Mephistopheles?

[SolitaryWalker]

Would you sell your soul for knowledge of the universe or the sublime ability to learn?

[Krill]

No, only because I value my autonomy.

It sure would it be tempting though.

[PiccoloNamek]

Yes, because in reality there is no such thing as a soul, so Mephi would be getting ripped off and I would get what I wanted.

[HilbertSpace]

I chose Yes.

Metaphorically speaking, I think that a lot of us would be accused by some of doing just that.

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

this is a strange question to ask someone.

[lbloom]

Would you sell your soul for knowledge of the universe or the sublime ability to learn?

Could I perceive sublimity without a soul?

[SolitaryWalker]

Could I perceive sublimity without a soul?

Pretend that you believe in the soul, and then you can decide.

[fripping]

continuously learning while keeping my soul sounds a little better.

knowledge of "everything" if there is such a thing, is more than our little ant-brains can handle. . . well, would it be all knowledge in an ant brain or would i also be able to exchange it for a god-sized vessel to hold it all in?

hesh wants to have a tiger-robot-god-brain.

[dunee]

As for all of it being too much for our brains- if soul, being composed "of all", managed to fit in our puny bodies, wouldn't knowledge of all fit too?

Assuming soul is composed of the all: since those who know the all (or nearly all) rather than depending on soul (being the all) would be much more wary of taking abrupt or futile actions, autonomy is cut off of their/our own volition. Mephistopheles doesn't even have to do anything.

As Hilbertspace mentions, some of us would be putting ourselves through the same route anyway in a lifelong attempt to learn all, and I agree. I think I'd be one of them, so I might as well take the deal.

[Helios]

Oh hell no! But, perhaps for the drive to do something with said knowledge.

[SolitaryWalker]

Oh hell no! But, perhaps for the drive to do something with said knowledge.

Would you sell your soul on the promise of you becoming omnipotent on top of omniscient in return?

[Krill]

Would you sell your soul on the promise of you becoming omnipotent on top of omniscient in return?

Oh yeah! Being omnipotent would mean I could get my soul back pronto!

Or make myself a new one.

I certainly wouldn't be accountable to old Mephisto anymore.

[SolitaryWalker]

Oh yeah! Being omnipotent would mean I could get my soul back pronto!

Or make myself a new one.

I certainly wouldn't be accountable to old Mephisto anymore.

But what if there was still God, also omnipotent? Wouldnt you then think that there is something fishy about that and you wouldnt really be omnipotent as only one being can be and God cant renounce his?

[Krill]

But what if there was still God, also omnipotent? Wouldnt you then think that there is something fishy about that and you wouldnt really be omnipotent as only one being can be and God cant renounce his?

Then Mephisto wouldn't be holding up his end of the deal, and his claims to my soul would be forfeit.

[SolitaryWalker]

Then Mephisto wouldn't be holding up his end of the deal, and his claims to my soul would be forfeit.

You wont have a choice after you've dealt it. Once its done, its done doesnt matter if he was honest or not.

[Helios]

But what if there was still God, also omnipotent? Wouldnt you then think that there is something fishy about that and you wouldnt really be omnipotent as only one being can be and God cant renounce his?



If that was the case than I never would have been omnipotent, therefore I would have been tricked, and the deal void.


Oh, shit I just comited the original sin all over again!


Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."




Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."



Hmmm, maybe Seawolf is the devil?

[Krill]

You wont have a choice after you've dealt it. Once its done, its done doesnt matter if he was honest or not.

Ok, there's an implicit assumption: that soul exchanges are performed contractually and that both parties are bound to hold up their ends of the bargain otherwise their benefit is forfeit. If this assumption is not implicit, then what in the devil would possess me to exchange my soul for anything if he could lie through his teeth about it and not end up giving me a penny? In which case, unless you expect a demographic of fools, why ask the question at all?

