Regarding evidence
Offline How do we know quarks exist? There is no direct observations of quarks. But there is indirect evidence that is expected to be there based on theoris of physics. Becuase these theories are remarkably consistent, we safely conclude that quarks are real.
Does evil exist? Is there any evidence that evil is real? I can give a definition of evil - pleasure derived from intentional harm to an innocent. And I don't have to look too hard to find examples of this. And yet there is great argument over whether or not evil is objectively real. Which seems odd. Not only can I give a defintion of evil, and find examples of evil, I can also give examples of the effects of evil (PTSD in a sexually abused child). So why is a quark considered objectively real, but evill is still argued over?
- Login to post comments
The principle Occams Razor does not suggest that the simplest explanation is the one using the fewest words. It suggests that the issue should be examined with the fewest assumptions possible.
Evil, as has been discussed at length, is a subjective description of actions based purely on personal perception. Attempting to sum up the question at hand with an assumption is actually farthest from Occams Razor.
The physical and psychological damage done to the victim is objective, not subjective. How is it in any way subjective?
My Artwork
Fact 1: The neuronal net in your head consists of synapsis. Synapsis are the the contacts between nervouse cells (molecular structures). To get a connection between nervous cell A and nervous cell B, one of the cells has to create a neurotransmitter, let's say cell A. When this neurotransmitter is emitted from the cell, it established a connection with cell B (Synapsis A-B is established). This is how a neuronal net works basically. Any highschool biology book, should back that up. Just look up Synapsis or Neurotransmitters (Dopamine, Serotonine etc.)
Short: The connections in our brain are moleculare structures.
Fact 2:For quantum mechanical effects to occour in our brain, we would need much more energy. For observing an the Tunnel-effect with a hydroniumnuclid (the core of a hydronium atom), we are already needing energy levels that are in the range of nuclear radiation. (Look up alpha-radiation in a physics book) Not to imagine, getting a whole molecule to do that. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle applys to scales like neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons or even quantums, but not to whole molecules. At least not, until they reach high energy values (moving very fast)
Which quantum mechanical effect should apply in that neuronal net? The Photoeffect? The Comptoneffect? Come on!
Or I could say: Zeus does.
Occams Razor means, that of all theories, that explain the same fact, the simplest should be favoured. Why does Occam not favour Zeus? Because it doesn't explain that process. In the first case, I can derive statements from and check them, I can falsify my statements, whereas the second case, contains actually no statement.
It interfers with wavefreaks example, that although, nobody has ever seen a quark, we have scientific evidence for its existence. After that he made the remark, that the existence of an evil act is evidence for evil itself.
All I try to point out is: No matter, what my definition of a quark is, the experiment that indicates its existence, will always have the same result. While in the child rape example, changing the definitions effects the result.
Your fallacy is to assume, that the existence of the observed species is something desirable. Who says so that it is? Imagine, the observed species is a babaric nazi society, that just hasn't yet developed the ability to enslave the whole universe.
My new kazuyan religion is: If you are being raped by me, then you will receive eternal happieness in your afterlife. If you don't get raped by me, you will be doomed and suffer eternally.
I only need to find a child, that I can indoctrinate enough with that shit and it will be happy, getting raped by me.
Please. Rattling on about synapses is not citing a source. Here's a source:
Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can
Henry P. Stapp
Theoretical Physics Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
U.S.A.
Link:
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html
My Artwork
Not Found
The requested URL /v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html was not found on this server.Hmmm.
Link works for me. Anybody else have trouble with it? I see you have a weird character at the end of the UR. Try removing it.
My Artwork
It is not required that the existence of the observed species is desirable beyond that species for the morality of the observed species to be based in their continued existence. In fact, it is impossible as this would then require that there was a basis for grounding that desirability, or good, and we would be working towards an infinite regress. That the survival of a given species is desirable for that species is something that is inherent to the given species.
A society is not a species. If the species was a species whose survival was somehow benefited by barbarism (which would almost certainly not be a social species as barbarism seems to be counter productive to societies and social species need socities) then I am sure their good and evil would differ greatly from human's good and evil.
Certainly it does, just as the fact that our perception of reality relies on subjective intepretation does not render the existence of objective reality irrelevant.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
That's not Occham's Razor... "Do not unnecessarally multiply your entities" means that when confronted with one way or explaining something and that way and another tacked on as well... tick with the most parsimonious explanation. In this case... choosing between natural laws, and natural laws + the supernatural... go with the former.
Okay, here the repaired link:
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html
Maybe you should have read your own source before. Then you would have known, that my opposing points are mentioned in it.
That's exactly what I said before, when I mentioned, that molecular structures are simply too large.
And when the author later describes:
I found a nice short article:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v61/i4/p4194_1
So my question is still valid. What quantum effect should there be in our brain, that has an important effect on our conciousness?
I never claimed that conciousness was quantum mechanical only that the issue was undecided. So you and I can trade citations all day long, subsequently proving my point.
