All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:07 pm
Values are terms of relationship. Nothing is just, "good," or, "bad." There must first be some objective, purpose, end, or goal relative to which something is good or bad. You have never identified the objective or goal that mankind is supposedly good for, what purpose mankind's existence serves or end it achieves.
How come you cannot grasp the "objective, purpose, end, or goal relative to which something is good or bad" in my above statement plus I had already stated that many times which is,

"whatever acts that are net-positive to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity."
I missed out my often mentioned 'optimal' well being.
The objective, purpose, end or goal is the 'optimal well-being of the individual[s]' and that of humanity.

If all the individual[s] in the world do not strive optimize their well-being then it will effect the optimal well-being of humanity.
If killing of humans is a universal [evil], then the well-being of individual[s] will net-negative and therefrom a threat to the optimal well-being of humanity, the threat of the extinction of the species.
While killing of humans is an obvious evilness of >90%, any high frequencies of those acts of lesser degrees of evilness will still pose a threat to the individual[s] and that of humanity.

This is why the basic standard objective of each individual[s] is to breathe and survive optimally till the inevitable; while humanity will rely upon the principles of large number [now nearing 8 billion - there is limitation to this] to ensure its preservation.
Who decides what is, "optimal' well being?" Or, for that matter, what is the, "optimal well being?" Optimal for what end or purpose?

You are just replacing some mystical intrinsic, "good," with another mystical value term, "optimal well being." It identifies nothing.
Note the meaning of well-being,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being
Whatever the well-being it must be overridden by the principles of morality.

"Optimal" means doing the best one can within one's whatever existing constraints.

There is a wide range of things and acts that is considered 'good' in optimizing one's well-being.
The ability and ensuring one as breathing is an inherent good for all humans, thus objective, what is so mystical about it?
Whatever other 'good' in other cases is related to the above, i.e. nothing mystical about it.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:28 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:37 pm Response by owl of Minerva:

I am in agreement that intelligence is the mediating factor. That is why I stated that the Buddha identified with intelligence and not with the sense mind; identified with the strong versus the weak force. I thought I had made that point clear.
OK
I do not agree that Buddhism is theistic. Theo is the Greek word for God. I do not think the Buddha was or emphasized a theistic perspective. He advocated the Middle Way as the correct way to live. He was a human, living as a human who identified with intelligence, not the sensory mind. I have no quarrel with the Buddha or his teaching or way of life. It is an excellent philosophy of mind to follow but it is not a religion and the Buddha was not a Theist.

To be God-like is not to be God. As Muslims rightly say: No one can be God but God. A liberated; enlightened human can be one in Consciousness with the Intelligence in the cosmos and with the Intelligence that created the cosmos. This is a Christ or an Eastern Avatar. It is not the Buddha who espoused a philosophy of life. A Middle Way between opposites; the polarity between intelligence and sense mind.
Oops, sorry I made an omission. Meant to say that Buddhism is non-theistic.
Buddhism in general as practiced by the masses is recognized as a religion-in-general, but its core principles are non-theistic.
I think you also referred somewhere to physics as ‘just particles.’ It is much more than that. A biologist starts with things and works backwards. A physicist starts at the beginning and works forwards. In the process learns that time and space are things not absolutes. What comes first, a thing or an event. What causes an event to happen, what ends indeterminacy and pauses it into determinacy and what are the implications of that discovery. What moves time, is it energy or entropy. Physics is also likely to discover why the universe is calibrated for life’s existence.

Physics is the more interesting of all the sciences

We have some misunderstandings and some disagreements and may not find mutual ground but discussion helps to clarify our different worldviews.
I believe all the sciences start with empirical things and works backward. This is why Popper asserted all scientific truths are at best 'polished conjectures'.

As such Physics is doing just that with observations of the empirical physical world and working backward from the solid universes to atoms, particles and ending with nothing final. Physicists are still trying to find the ultimate particles or substance of reality and I believe they will never ever will find any thing that is ultimate.
The principle i.e. Kantian is there is no such real thing as a thing-in-itself existing independently of the human conditions.

Note Model Dependent Realism;
  • Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
    It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
    It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
    The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
    Wiki

It is true that science starts with empirical things and works backward so it is “polished conjectures.” Philosophy is different It thinks about things as Leucippus and Democritus did about the atom and The Atomists about the multiverse. They had nothing empirical to start with as the atom was not a phenomena that could be empirically focused on and neither was the multiverse. Physics is working at the point of emergence where virtual particles emerge in addition to working with ordinary particles. Also physics is theoretical as well as Applied. Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.

