Conversations with God

I don't see how that is a workable thought experiment. Are you saying that this person "believes" that he is better off leaving the cell? What is the basis for that belief? Aside from that, history is full of people that decide not to leave their comfort zone right along with people that venture out and take risks. Some for rational reasons, some irrational. Some are religious, some are not. So I assume this cell also full of a society of other people? Human interaction is a pretty significant need. I am trying to think of an alternative scenario in which ones needs are met entirely but am coming up short atm. The only things that spring to mind are ancestral tales of early hominids that ventured into the unknown but even then, there was more than likely some sort of need to do so. Why does he need to leave the cell if all his needs are met? It seems like you are saying there is no rational way to weigh pros and cons of relatively unknown actions and that the only way to do so is via blind faith or "belief". Is that accurate? If this hypothetical person has all their needs met, what is the rush? If needs are a nonissue, therefor making time a nonissue, why do you suggest that it is better to rush to a hasty conclusion based on some belief than it is to wait for more data or some other outside factor that forces your hand?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

It seems as though neither of us can actually do that because obviously, his curiosity is a need that cannot be met else we wouldn't be discussing the prospect of his departure from this cell. And if it is his curiosity that is the driving factor for his departure, then that is precisely scientific. "I wonder what happens if I do this" is not a phrase I am inclined to associate more with a religious person or some other person that values belief to such a degree. Everything is evidence to some degree so I'd posit that simply the act of being cognizant of your surroundings and using that information when coming to a decision automatically makes it a scientific approach. Does this person just suddenly get some mysterious urge yet is prohibited from investigating his surroundings? Does he never jiggle the door handle? Is there only complete silence? How does he get his food? Is he a vegan so he just has some grow lights and seeds? In the absence of EVERYTHING else, all these little things add up to some sort of evidence, albeit extremely circumstantial, and while I admit that I view faith and belief akin to putting on a blindfold and covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU", I doubt that you feel similarly. So the idea of some human person being completely isolated and locked in a cell while also having ALL their needs met is a completely foreign concept because to make it work, you need to assume supernatural shit. Or maybe I am just extraordinarily thick and terrible at thinking conceptually. I am not coming to that conclusion from this example. Further, I don't agree that it is evidence that just because you can make important decisions based on belief (or faith), you should. If this person is a loner and all his needs are met, of what importance is leaving this cell? is it important to him? Or is it important to us because, as outside agents, we know what he is missing out on?I apologize for getting hung up on this hypothetical if it derails the thread.