My Artwork
Well, that's your definition. You simply define that it is inherent. But nobody needs to go with your definition, there is no magic thing that says so. Morality is man-made. And because it is man-made, I can always come up with a morality system, that is complety the opposite of yours.
Those members would look forward to be killed. In fact, some chrsitians look forward to the apocalypse. From there it is not far, to say: let's lend god our hand and cause the apocalypse, so anybody can enjoy our fabulous lord. YAAAAYYYYYY!
So what's the effect of that objective morality that nobody can perceive? I mean, if there is no effect then it doesn't matter.
I'm a bit late here, but this happens to be a topic I'm really interested in.
First, I'd like to point you to this page on the first 100 aphorisms of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.
He looks at the roots of language and what defines meaning.
The suggestion is that to understand language we should observe how we use it in real life. Now your statement here seems to think that social concepts should share properties with physical concepts like 'existence'.
Why? Why should it be a 'thing'?
When we say 'hello', are we using our words to refer to a 'thing' or does the word have a different purpose in this case.
I think the difference is that 'evil' can be used like a noun.
There seems to be a wide assumption in our language that nouns can only be validly used to refer to physically existing things.
We refer to numbers as nouns.
When you were taught to count, were you shown objects and told "that's a 1" or were you simply taught how to use number concepts correctly, i.e. count in the correct order, add correctly.
Concepts of the mind are also noun-like concepts (e.g. beliefs and desires) that don't appear to be physical existents.
Using language can be equated to playing a game, and the rules will depend on the game that we are playing. Sometimes the noun is used to refer to an existing object. Sometimes it plays a different purpose. Anyway, I'll be interested in your thoughts on the link.
GAH! More to read. I'll take a look at it. That's one reason all this stuff is both fascinating and frustrating. Every question seems to spawn ten more. Hence the popularity of reductionism.
My Artwork
Well, may I remind you of your post?
You made that statement, so the burden of proof is yours to show that thinking has to be explained with quantum mechanics. Regarding that I explained you why the scale is actually not small enough, you actually need to come up with a quantum mechanical effect in the brain that has an impact on our neuronal net. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to describe neuronal nets with simply classic physics and mathematics. Both, your posts and your cited article give no evidence that a quantum level approach is needed.
"Seems short sighted" is not the same as "is short sighted". I made no positive claim. Last I checked there wasn't even a universally agreed upon definition for conciousness.
What I find interesting is that you can "remove" the macro from the micro but you can't remove the micro from the macro. Quantum mechanics holds everything together. I could in principle remove galaxies one by one from the unvierse up until there was only one, then stars from the last one, then planets, alll the way down the scale. But remove quantum mechanics and it all goes poof.
My Artwork
But, if my definition of morality having an actual objective basis is the correct definition then good and evil do exist. So, if this is the case, then if your definition does not coincide with my definition then your moral system would not coincide with actual morality. I can make up my own reality, too. If it does not coincide with actual reality this does not mean that actual reality does not actually exist. It simply means that my made up reality is incorrect.
As to the continued existence of a species being good for that species, that is not something that I just make up. It is axiomatic. Explain to me how not continuing to exist can be good for a species. It can't, because there would be nothing for it to be good for.
For them it is desirable that they survive.
Your begging the question of morality being subjective here. Whether or not they consider it desirable from their societal value system has nothing to do with whether it is actually good for them or not. It is not good for them because it is desirable from their point of view, but because it is necessarily desirable for them if they are to exist, whether they consider it to be or not. If their value system was contrary to what is good for them that would not change what is good for them. They would surely meet with extinction.
But a society requires a species. What is good for a given society may not be good for a species, but without the species there could be no society so we must primarily consider what is good for the species if we are to consider what is good for the society, or more accurately, what a good society is.
What they believe is true has no bearing on what is true. If they believed this there would be none of the society left to believe it. What they consider good for them would therefor be obsolete and irrelevant.
One, or a society, can have an agenda that runs contrary to what is good for the species. I do not dispute this. One can even create a moral system off the top of their head. But this does not mean that their moral system is actually good for them, or that their moral system is actually moral.
But being that there is no afterlife we can obviously see that such a moral system is not good.
The same as the effect of that objective reality nobody can perceive. We work through ways of coming to perceive it as best we can and work from that best possible understanding.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
You said that the rape is evidence of evil. I am saying, agian, that evil is a purely subjective idea. Your opinion that evil exists is not sufficient for a base assertion. Hence, adding it to the equation is farthest from Occams razor.
a)My first name is Bill. Not a 'she'.
b)I did not say nothing should be considered valid. In fact, many times I said that since I can only interact with the world as my perceptions define it, I must consider it valid when interacting with it. What I said was that nothing can be considered indubitable. Nothing is beyond doubt. Everything can, and periodically should, be questioned. This is the one of the central concepts behind the scientific method.
Considering the many cultures that have practiced human sacrifice over the centuries, it wouldn't surprise me much if one was found that like to skin the sacrifices. Vivisection's not unknown, either. All those tales of human sacrifice that involves pulling out the still-beating heart? That's vivisection (cutting them open to display their innards while they're still alive) of a sort. And those societies didn't consider such acts evil.