All science can do is focus on phenomena, unlike philosophy which uses abstract thought: thought experiments as Michael Faraday did and Einstein did. Einstein was not a scientific realist. That is why the run-of-the-mill scientist focusing on phenomena is not Einstein or Faraday, Leucippus or Democritus. If a philosopher was a realist he would be stymied. Science stemmed from philosophy’s thought experiments.

If the only focus is on models and their usefulness then we may never have had quantum computing. It had to be proposed to become a model; an imitation. Development and usefulness emerges. The theoretical is first,the model comes later. By the time there is a model it has little further information to impart, at which point is is useful.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:41 pm It is true that science starts with empirical things and works backward so it is “polished conjectures.” Philosophy is different It thinks about things as Leucippus and Democritus did about the atom and The Atomists about the multiverse. They had nothing empirical to start with as the atom was not a phenomena that could be empirically focused on and neither was the multiverse. Physics is working at the point of emergence where virtual particles emerge in addition to working with ordinary particles. Also physics is theoretical as well as Applied. Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.

All science can do is focus on phenomena, unlike philosophy which uses abstract thought: thought experiments as Michael Faraday did and Einstein did. Einstein was not a scientific realist. That is why the run-of-the-mill scientist focusing on phenomena is not Einstein or Faraday, Leucippus or Democritus. If a philosopher was a realist he would be stymied. Science stemmed from philosophy’s thought experiments.

If the only focus is on models and their usefulness then we may never have had quantum computing. It had to be proposed to become a model; an imitation. Development and usefulness emerges. The theoretical is first, the model comes later. By the time there is a model it has little further information to impart, at which point is is useful.
Btw, Einstein was a realist [philosophical and scientific]; that was why he could not accept the theories of Quantum Mechanics proposed by Bohr [anti-realist] and others.

It is a question of polishing a hypothetical model to be a model of theory [thesis].
If you agree with 'polished conjectures' then scientists also start with conjectural models i.e. hypothesis, then keep polishing it to generate its respective conjectural truths that achieved intersubjective consensus as objective scientific truths.
Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.
Yes.
Note the thread on,
Nagarjuna and QM
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34066
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:37 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:41 pm It is true that science starts with empirical things and works backward so it is “polished conjectures.” Philosophy is different It thinks about things as Leucippus and Democritus did about the atom and The Atomists about the multiverse. They had nothing empirical to start with as the atom was not a phenomena that could be empirically focused on and neither was the multiverse. Physics is working at the point of emergence where virtual particles emerge in addition to working with ordinary particles. Also physics is theoretical as well as Applied. Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.

All science can do is focus on phenomena, unlike philosophy which uses abstract thought: thought experiments as Michael Faraday did and Einstein did. Einstein was not a scientific realist. That is why the run-of-the-mill scientist focusing on phenomena is not Einstein or Faraday, Leucippus or Democritus. If a philosopher was a realist he would be stymied. Science stemmed from philosophy’s thought experiments.

If the only focus is on models and their usefulness then we may never have had quantum computing. It had to be proposed to become a model; an imitation. Development and usefulness emerges. The theoretical is first, the model comes later. By the time there is a model it has little further information to impart, at which point is is useful.
Btw, Einstein was a realist [philosophical and scientific]; that was why he could not accept the theories of Quantum Mechanics proposed by Bohr [anti-realist] and others.

It is a question of polishing a hypothetical model to be a model of theory [thesis].
If you agree with 'polished conjectures' then scientists also start with conjectural models i.e. hypothesis, then keep polishing it to generate its respective conjectural truths that achieved intersubjective consensus as objective scientific truths.
Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.
Yes.
Note the thread on,
Nagarjuna and QM
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34066
It is true that Einstein expected theories to have empirical credentials; to give an account of physical reality. From what is generally asserted, not just my opinion, he was no scientific realist. He may have found it hard to accept the theories of Bohr and others “saying God does not play dice with the universe.” It may be that he understood quantum mechanics would play havoc with his theory of relativity in relation to time.

I may have been thinking of a model as fait accompl rather than still in the theoretical stage. Now that you clarify it, I agree.