[SolitaryWalker]

Ok, there's an implicit assumption: that soul exchanges are performed contractually and that both parties are bound to hold up their ends of the bargain otherwise their benefit is forfeit. If this assumption is not implicit, then what in the devil would possess me to exchange my soul for anything if he could lie through his teeth about it and not end up giving me a penny? In which case, unless you expect a demographic of fools, why ask the question at all?

What made you think that Mephistopheles would keep that implicit assumption in mind? Maybe he will trick you, for he is a devil after all.

[Helios]

You wont have a choice after you've dealt it. Once its done, its done doesnt matter if he was honest or not.



Hmmmm, your line of thinking seems to be the same as outlined in the Biblical story, Eve rebeled and tried to take the knowledge of God, but got duped into being subjected to the Devil.


I suppose you are a "bank robber" even if the vault is empty?

[Krill]

What made you think that Mephistopheles would keep that implicit assumption in mind? Maybe he will trick you, for he is a devil after all.

Right, well it's not much of a hypothetical then is it? You ought to alter your original post to ask if anyone would exchange their soul for the off-chance that Mephistopheles whimsically decides to give them anything at all.

[SolitaryWalker]

Right, well it's not much of a hypothetical then is it? You ought to alter your original post to ask if anyone would exchange their soul for the off-chance that Mephistopheles whimsically decides to give them anything at all.

This was implicit within the name of Mephistopheles.

[Krill]

This was implicit within the name of Mephistopheles.

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

[SolitaryWalker]

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

Mephistopheles was Goethe's satire on NTs. How its wildly ironic that despite their erudition they still dont know what trully matters in life.

[Krill]

Mephistopheles was Goethe's satire on NTs. How its wildly ironic that despite their erudition they still dont know what trully matters in life.

In most cases, people take hypotheticals to have outcomes that are certain, unless specifically stated to be uncertain. For instance, in ethical dilemma hypotheticals such as:

You and a friend are held hostage. The hostage taker tells you that you can shoot yourself to save your friend, or shoot your friend to save yourself. Which do you do?

In reality, it would not be safe to assume that (s)he would not merely blow the survivor away after taking pleasure in seeing a human being suffer severe mental stress at having to make such a choice. However, when presented with such a hypothetical, most people take it at face value to be a tool in order to compare the relative value of things: other's lives vs. your own.

Yours appeared to have the purpose of comparing how much people valued knowledge vs. their soul. It seems like you're attempting to see if NTs really do value something that doesn't "matter in life" (knowledge) in comparison with their soul (something that apparently does "matter in life"), but that is rendered ineffectual if one is incredibly unlikely to obtain knowledge to begin with.

For instance, if you're evaluating interest in a book, you ask: Would you pay 30 bucks for this book? Not: Would you pay 30 bucks for a 1/100 chance of getting this book? The former is a direct comparison of values and thus the most informative.

[SolitaryWalker]

Yours appeared to have the purpose of comparing how much people valued knowledge vs. their soul. It seems like you're attempting to see if NTs really do value something that doesn't "matter in life" (knowledge) in comparison with their soul (something that apparently does "matter in life"), but that is rendered ineffectual if one is incredibly unlikely to obtain knowledge to begin with.

.

I wasnt complaining. Goethe was.

[Autumn]

You wont have a choice after you've dealt it. Once its done, its done doesnt matter if he was honest or not.

This pretty much renders the OP question pointless...

As to stick with the assumption that both sides hold to their word:
I wouldn't sell my soul for ultimate knowledge cause chances are I was to find out that souls really existed, cannot be replaced onece sold and are of huge value (E.G.: everyone was granted ultimate knowledge after their death anyway plus extra "good things" providing they still have their souls).

[Faust06]

Assuming we have a soul, and we're discussing this literally, if Mephistoles had ownership of it I'd like to know what that would entail. Would it balance out, just like working a shit job for a good pay? Would gaining ultimate knowledge help in my independance from him?