If someone favors the idea of an absolute morality, then no doubt such actions likely would be considered evil, and those societies immoral. But your assumption that failing to consider such things evil is sociopathic is demonstrably false. Strictly, given the societal acceptance of such things, objecting to such behavior as a member of that society would be sociopathic.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
But that's not an issue of morality at all. From a biological standpoint, the survival of a given species is the primary goal of that species. Screw good, evil, moral, or immoral, from the standpoint of the species, which is not a societal construct, but a biological one, the survival and continuance of the species is paramount. It is so desirable that all other goals (if there even were other goals from a biological standpoint), added together and multiplied by infinity, would still come in second.
Biologically, it is to them. No matter what their higher brain functions say.
Their value system is irrelevant. Biology doesn't care if you like cresents, crosses, or calculators. However the first one of their race got born, hatched, meiosed, budded, or what have you into existence, from the standpoint of the species, there is nothing more important than that that species continue to reproduce.
See, there's your mistake. You're working in different terms and claiming they're interchangeable. They're not.
The New York Yankees win the World Series. They decide (however stupidly) that they don't ever want anyone to ever win the World Series again. So they decide to try to kill off Major League Baseball. The New York Jets and the NFL decide they want the land in the Bronx that Yankee Stadium occupies, so they decide to help.
Killing off Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it might be to the Yankees, is not desirable to Major League Baseball. Killing of Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it is to the NFL, remains undesirable to MLB. Even if every human being on the planet decided that Major League Baseball should die, it would STILL not be in the interests of Major League Baseball. Period.
No matter how nihilistic the goals of a society might be, it is desirable, and in fact, is the primary goal of a species to continue to exist. One might even say it is the raison d'etre for the species. A species exists in order to continue existing.
In fact, I'll go a step further and give you the answer to one of those Grand Questions of the Universe, the one everyone knows and most folks refuse to accept:
The Meaning of Life is Life. Why are we here? To be here. Morality, biologically speaking, is always secondary to mortality.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
And how is it that societal issues are not part of biological evolution. This smacks of the dualism that posits the existence of a soul. You cannot separate our society from our biology. We are what we are precisely because our biology evolved this way. A peacock waving it's feathers is biology, but a model strutting down a runway is society? A weaver bird builds a fancy nest and a yuppy buys a McMansion. A ram locks horns with a rival and the U.S. bombs Iraq.
My Artwork
And I would go on to say that this is what we are addressing when we ask moral questions and form moral systems, whether we realize it or not. There is a what's good and what isn't that exists in relation to our species. One of those goods is stable societies as we are a social species. This is how societies play a part in moral understandings. We need to get along to survive.
When we ask whether or not a particular act is good we are asking a question that is referencing something with the term good. We have evolved to view these type of questions from a particular perspective, that of our main goal, survival. That we may not have the objective perspective necessary to infallibly say act X is a good act and act Y is evil does not mean that there is not a fact of the matter. And just because we must create moral systems and answer moral questions from a subjective viewpoint does not mean that there isn't an objective moral value for any particular act. We can attempt to find this value in the same way we attempt to ascertain what objective reality is from our subjective viewpoint of reality.
What I get from those who say morality is subjective is that moral questions have no answers removed from any particular persons perspective, which makes me wonder where they think we get the questions. What do they think we are attempting to determine when we consider whether or not a particular act is good? Is it arbitrary? Or aren't we making reference to something? Certainly we aren't just considering societal norms when categorizing acts. If that were the case we would have no basis by which to think any act that was considered by our society to be good might not actually be so. We could say that we don't consider it good from our subjective viewpoint, but if we aren't referencing anything with the term good then we aren't saying anything that should be of importance to anyone else.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I never said it wasn't part of the greater whole, that our decisions and societies aren't shaped by evolution and biology. Rather, they are ephemera. They are the difference between whether a bird eats this worm or that one: In the end, as long as the bird breeds, the decision is moot.
As long as we continue to breed, biology cares not whether we pay for it in dollars, rubles, yen, or love and devotion. Only that we breed.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
No, but it does alter whether the behavior is sociopathic.
Societies can be immoral, too.
Re: Redefining cruelty. I'd prefer we don't.
But as far as the activities of Unit 731 go, consider: This was a small group, within a larger society. Maybe those few didn't consider it an act of evil. Maybe (more likely) they considered it a necessary evil. (ie: "Sure, it's morally not on stable footing, but it's the service of a greater cause: nationalism."
Well, first, let's point out that marriage as young as 12 (and I don't mean legal arrangements, I mean actual 'ok, here's your wife' marriage) hasn't been exactly uncommon in our history. I'd say age of consent itself has a lot to do with a society and how it prepares its young to be sexually mature.
But assuming you're talking about 'gimme that eight-year old' type pedophilia, no, I wouldn't change my views to consider that moral. I'd rather be sociopathic.
As I said, I'm of the belief that societies can be immoral, too.
No worries, just clearing it up.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
My Artwork
Which is a perfect example of society's interests (over the last hundred years, for example) not serving the species' interests.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid