know? Because was once you. My awakening started with questions such as yours, but my questions were accompanied by an open mind that you do not yet have.
I don't think that I can be of much help to you for as long as you defend the myth's sentience.
Bernard White 10+
Yet I do feel that I have an open mind, I am willing to be corrected (for I view it is vital for people to be able to admit their wrong for society to advance) yet I do not view I have been wrong!
While I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this :
A study was done which found that people usually thought the other was wrong because they were :
1. Stupid
2. Had the wrong data (which people thought once they realized they weren't stupid)
3. They were ignorant or evil (once they realized they had the same data and weren't stupid).
I would be interested to hear your opinion on this.
Gail . 50+
I'm not suggesting that you are a narrow-minded tyrant. I'm only suggesting that you know very little about your world. In another place, you said that you weren't sure if Santa Clause exists or not. That is certainly young. I would have thought that anyone on this forum would have outgrown that fantasy character by now. Hope I didn't hurt you too much by busting your balloon. But you must have been ready to hear it or the words would not have appeared on your screen.
I don't think that you are stupid. You are young and inexperienced. You are not expected to have figured out everything by now. No one has figured out everything. It's just that some of us have figured out more than others. Life is a journey. It isn't a contest.
I don't think that you have the wrong data. I do think that you don't have enough of available data. Again, because you are young and haven't had time to find it - which it seems you are seeking now.
I don't think it would be fair to call you ignorant because you are looking for answers, and ignorant people don't do that. I would certainly not call you evil because evil doesn't exist except in peoples' imaginations.
You do not think that you have been wrong in this because your thinking is exactly like the type of thinking that you are being trained to think like. But I am asking you to think differently, to question differently, to see a far grander reality than most of the world lives in, to get in touch with your awareness of your own power.
Bernard White 10+
"In another place, you said that you weren't sure if Santa Clause exists or not." Just like I am not sure whether God (from the christian definition) exists. I mean I view it as highly unlikely. But there is no way to prove or disprove Santa Claus, so I would have to be an agnostic about Santa. :) I mean I'm an agnostic about whether other people exist or not. But live my life as if other people exist, because there is no harm in doing so.
That's what I mean when I say I'm not sure whether Santa Claus exists.
In the way my definition of "belief" is : Most probable, and nothing is truly certain.
And the fact remains : No matter how logical and rational something may seem, it doesn't mean it is true! Because one of the logical steps may be wrong.
But I feel I am getting too side tracked with my own debate I started. :)
I thank you for being patient and listening, and submitting your opinion (even though I think sometimes that you are wrong, not to say that we shouldn't carry on!) :)
Gail . 50+
There is also evidence that IF god exists, it is nothing like the God of Abraham - in the slightest. It is non-threatening. It might even have died in the big bang.
Evenso, you will not find too many who will agree on any definition of that which is because no one knows if all the things that you see around you really exist. That's fine. But when someone tells me that I will go to hell if I don't follow his religious path, that person has crossed the line and what he believes DOES affect me if he mixes his religion up with government that passes laws that discriminate against me and others - as is the case around the world when it comes to the religions based on the Abrahamic Gods.
Yes, long conversation. Enjoyed it. I'll end it now unless you ask more questions.
Bernard White 10+
Tali Sharot: The optimism bias:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html
Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
While my only real question would be, would you believe in a form of pantheism? :)
I mean I can't really see why not many would to be honest. Unless you are an agnostic / atheist about the universe existing.
Also are you a Buddhism by any chance? Because personally I have never understood Buddhism and think it is probably flawed in a few ways. Such as "Ignorance and desire is the heart of all evil" I would actually say "Rationalization" was through my little experience in
psychology. (Which can be caused by so many psychological mechanisms! :( )
Gail . 50+
I'm pretty sure I have seen the Dan Gilbert talks, but not the optimism bias. I'll review them.
Hey, thanks for the long dialogue. Happy searching! Bye.
Bernard White 10+
While after thinking about it for quite a while I have come to accept I may have been wrong about happiness not being a choice. I admit that it probably is to a certain extent! (While I still standby to say that it doesn't guarantee it but certainly makes it far more likely!) :)
Gail . 50+
Bernard White 10+
E.G Stealing is wrong.
I stole a pencil (because i desired a pencil.
It was okay I stole a pencil because it is only a pencil after all.
While if you could not do the 3rd step, you would only desire the pencil, but you would never steal the pencil.
Hope I have explained this well enough. :)
Bernard White 10+
Do you mind sending it again? :D
I only saw the beginning.
Please explain why I am wrong, because I am just saying what seems most likely to me. (And to Dan Ariely, and Philip Zimabardo.
