What would happen if you were omniscient?

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I think the weight of it all and the resultant sadness would kill anybody who had any kind of a soul.

In knowing everything you would transcend the realm of a human - that is, be saddened by death and loss, because;

a.) In the case of a spiritual cause, you know there are reasons that have lead up to/will end up in so that the current position is a necessity, or,

b.) In the case of a natural cause, you'd also know that this is the process that leads life through its course.

Of course, being "omniscent" means that there's a certain fatalistic aspect to everything (maybe deterministic so the next phrase is wrong?) so you'd have to go with the "a" position . . ..

I don't belive in God so the "spiritual cause" would be lost on me.What would weigh on me and more heavily than I could bear is the sense of responsibilty I carry with me in everyday life for those who's paths cross mine and my desire to try to make people's days a bit easier or brighter if even in a small way.

Well, in knowing everything you know what all the outcomes are - stemming from not a spiritual position, but a deterministic view . . . you'd still know everything that's going to happen and you're helpless to change it.

Think of it like this.

X+Y+4=Q

The problem is the present, and the solution is the future - if you know all the variables, you'd automatically know the answer, right? Now, it'd be much, much much more complicated in real life, but if you knew all the variables in the equation, you're going to come up with a single answer regardless of what you tried to do. Such is determinism.

If you say something like "but I have free will" - think of it like this - if all you have is free will, then let's use this example - you go to a restaurant one day, and you have the tuna salad - which is absolutely disgusting. The next day, you go to the same restaurant - would you have the Tuna Salad again? If it was completely governed by free will, all it would result is in absolute chaos - you'd randomly pick things out of the menu and eat them, regardless of how much like/hate the food. And you can't compromise and say that both are in control at the same time - i.e. use the restaurant example:

Why did you go to the restaurant?
-Because you were hungry,
-Because you did not want to cook,
-Because you are financially secure enough to go out and eat once in a while,
-Because your hous is too far away,
-You had a date,
-etc.

Now, if you werent hungry, didn't like to eat out and enjoyed cooking your food all the time, would you go out and eat at the restaurant? Not bloody likely. Like I said, if you know all the variables in life to the smallest detail and know how it will affect you, i.e. omniscent, you'd know the only answer available.

On another note, just by saying that you're omniscent entails you'd know the only way that things could happen. If you knew all the possible variations, you'd know what path someone would inevitably take - the same applies to you. You'd know what you'd do because you're now omniscent, and there's nothing you can do to change that. And you'd know it yourself because you're omniscent, not only of everything else, but also yourself as well.

He asked what it would be like to be omniscent, not omnipotent. That has a whooole different set of implications.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Oh, to add to this, being "fatalistic" (the spiritual/religous spin) simply adds 'intent' to this - god has made the solutions and has tweaked the variables so that the answer'd fit, and the determinist argues that the variables, given to us naturally, tweak the solution . . ..

I hope this helps.

edit: oh, and to add one more thing:

If a being could be omniscent, such a thing as "free will" has to be thrown out - otherwise even the possibility of being omniscent itself will be impossible, since being "omniscent" means "all-knowing".

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: tk149
I think you need to clarify which you mean:

1. I am omniscient which means that I know everything and can't block any of it out. Even though I know everything, I lack the ability to block it all out, and know that I lack that ability ---> goes insane in 0.0001 seconds, brain explodes.

2. I am omniscient, but I have to think about something to know about it (i.e. I have to "ask" myself a question to get an answer) ---> much more interesting possibilities...

Fvck, I'd hate to know what my ex-girlfriend is doing right now...OTOH, I could probably find 7 bisexual non-STD/non-ovulating women to have fun with...

This (#2) is not a case of being omniscent.

. . . third post in a row . . . I killed another one . . ..

 

[nan0bug]

I would make a lot more money and get laid a lot more often.

 

[Wag]

I would have thought of a much better answer than this one.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I think the weight of it all and the resultant sadness would kill anybody who had any kind of a soul.

In knowing everything you would transcend the realm of a human - that is, be saddened by death and loss, because;

a.) In the case of a spiritual cause, you know there are reasons that have lead up to/will end up in so that the current position is a necessity, or,

b.) In the case of a natural cause, you'd also know that this is the process that leads life through its course.

Of course, being "omniscent" means that there's a certain fatalistic aspect to everything (maybe deterministic so the next phrase is wrong?) so you'd have to go with the "a" position . . ..