Joking aside.. metaphorically, I don't know what exactly the soul is supposed to represent, but I think it has to do with morals. I wouldn't kill someone for cash for example, so I guess my answer would be no.

[Autumn]

Would you do as the Faust did?



...........................^^^^

Sorry dude, no second choices allowed...

[Faust06]

Fuck.

[SolitaryWalker]

This pretty much renders the OP question pointless...
).

Thats the choice that Goethe's faust had.

[HilbertSpace]

Thats the choice that Goethe's faust had.

No, amigo, Krill and Autumn are correct. Between this poll and the conservative poll (I saw that you posted others, but the topics didn't interest me enough to read them) you seem to have a tendency to pose a question that might lead to an interesting discussion, then lose your head during the discussion and change the meaning of the poll. The problem you posed is a staple of undergraduate philosophy discourse.

I do not believe that you originally meant the question in any way other than that believed by Krill - rather, I think you made an off the cuff remark about omnipotence, and got carried away after that.

This question should have been about the relative weighting between knowledge and bliss. Instead, rather than risk losing face after having made the omnipotence offer (or so it seems to me), you decided to invalidate the poll by changing the question. Instead of either saying "Oh, you're right - ha ha" or qualifying it with a modifier like "near-omnipotence" (can do almost everything, perhaps short of invalidating the diabolic agreement) you instead made the concession that the Devil was allowed to not fulfill his part of the bargain. It thus went from an interesting discussion down to a boring, one star version of the moralistic allegory about the monkey's paw. Either that,or it seems to be on par with the equally inane response of "I'd do it, but I'd cheat the Devil in the end." Both responses avoid the question of relative valuation, and their triteness would render them unworthy of analysis.

On that tangent, a more interesting question would be to challenge people to come up with what they think would be a valid wish, given the perversity of the paw in interpreting things literally, and against the best interests of the wisher.

In any case, if you truly intended to question as it is now being presented, then it was boring and without value (from my point of view) from the start. I do not think that I am giving you too much credit with my interpretation, but if I am I will make it a point to avoid voting or commenting on such things in the future.

[SolitaryWalker]

No, amigo, Krill and Autumn are correct. Between this poll and the conservative poll (I saw that you posted others, but the topics didn't interest me enough to read them) you seem to have a tendency to pose a question that might lead to an interesting discussion, then lose your head during the discussion and change the meaning of the poll. The problem you posed is a staple of undergraduate philosophy discourse.

I do not believe that you originally meant the question in any way other than that believed by Krill - rather, I think you made an off the cuff remark about omnipotence, and got carried away after that.

This question should have been about the relative weighting between knowledge and bliss. Instead, rather than risk losing face after having made the omnipotence offer (or so it seems to me), you decided to invalidate the poll by changing the question. Instead of either saying "Oh, you're right - ha ha" or qualifying it with a modifier like "near-omnipotence" (can do almost everything, perhaps short of invalidating the diabolic agreement) you instead made the concession that the Devil was allowed to not fulfill his part of the bargain. It thus went from an interesting discussion down to a boring, one star version of the moralistic allegory about the monkey's paw. Either that,or it seems to be on par with the equally inane response of "I'd do it, but I'd cheat the Devil in the end." Both responses avoid the question of relative valuation, and their triteness would render them unworthy of analysis.

On that tangent, a more interesting question would be to challenge people to come up with what they think would be a valid wish, given the perversity of the paw in interpreting things literally, and against the best interests of the wisher.

In any case, if you truly intended to question as it is now being presented, then it was boring and without value (from my point of view) from the start. I do not think that I am giving you too much credit with my interpretation, but if I am I will make it a point to avoid voting or commenting on such things in the future.


You just know that the devil (take him for what you will) tells you that he can make you know all if you give him your soul. You dont know if you have a soul but he tells you that you do and you can give it to him if you take all the knowledge in the world.