I mean yes in the most fundamental form desire is the cause of all suffering, pleasure, neutrality ect ect. But it is Rationalization which enables us to act upon these desires.
Grace Greene 10+
Gail . 50+
Bernard White 10+
Is rationality "maximizing utility"
Is it "with reason, being reasonable"
or is it something else? :)
While I this could just be a cognitive bias (for me), but I'm not sure why i'm being irrational at all.
I mean are you saying this just because I disagree with you? (I'm rational, he's disagreeing with me, therefore he must be irrational?)
While even though I disagree with you one some things, I don't view you as irrational....
Gail . 50+
Most people are unaware of what lies in their belief structures. Therefore, they do not change those that they have outgrown, those that conflict with one another, those that are untested assumptions, and those that are just plain wrong. Until you do that, you will not know what rational means and no one can tell you in a way that you will understand. The rational do not speak irrationally, nor do they speak lies because a lie is a irrational act.
Bernard White 10+
Well I forgot to mention.
I define Evil as "an intention or action to harm someone physically, mentally or spiritually."
And I think you can find that exists in our world. Just look at someone who harms someone else, and from my definition the concept of "evil" must exist.
Hope my logic now makes more sense to you.
And for that intention to take place, humans require an ability to rationalize their actions.
So yes desire is the fundamental cause of most emotions, and intentions. While if they are just intentions and desires, it requires rationalization for them to become actions.
E.G you can make people do evil due to : Dehumanization of the enemy, conformity to the group + a need to be socially accepted, bystander effect, obedience to authority, conflict of interests, wearing alternate uniforms associated with certain identities. All of these encourages the rationalization of these "aggressive + harmful" behaviours.
I have explained this badly haven't I? If I have please say.
I mean if desire is the fundamental thing which causes suffering that doesn't really do much to be honest. Because pleasure is also caused by desire. So if you got rid of desire, then we would just be sort of zombies. (With no pleasure nor suffering.)
I hope this helps, I apologize I have not structured this reply very well.
Gail . 50+
Emotions are an indication that there is an error in your belief system. They are not the children of desire. It takes belief (thought constructs) to create emotions that spur action. You confuse thought with rational thought. These are two different things. When you learn how to think rationally, you will no longer be owned by emotions because you will have cleaned out your tangled belief system. Emotions will seem to evaporate from your life, as will your ego, at which time something far better than happiness takes its place..
Bernard White 10+
I feel this is a better way of explaining what I meant. :)
I did not mean rationality is the cause of all evil (in the way of logical thought). Defining Evil as : "An intentional action to harm someone physically, mentally or spiritually". I do not feel this is changing the definition due to the Oxford dictionary agreeing with me, and many others as well. Also even if it wasn't a true definition, there are so many different definitions of God and Happiness then it wouldn't make sense to say many of them are irrational.
I mean if I defined Evil as a chair, then that probably would be irrational because they are not related much.
It definatley isn't. I could see why you would think that was irrational.
What I meant to say was . It is the ability to "rationalize our actions" which can be achieved through many ways. Let's say you stole a pencil you "could" say to "rationalize" your actions by saying :
1. The person i stole the pencil from deserved it (a slight dehumanization)
2. Everybody was stealing pencils. (Social conformity)
3. I was ordered to steal a pencil/ had no choice. (Obedience to authority)
4. I was tired and I needed that pencil. (Your emotional state)
5. Nobody stopped me from taking the pencil so it must have been okay. (abusing the bystander effect/ social judgement)
6. I helped someone from stealing the pencil. (Evil caused by an altruistic motive)
7. It was only a pencil! Get over it! :D (Distances yourself from the responsibility)
I mean there are many ways we can "rationalize" our actions. (You can probably think of some more)
Bernard White 10+
While if we could not "rationalize" our desire to kill someone we would not do it.
E.G "I want to kill X" that would be a desire. But you would require something to "rationalize your actions" E.G "I want to kill X because he is evil, and it will help my family".
I hoped I have explained this well enough!.
Rationalize = Makes seem reasonable. Not Rationality. Rationality = Logical thought or in other contexts, the decision which maximized your utility!
While I accept that defining these things may be completely subjective. As you would argue, I mean as Colleen Steen pointed out very well, everybody has some form of subjective truth, what is true to them.(E.G the data and knowledge they have, so what they say is logical and rational to them, but isn't the "truth" to you. While no matter about these "subjective truths" there is still an objective truth!) While once you have defined Good and Evil you can then calculate objective what will cause the most amount of "harm". Which I would label as objective morality.