I don't belive in God so the "spiritual cause" would be lost on me.What would weigh on me and more heavily than I could bear is the sense of responsibilty I carry with me in everyday life for those who's paths cross mine and my desire to try to make people's days a bit easier or brighter if even in a small way.

Of course, all the stuff I've said doesn't mean you can't feel bad about it . . . but it's just that you'd know about it beforehand . . . then would you really be "feeling bad"?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I knew you were going to ask this question

 

[Shockwave]

I'd smile knowing I could please any woman in the world in ways she had never thought possible, because I would know EXACTLY what she wanted.
Then a frown would come on my face...
I'd know about my mom and dad....
And I'd shoot myself in the head.

So, I'd omniscient for about 3n a half minutes.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
I'd smile knowing I could please any woman in the world in ways she had never thought possible, because I would know EXACTLY what she wanted.
Then a frown would come on my face...
I'd know about my mom and dad....
And I'd shoot myself in the head.

So, I'd omniscient for about 3n a half minutes.

ROFL! :beer:

 

[igowerf]

Originally posted by: dman
I'd rather be omnipotent. But I guess if I was omniscient I'd know enough to virtually be omnipotent, so, it wouldn't be bad I guess. As to what I'd do, 2 chicks at once. For starters.

Other than two chicks at once, I'd do nothing. Absolutely nothing. I'd sit on my ass all day and do nothing.

 

[crab]

I think I'd be a very troubled person.

 

[Alchemist99]

I would finally know what is in the secret sauce!

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Not sure about absolute knowledge though).

Power attracts the corrupt. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptable.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

thanks for your answers some are very intriguing and helpful

I personally think that a person would not be able to handle knowing everything (morals or not)
even if a person was able to tolerate knowing everything....i think that they would get bored knowing everything that will ever happen even in their own life......

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I think the weight of it all and the resultant sadness would kill anybody who had any kind of a soul.

In knowing everything you would transcend the realm of a human - that is, be saddened by death and loss, because;

a.) In the case of a spiritual cause, you know there are reasons that have lead up to/will end up in so that the current position is a necessity, or,

b.) In the case of a natural cause, you'd also know that this is the process that leads life through its course.

Of course, being "omniscent" means that there's a certain fatalistic aspect to everything (maybe deterministic so the next phrase is wrong?) so you'd have to go with the "a" position . . ..

I don't belive in God so the "spiritual cause" would be lost on me.What would weigh on me and more heavily than I could bear is the sense of responsibilty I carry with me in everyday life for those who's paths cross mine and my desire to try to make people's days a bit easier or brighter if even in a small way.

Well, in knowing everything you know what all the outcomes are - stemming from not a spiritual position, but a deterministic view . . . you'd still know everything that's going to happen and you're helpless to change it.

Think of it like this.

X+Y+4=Q

The problem is the present, and the solution is the future - if you know all the variables, you'd automatically know the answer, right? Now, it'd be much, much much more complicated in real life, but if you knew all the variables in the equation, you're going to come up with a single answer regardless of what you tried to do. Such is determinism.

If you say something like "but I have free will" - think of it like this - if all you have is free will, then let's use this example - you go to a restaurant one day, and you have the tuna salad - which is absolutely disgusting. The next day, you go to the same restaurant - would you have the Tuna Salad again? If it was completely governed by free will, all it would result is in absolute chaos - you'd randomly pick things out of the menu and eat them, regardless of how much like/hate the food. And you can't compromise and say that both are in control at the same time - i.e. use the restaurant example:

Why did you go to the restaurant?
-Because you were hungry,
-Because you did not want to cook,
-Because you are financially secure enough to go out and eat once in a while,
-Because your hous is too far away,
-You had a date,
-etc.

Now, if you werent hungry, didn't like to eat out and enjoyed cooking your food all the time, would you go out and eat at the restaurant? Not bloody likely. Like I said, if you know all the variables in life to the smallest detail and know how it will affect you, i.e. omniscent, you'd know the only answer available.

On another note, just by saying that you're omniscent entails you'd know the only way that things could happen. If you knew all the possible variations, you'd know what path someone would inevitably take - the same applies to you. You'd know what you'd do because you're now omniscent, and there's nothing you can do to change that. And you'd know it yourself because you're omniscent, not only of everything else, but also yourself as well.

