# What if we could design a place of eternal torment?



## ambush80 (Dec 18, 2018)

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 (Dec 19, 2018)

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


----------



## welderguy (Dec 19, 2018)

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

I see a flaw.


----------



## Israel (Dec 19, 2018)

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 (Dec 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 19, 2018)

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


----------



## Israel (Dec 21, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2018)

“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 (Dec 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> “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 (Jan 4, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> 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.


----------