While if you don't define Good and Evil I feel that there isn't really such thing as morality and all actions are just actions!
I mean yes Morality and justice (and many other things) are just human constructs.
Just to say I deleted my last comment, because I felt it wasn't very constructive!
I hope these 2 comments explain my beliefs a lot better!
Gail . 50+
Beliefs determine how you will rationalize a behavior. Beliefs are either learned from others or they are chosen and they might change over time. But you cannot say that Beliefs are the root of all suffering because beliefs form the fabric of our realities. By your description, someone who chooses "good" would be creating suffering just as someone who chooses "evil" would.
Yes, if you don't define Good and Evil, there really isn't such a thing as morality, so talking about morality to me, who doesn't believe in Good and Evil or a moral code is a waste of your efforts.
First are beliefs. If they are valid, you experience satisfaction and ease of life. If they are invalid you experience dissatisfaction in the form of emotion. Thoughts PRECEDE emotions.
If you live with dissatisfaction, you will make very different choices than if you life with satisfaction. Because your choices are different, so too will be your consequences.
If you believe that you are powerless, you will join those who demand an army and police force and all sorts of thought police to keep those you fear in check. You might even look for a God to protect you. But if you believe that no one can harm you without your consent, then you will not be harmed. You will not experience the fear the other you lives with moment by moment - so much so that it is no longer recognized.
I have tested the safety thing. More than once I have been in a life or death situation and did not use violence in the name of self defense, because I believe that it is irrational to do so. It would actually cause me greater harm or even death.
I believe all are one, and separations you see among us are perceptual illusion. Thus to harm you is to harm me. Not morality. Just common sense. I'm a powerful "beiing".
Bernard White 10+
I mean shake-spear said : "Nothing is good or bad without thinking it so." (Might have got this quote slightly wrong, but you get the gist.)
Why do believe it is common sense that "to harm you is to harm me", I'm pretty sure that is a form of morality!
While if there is no morality it has two implications for you:
1. You can never ever claim that you have a moral compass.
2. I can kill you and there is nothing wrong or evil with that. Wrong and Evil imply morality.
And If I kill you that is not harming me at all! (Assuming I get away with the consequences in terms of material world!)
I would be interested to see how you answer this. Because with your own moral code, of their being no morality and good and evil. You can't claim this would be bad at all. (Or beneficial for that matter)
Gail . 50+
If you could kill me against my will (which you cannot), there is nothing wrong or evil with that.
If all are one, if you harm me, you harm yourself equally, and if I allow you to kill me, I harm you equally.
BUT: as I believe in the eternal validity of the soul(s) (universal consciousness that we are) and I believe that energy is self-aware - to go back to one of our first conversations - even rocks have consciousness, as do atoms and galaxies and civilizations, and energy does not die because it does not live in time, I am eternal as the greater part of my "being". I think that in the scheme of eternal, if I were to allow you to kill me, we will at some point figure out where we made our mistake in our beliefs, and we will probably try again using more rational beliefs.
Bernard White 10+
If all are one, if you harm me, you harm yourself equally, and if I allow you to kill me, I harm you equally."
Yes I could kill you against your will. Easily assananate you with a sniper rifle. Your dead against your own will. There are so many ways I could kill you against your will. That (in my opinion) is an ignorant statement, unless you mean it in something metaphorical.
And If I harm you, I don't harm myself at all. I mean If I shot you please explain how this would harm me? If I didn't feel much empathy (which sometime I don't) towards other people, then I'm not really sure how this would harm me at all..... Physically? You'd be dead. Emotionally? I wouldn't feel empathy for you (or more a psychopath wouldn't) under certain psychological conditions.
Spiritually? Not really, if God doesn't exist,or at least the God you are talking about wouldn't really care.
SORRY! I apologize deeply. After reading this comment I realized it was really sadistic. But I would still like you to answer for I feel there isn't really any other way of explaining it! :(
Energy is not self-aware nor is matter!!!!! Even Dogs aren't self-aware, so how on earth is something animate like matter meant to self aware?
Also if you say "which you cannot" in refernce to if I could find you! I could always hire a hacker to find out all your details. From your TED account alone I have realized you live roughly :
United States, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. (Sorry if this is going a bit too "far" to prove my point!)
And
Your female which narrows it down a lot!
Sorry to sound like a MASSIVE STALKER. haha :D (Hopefully you won't take offence!)
Gail . 50+
Bernard White 10+
And wanting to do altruistic deeds (empathy + Theory of the mind), yet at the same time wanting to survive (pre theory of mind).
A bit like the present vs future self argument. In the way that we can dehumanize people, which then reduces our moral responsibility.