[HilbertSpace]

You just know that the devil (take him for what you will) tells you that he can make you know all if you give him your soul. You dont know if you have a soul but he tells you that you do and you can give it to him if you take all the knowledge in the world.

I would go further and say that answering the question properly requires that you accept (for the purposes of the question) that the soul exists. If you do not do so, you're again giving the target of the question a potential "out" that compromises the main thrust, which as I see it is to force them to acknowledge that they value happiness over knowledge, or vice versa.

In this sense, it is the same question that is raised by the story of Adam and Eve - to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, or to remain ignorant but to continue living in Eden. I always found the story of the Fall of Man inspiring, because of the choice made. Man chose, in the story, to live as a sapient being, rather than having the life of an animal - ignorance may be bliss, but we still choose wisdom. Even in the face of Divine retribution, we still choose to know.

There is no real moral dilemma, from my view. The soul does not exist. I am not at risk of Hellfire because I specialize in evolutionary biology. Yet, at the same time, I am choosing to not abdicate my critical faculties. I potentially invite existential angst rather than subscribing to what would be, to me, an artificial imposition of meaning via a socially acceptable mythology. So, in that sense, I did accept the offer, and constantly renew my contract with every choice I make.

[Autumn]

In this sense, it is the same question that is raised by the story of Adam and Eve - to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, or to remain ignorant but to continue living in Eden. I always found the story of the Fall of Man inspiring, because of the choice made. Man chose, in the story, to live as a sapient being, rather than having the life of an animal - ignorance may be bliss, but we still choose wisdom. Even in the face of Divine retribution, we still choose to know.


I always think of this story from the other way. Humans lost the "Eden" of animal-like existence because of the evolved ability to know. It is interesting that such a deep truth has been recognised so long ago.

I also find a paradoxon in the story: while man has not eaten the apple of the Tree of Knowledge he is unable to think about consequences :).

[SolitaryWalker]

So, in that sense, I did accept the offer, and constantly renew my contract with every choice I make.

What would happen after you have accepted, is once again, entirely up for speculation.

[HilbertSpace]

I always think of this story from the other way. Humans lost the "Eden" of animal-like existence because of the evolved ability to know. It is interesting that such a deep truth has been recognised so long ago.


I absolutely agree with this. Evolution does't have a moral quality to it. However, I do think that we constantly make a conscious choice between knowledge and ignorance in two ways. First, learning is difficult. Learning within the full meaning - with full integration of knowledge so as to avoid any kind of cognitive dissonance - is even more challenging. You have to constantly question what the impact of new knowledge is on all your existing models. Adjusting them takes work, and can mean sacrificing beliefs that are quite meaningful and important.

[

I also find a paradoxon in the story: while man has not eaten the apple of the Tree of Knowledge he is unable to think about consequences :).

Well, yeah.

:sadbanana:

[Ferrus]

Imagine selling your soul just to understand that everything came from nothing and thus means nothing. ;)

[Autumn]

Learning within the full meaning - with full integration of knowledge so as to avoid any kind of cognitive dissonance - is even more challenging. You have to constantly question what the impact of new knowledge is on all your existing models. Adjusting them takes work, and can mean sacrificing beliefs that are quite meaningful and important.


Wow, bright idea! Never thought of that. I mean I had the background knowledge of the mind constantly trying to avoid cognitive dissonance, but I didn't think about how this affects learning.
That's why I love INTPc :).

[SolitaryWalker]

Any more thoughts on this?

[CoHo]

nope

[Hustler]

Any more thoughts on this?
Yes, I have a thought. How is this thread rated two stars and not just one star? It's awful.

[Lurker]

How do potentially interesting threads become so boring? /rhetorical question

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes, I have a thought. How is this thread rated two stars and not just one star? It's awful.

How's three?

[demagogic_schizoid]

I thought the thread was going to be about Cats.

[Hustler]

How's three?
Even more outrageous.