In relation to Nagarjuna, my own perspective is that what is real is Consciousness. Just as we dream at night and dream a world, our world is a dream. I do not perceive emptiness, rather Existence, Consciousness, Joy. That may not be the equivalent of Nirvana or emptiness, except in so far as both are devoid of qualities or thought.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:37 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:41 pm It is true that science starts with empirical things and works backward so it is “polished conjectures.” Philosophy is different It thinks about things as Leucippus and Democritus did about the atom and The Atomists about the multiverse. They had nothing empirical to start with as the atom was not a phenomena that could be empirically focused on and neither was the multiverse. Physics is working at the point of emergence where virtual particles emerge in addition to working with ordinary particles. Also physics is theoretical as well as Applied. Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.

All science can do is focus on phenomena, unlike philosophy which uses abstract thought: thought experiments as Michael Faraday did and Einstein did. Einstein was not a scientific realist. That is why the run-of-the-mill scientist focusing on phenomena is not Einstein or Faraday, Leucippus or Democritus. If a philosopher was a realist he would be stymied. Science stemmed from philosophy’s thought experiments.

If the only focus is on models and their usefulness then we may never have had quantum computing. It had to be proposed to become a model; an imitation. Development and usefulness emerges. The theoretical is first, the model comes later. By the time there is a model it has little further information to impart, at which point is is useful.
Btw, Einstein was a realist [philosophical and scientific]; that was why he could not accept the theories of Quantum Mechanics proposed by Bohr [anti-realist] and others.

It is a question of polishing a hypothetical model to be a model of theory [thesis].
If you agree with 'polished conjectures' then scientists also start with conjectural models i.e. hypothesis, then keep polishing it to generate its respective conjectural truths that achieved intersubjective consensus as objective scientific truths.
Kant may be right as physicists find that events do not become things without an observer.
Yes.
Note the thread on,
Nagarjuna and QM
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34066
It is true that Einstein expected theories to have empirical credentials; to give an account of physical reality. From what is generally asserted, not just my opinion, he was no scientific realist. He may have found it hard to accept the theories of Bohr and others “saying God does not play dice with the universe.” It may be that he understood quantum mechanics would play havoc with his theory of relativity in relation to time.
Note Scientific Realism,
  • Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted.
    WIKI
As above, Einstein is a scientific realist, also a deist.
I may have been thinking of a model as fait accompl rather than still in the theoretical stage. Now that you clarify it, I agree.
In relation to Nagarjuna, my own perspective is that what is real is Consciousness. Just as we dream at night and dream a world, our world is a dream. I do not perceive emptiness, rather Existence, Consciousness, Joy. That may not be the equivalent of Nirvana or emptiness, except in so far as both are devoid of qualities or thought.
According Nagarjuna, Consciousness itself is empty based on the Buddhist Tetralemma.
To Nagarjuna even 'emptiness' is empty.

Re Consciousness is Real, note 'store-house consciousness [/b](ālāyavijñāna)',
  • The Eight Consciousnesses (Skt. aṣṭa vijñānakāyāḥ[1]) is a classification developed in the tradition of the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism.
    They enumerate the five sense consciousnesses, supplemented by the mental consciousness (manovijñāna), the defiled mental consciousness (kliṣṭamanovijñāna[2]),
    and finally the fundamental store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), which is the basis of the other seven.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses
Perhaps you can ask yourself and reflect deeper, why you are thinking as such, i.e. Consciousness is the really real. I suggest looking at the Psychology of the Existential Crisis within the individual.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:12 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:37 am
Btw, Einstein was a realist [philosophical and scientific]; that was why he could not accept the theories of Quantum Mechanics proposed by Bohr [anti-realist] and others.

It is a question of polishing a hypothetical model to be a model of theory [thesis].
If you agree with 'polished conjectures' then scientists also start with conjectural models i.e. hypothesis, then keep polishing it to generate its respective conjectural truths that achieved intersubjective consensus as objective scientific truths.

Yes.
Note the thread on,
Nagarjuna and QM
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34066
It is true that Einstein expected theories to have empirical credentials; to give an account of physical reality. From what is generally asserted, not just my opinion, he was no scientific realist. He may have found it hard to accept the theories of Bohr and others “saying God does not play dice with the universe.” It may be that he understood quantum mechanics would play havoc with his theory of relativity in relation to time.
Note Scientific Realism,
  • Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted.
    WIKI
As above, Einstein is a scientific realist, also a deist.
I may have been thinking of a model as fait accompl rather than still in the theoretical stage. Now that you clarify it, I agree.
In relation to Nagarjuna, my own perspective is that what is real is Consciousness. Just as we dream at night and dream a world, our world is a dream. I do not perceive emptiness, rather Existence, Consciousness, Joy. That may not be the equivalent of Nirvana or emptiness, except in so far as both are devoid of qualities or thought.
According Nagarjuna, Consciousness itself is empty based on the Buddhist Tetralemma.
To Nagarjuna even 'emptiness' is empty.