Gail . 50+
Gail . 50+
And if our physical evolution as a species was enhanced because of a built-in moral code, then we must have taken a very wrong turn at some point, because look at what is happening in the world. We are destroying our nest. We are procreating beyond the ability of the earth to sustain us. Global warming makes it harder year by year. Our fiscal system is designed to encourage the majority of "the race of laborers" to die early from poverty related causes (called "natural law"). This is done by bad farming practices that destroy arable land and potable water and breathable air - to name a few. Is greed and fear the new moral code? Is our destruction built into our genes?
You do not appear to know what it means to have discovered your own powers. You have not tested them. You are not practicing manifesting things into your reality. You do not have mounds of evidence that you are a powerful being. You have not gone looking for an explanation of how this can be true, and you have not explored your beliefs.
I have been exploring these things for the last 30 years. I have a head start.
I suspect that this conversation has gone as far as it can go.
Bernard White 10+
I'm impressed : "I have diffused both situations leaving me quite safe and unharmed". While this doesn't guarantee that I couldn't kill you. (Not saying that I want to.)
No peace isn't power.
Power is control and influence over people, not knowing yourself or being more self-aware. That is different. I would be powerful if I ruled and controlled some of the most powerful countries, not necessarily happy or content. Or even making the world a better place, but you can't deny I would have power.
I would have so much power, as an Japanese anime character said, I could split the world into two armies into two and make them fight eachother.
Do you believe we all have free-will? Out of interest. I suppose you would considering that you view "Happiness is a complete choice". If destruction is built into our genes, then so be it. At least I will be happy, before my demise and content.
While you must gain and fight for power. One of my favourite quotes concerning what really matters is :
"There is something rather comforting facing death in battle, nothing else really seems to exist, except for my pure instinct to survive! It's all that matters. Personal history, sex, nationality, the name given to you. It's all meaningless. This is the only thing which is real: To fight for nothing else except for my own existence!" (I feel I must say : "We are not here to be happy, we are here to survive" - Oliver James. Great man)
While with power you can do "good" or "evil". Yet you don't believe in morals do you?
Bernard White 10+
""Equal effort does not mean equal gain. People can there is a balance that everything happens for a reason. But the truth is far less designed. No matter how hard you work, when you die you die. Some spend their entire life trying to scratch their way to the top, and still die in poverty. While some are born into wealth and never have to work at all. It's a cruel and random world. But the Chaos is still do beautiful!"
Because I am getting a strong feeling from you, that life is probably meaningless, while you strive to create a meaning. And your meaning so happens to make you believe that you are eternal and powerful. Not saying this isn't true (I don't believe you are that powerful though :p). While I hate to use the typical atheist saying (Which I actually don't believe) but would be interested to see how you would respond : What evidence do you have to suggest that you are eternal, and it isn't just completely based on "faith"? And that we have just created meaning to deal with our existence.
Gail . 50+
My worldview came through years of study that you have not yet engaged in. My belief in an organic world cemented when I discovered quantum mechanics that demonstrated how it could be true, and neuroscience that demonstrates that only the smallest part of me is housed in my body - as quantum mechanics suggested was most probable.
My power is accessible to me because I know that I have GREAT power within my reality. As soon as I try to lord it over you, it dissipates and backfires. You do not believe my claims of being able to manifest things and situations into my reality because your belief about power is so distorted. You do not believe in my tested ability to protect myself from harm because you have never tested your ability. It is unreasonable (irrational) for you to make judgments about that which you have absolutely no knowledge. Your reasoning skills are not good enough.
As to meaning: There is only one meaning to life: I think, therefore I am. I do not strive to create meaning. I have purpose, however; but meaning and purpose are two very different things.
At some point, part of life is faith-based no matter how much evidence I have supporting my worldview. Evolution is faith based, but there is abundant evidence showing that evolution is real, so those with rational worldviews accept it as a "Theory" that is probably right - hence the element of faith. My worldview is rational whereas yours is not.
As you are not interested in a purpose-driven conversation that I care to participate in, I will end it here.
Bernard White 10+
But you still haven't refuted my claim about power.
Replace meaning with purpose and your argument falls apart.
I do not assume you are lying, I just view that you are wrong.
While Yes I will admit I can't make assumptions about you!
But I can make assumptions on the knowledge I have and try and make the most logical and rational assumption.
"As to meaning: There is only one meaning to life: I think, therefore I am." NO that is not meaning.
Anyway I am getting tired of this debate.
So yes This has come to an end. (I apologize, I view that you are irrational and probably deluded, and don't want to admit it.)
While I hope you are more respectable on other subjects.