(Note: the debate is about the second paragraph, while I have no objections to the porn portion its not what I am after)
Future breakthroughs in computer/bio/nano tech have led to the creation of a recording device that allows the recording of the physical experience directly and on playback allows another person to experience that precise experience as if it were their own body (but with the sensations of the recorded body, taller shorter stronger weaker male/female) naturally the porn industry siezes this new tech and it spreads across the globe in a very short time frame…
then someone figures out (using the existing tech) how to record the complete experience, not just the body but the mind as well, every thought, every emotion, for the first time in human history we are able of not only getting outside of our own skulls but inside another’s and thus able to truly see the world from another’s viewpoint. how does the world change?
My Thoughts will follow, just wanted to get the question out where you can read it and respond without further input from me, I am curious what peoples thoughts are on this topic.
My thoughts are that we would see the rapid end of religion as we know it, overnight every science denier, every young earther,
every single fundamentalist who experiences the clarity of thought that goes on inside a rational persons head would be changed forever.
Those who refuse to take that peak inside another skull will be discredited and ignored my the rest of humanity until they die of old age
I would suggest we get someone like Penn Gillette as the sort of spokes person to be recorded and put up for download.
If you haven’t seen Penn outside of his Penn and Teller role, he isn’t always an over the top jackass, he is a remarkably level headed guy and comes across as very compassionate.
I don’t see why, unless you’re going to overwrite the mind and mental processes of the viewer - otherwise, it could just be “well, that was different from what I expected, but I still disagree”.
I think you’re probably being a little generous about the ‘clarity’ thing too. I don’t think humans of any ilk generally are guaranteed to have that. I mean, you were talking about humans, not Vulcans, right?
Have to agree with Mangetout - I consider myself very logical and rational and do not believe in God or other mystical things. If a religious person all of a sudden could experience things through my mind - they’d be pretty disappointed I think. There is no “clarity” of thought. If anything - I probably have less clarity than a fundamentalist - as I tend to doubt things - including myself. Much of the time I am not thinking any grand thoughts - sometimes it’s just about cheeseburgers.
Also, why would anyone assume that, in this scenario, the ‘right’ mindset would be the one to prevail? Wouldn’t it be more likely (since this is all speculation) that the most deeply or fervently-held thought patterns would be the compelling ones?
Think of this in a neutral context - I’m a heterosexual male - someone plays me the brain-tape of a homosexual male in love with his partner - and I get to fully experience a kind of emotional attachment that was, until now, mostly theoretical to me.
Then the apparatus is switched off. What is my sexual orientation now?
I might have spent to much time lately watching some of the debates between people like Hitchens/Dawkins and various religious leaders. I have yet to see a single person of any religious background who is capable of anything beyond the simplest logic. if they were to start posting on this board the responses would be full of the usual that is a strawman/tu quoque/confirmation bias/ad hominem/ect. to every post they made. the lack of clear thought is crystal clear in a way that is obvious to anyone capable of actual reasonable thinking.
I could easily be wrong, I could be suffering from my very own confirmation bias. This thought basically came to me after discussing the whole gay marriage thing with a born again xian, watching her twist and struggle to maintain her justification for being against it was fascinating all by itself.
the original thought I had was to take someone (like Penn Gillette or maybe Daniel Dennett) and have them sit in on a debate/conversation between a religious leader and a Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens type and record from the perspective of a person trained in critical thinking, capable of spotting fallacies and biases as well as a high level of intelligence and compassion.
I find it hard to believe someone like the woman I was talking to would not be deeply affected by the experience. it was completely obvious she was incapable of critical thinking on even the most basic level, how could you not be changed by experiencing the direct thoughts of a much more capable mind?
take the opposite approach, imagine you are the one plugging directly into the brain of a fundamentalist, how would that experience affect you?
that is a good question, hard to answer but assuming you were 100% straight in the first place I would say you are still 100% straight but with an actual instead of theoretical understanding of the experience. this is the type of answer/question I was kind of looking for as alternatives to my thoughts. I am not sure if its a fair comparison to my ideas though. emotions and physical sensations are a part of the experience but I am specifically talking about someone with little knowledge or experience with the ability to reason and make complex connections being exposed to them in a way that makes them 100% clear
(edit to add) We have a few posters on this board who fall into the category of incapable of logic or clear thought, most will know who I am talking about without any names being posted because it is so bloody obvious with every word they write.
Do they feel the other person’s emotional state? Because when it comes to God, it’s not about how much you know. It’s about the personal experience.
I would love to spend a little time in the head of someone who has studied all there is to know about the universe. It would be amazing to have access to all that knowledge without actually studying.
But if the same person were to enter my little experience, lacking all that academic information, I think more than a few would be reluctant to leave. Because my life is so joyful. I wrenched my back a few days ago and I work in a job that is pure hell this time of year, and yet I am joyful. I was not always this way.
From this, though, you appear to have inferred that all people of a religious nature are utterly incapable of logic - don’t you think that might be a bit of an overgeneralisation?
But I still think the flaw in all this (even assuming your premises) is that someone as mentally incapable as you describe, exposed to the pure crystal clear thinking of some super-hero of reason and cognition, is just going to be confounded by the experience - they will not have the ability to properly receive the information.
Someone, long ago, wrote a science fiction story in which the Golden Rule was made into a natural law: people actually felt what they inflicted on others. If I belt you one in the jaw…my jaw hurts no less than yours does. If I simply feel emotional hatred for you…I feel emotional hatred for myself to the same degree.
The technology in the OP could lead to something similar. For instance, it might be that every child, as part of his socialization and training to become a civilized adult, might be exposed to the mind of a Good Person, and to the minds of various Bad Persons.
It might make a more profound impression on a young mind than merely reading the words of good people (and bad.)
I think the technology would broaden the horizons of civilized people. We’d have a wider understanding of “us.” The concept of “others” – those weird people with weird ways and weird beliefs – would be pushed much farther back.
(I suspect, however, that this “frontier” would also harden. Once someone is perceived to be “other,” they would also be anathema. A little like child molesters in today’s society. We understand – kinda – what motivates them, but we reject them in the harshest possible terms.)
I agree. I think the believer would look at my mind a say how cold and unenlightened I am that I can’t instinctively feel god’s love.
I think it would help in certain cases where incorrect motives are applied to others. The gay/straight example would be a perfect place for this in that homophobes could see that Gays feel the same love for their partners as straights do and it isn’t just deviant perverse sexuality. Pro-lifers would realize that pro-choicers aren’t reveling in the deaths of babies, and pro-choicers will realize than pro-lifers generally aren’t hating women. But I don’t think either of them would be convinced to change their mind.
I would think you would still be hetero sexual. You would remember a different state of consciousness in which you found a same sex person attractive, but you don’t now. Think of it like the worst possible case of beer goggles.
Your sense of self might go into suspension. Or, you might, instead, experience both senses of self as a kind of overlay. Either way, the immediacy wanes when the machine is turned off, and you only retain the benefit of the experience as a memory.
But that’s still plenty! Think of all the books you’ve read, or movies you’ve seen. The “experience” is gone; all you have is the memory. But that memory is a big part of what you are now; it has shaped your personality.
(I had an old Philosophy prof who tried to prove that ESP is impossible. Say you have a thought, and I use my mind-reading powers to know it. Well, it’s now my thought, not yours. So mind-reading can’t exist. I was the only one in the class to point out that, by his reasoning, all forms of communication are impossible, since communication traditionally involves the transfer of one person’s thoughts to another person via a medium such as speech of writing. Well, if I can only receive “my thoughts” and never “your thoughts,” um… Who are we typing messages to, now?)
you can’t have someone elses experience.
if you could, it would become ‘your’ experience anyways, since youre now the one experiencing it…
(in someone else body by means of some pixie waving a magic wand i’m presuming??)
but seriously, i think it’s best to approach debates with the attitude of sharing information, and different viewpoints in order to mutually benefit, and not only to
1] keep ones own world-view intact
2] prove the other guy wrong
Since what one feels is utterly private, unless very strong filters could be instituted (which are technologically much much harder than just “dump the whole shebang in” kind of connection) such technology would not become widespread except maybe as pornography.
And therein lies the rub, I suspect. Our whole being is not a part of our sensory input; we are a memory to ourselves. If you have a real memory of being someone else, then it seems to me that you’ve become, at least in some small part, that person. That might be very confusing. If you toned it down until you only had vague memories of having felt otherwise than you do now, I think it just would not be very profound.
I dunno. I wouldn’t want to be dogmatic either way. I’ll just note that I have identified very strongly with any number of fictional characters. I have memories (part of the reading/viewing illusion, of course) of being them, being with them, experiencing what they experienced, etc. So, if a “real” mental experience transfer were of the same degree of realism as a really good reading/viewing experience, it could be pretty darned profound indeed.