He asked what it would be like to be omniscent, not omnipotent. That has a whooole different set of implications.

Please,I need cliff notes and a translator to follow what you just wrote,lol,knowing everything would drive me right over the edge,my brain is busy enough as it is

 

[BatmanNate]

There is some confusion in this thread with being "omnipotent" it seems. I would probably be tired, and sleep.

 

[Moonbeam]

One thing I can tell you is that the people who ask this kind of nit wit question generally need a shower, have pig pens for rooms and skid marks in their undies. Get yourself flogged and these kinds of questions will go away.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If I'd be omniscient without being omnipotent I'd kill myself fast. Imagine knowing everything that was wrong with the world, that is wrong with the world, and that will be wrong with the world, and not having the power to change it.

Knowing that you may be able to prevent a few of the things, but that you'll have to live with your choices, and that you already know which one you made and what consequences it has.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One thing I can tell you is that the people who ask this kind of nit wit question generally need a shower, have pig pens for rooms and skid marks in their undies. Get yourself flogged and these kinds of questions will go away.

good call for a person with 17,000 posts....thats wait 17x more than me.....
go have a intelligent conversation with yourself or one of your binge drinking buddies

 

[Chaotic42]

Edit: Oops, I thought you said omnipotent.

I would still get a kitten.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One thing I can tell you is that the people who ask this kind of nit wit question generally need a shower, have pig pens for rooms and skid marks in their undies. Get yourself flogged and these kinds of questions will go away.

Rotflmao,awesome post

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One thing I can tell you is that the people who ask this kind of nit wit question generally need a shower, have pig pens for rooms and skid marks in their undies. Get yourself flogged and these kinds of questions will go away.

Or are philosophy professors. Or possibly both. But this is enquiring about the simplest things, and in doing so brings out the greatest acheivements - this should be encouraged at all age levels, not discouraged - you, however, are just a close-minded asswipe.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Please,I need cliff notes and a translator to follow what you just wrote,lol,knowing everything would drive me right over the edge,my brain is busy enough as it is

Basically, if you were omniscent, you'd know everything there is to come and you also know that you can't do a damn thing.

And you could still feel bad, but you'd know about it in advance, so you wouldn't *really* "feel bad".

(On a sidenote, this brings up an interesting idea - in Tibetian Buddhism, you have to carve out wooden statues of Buddha [to sell as souveniers?] - the first one is of Buddha hunched over while sitting in the lotus position, weeping bitterly - when he first reached enlightenment, he instantly knew of all the suffering and pain of the world - he got over it later.)

 

[Howard]

Ms. Cleo.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One thing I can tell you is that the people who ask this kind of nit wit question generally need a shower, have pig pens for rooms and skid marks in their undies. Get yourself flogged and these kinds of questions will go away.

Or are philosophy professors. Or possibly both. But this is enquiring about the simplest things, and in doing so brings out the greatest acheivements - this should be encouraged at all age levels, not discouraged - you, however, are just a close-minded asswipe.

Followed by:

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Please,I need cliff notes and a translator to follow what you just wrote,lol,knowing everything would drive me right over the edge,my brain is busy enough as it is

Basically, if you were omniscent, you'd know everything there is to come and you also know that you can't do a damn thing.

And you could still feel bad, but you'd know about it in advance, so you wouldn't *really* "feel bad".

(On a sidenote, this brings up an interesting idea - in Tibetian Buddhism, you have to carve out wooden statues of Buddha [to sell as souveniers?] - the first one is of Buddha hunched over while sitting in the lotus position, weeping bitterly - when he first reached enlightenment, he instantly knew of all the suffering and pain of the world - he got over it later.)

I thought what he did later was his laundry.

I know I'm an asswipe and all, which may explain the lack of skid marks in my pants, but, just in the off chance that I might just have some minor philosophical curiosity about this question, could you please explain to me how it is that you, whom we can probably with some justification assume to be limited in your understanding, came to such didactic and definite certainty as to what the answer could be? See the thing I felt about this matter was that it was idle speculation. There is only one answer that applies. "I don't know and can't possibly imagine." Omniscience is so far from my conscious state that I can't possibly conceive what such consciousness would mean. Here's another clue. If you want to know what the Buddha experienced, experience it yourself. Your assumption that you know is a form of arrogance. With a great deal of effort and luck you may realize that you know nothing. And when you know you know nothing maybe you'll know everything.