Re Consciousness is Real, note 'store-house consciousness [/b](ālāyavijñāna)',
  • The Eight Consciousnesses (Skt. aṣṭa vijñānakāyāḥ[1]) is a classification developed in the tradition of the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism.
    They enumerate the five sense consciousnesses, supplemented by the mental consciousness (manovijñāna), the defiled mental consciousness (kliṣṭamanovijñāna[2]),
    and finally the fundamental store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), which is the basis of the other seven.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses
Perhaps you can ask yourself and reflect deeper, why you are thinking as such, i.e. Consciousness is the really real. I suggest looking at the Psychology of the Existential Crisis within the individual.
We are in metaphysical territory here. I define metaphysical as what is beyond the physical: matter, forces, the electromagnetic field etc. Some may define it as an area beyond sense perception but still within the range of abstract thought; the forces, etc.

I could ask you why you think Consciousness is not real or that human consciousness is not derivative from Consciousness. Store-house consciousness appears to the equivalent of the subconscious mind; a container for past experiences and karmic action: very limited and very human.

With the “Psychology and Existential Crisis within the individual” you are staying within the limitations of the human which Reality is not limited to. To have existence without consciousness would be meaningless and of course if there is not existence there is nothing to be conscious of; so they are intertwined. .
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:12 am Perhaps you can ask yourself and reflect deeper, why you are thinking as such, i.e. Consciousness is the really real. I suggest looking at the Psychology of the Existential Crisis within the individual.
We are in metaphysical territory here. I define metaphysical as what is beyond the physical: matter, forces, the electromagnetic field etc. Some may define it as an area beyond sense perception but still within the range of abstract thought; the forces, etc.
Metaphysics is quite a loose term which generally involved the illusory that is beyond the physical, e.g. God, soul and the likes.
Where Metaphysics is to be relevant it must be within possible experience as its limit.
I could ask you why you think Consciousness is not real or that human consciousness is not derivative from Consciousness. Store-house consciousness appears to the equivalent of the subconscious mind; a container for past experiences and karmic action: very limited and very human.
Human consciousness that can be empirically verified and justified is real.
In the case of store-consciousness [as claimed by the yogacara schools] that is with reference to the ultimate absolute consciousness which is beyond the physical.
With the “Psychology and Existential Crisis within the individual” you are staying within the limitations of the human which Reality is not limited to. To have existence without consciousness would be meaningless and of course if there is not existence there is nothing to be conscious of; so they are intertwined. .
My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].
Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious paints.

To understand the underlying existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, one will have to cover evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, and the likes.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:18 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:12 am Perhaps you can ask yourself and reflect deeper, why you are thinking as such, i.e. Consciousness is the really real. I suggest looking at the Psychology of the Existential Crisis within the individual.
We are in metaphysical territory here. I define metaphysical as what is beyond the physical: matter, forces, the electromagnetic field etc. Some may define it as an area beyond sense perception but still within the range of abstract thought; the forces, etc.
Metaphysics is quite a loose term which generally involved the illusory that is beyond the physical, e.g. God, soul and the likes.
Where Metaphysics is to be relevant it must be within possible experience as its limit.
I could ask you why you think Consciousness is not real or that human consciousness is not derivative from Consciousness. Store-house consciousness appears to the equivalent of the subconscious mind; a container for past experiences and karmic action: very limited and very human.
Human consciousness that can be empirically verified and justified is real.

In the case of store-consciousness [as claimed by the yogacara schools] that is with reference to the ultimate absolute consciousness which is beyond the physical.
With the “Psychology and Existential Crisis within the individual” you are staying within the limitations of the human which Reality is not limited to. To have existence without consciousness would be meaningless and of course if there is not existence there is nothing to be conscious of; so they are intertwined. .
My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].
Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious paints.

To understand the underlying existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, one will have to cover evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, and the likes.
I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I agree with the concept of cognitive dissonance and the need to seek resolution and also agree with the ways of coping with it, or not coping, as the case may be. I also agree with what it takes to understand the existential crises. Buddhism as a philosophy, as way of life, is an effective way to deal with it, as it all starts with the mind and can only be dealt with by coming to terms with that reality and dealing with it. No point in saying it is evident God is dead or never existed in the first place. The Middle Way of negotiating a path between forces is rational and effective. It is evolution at the physic and spiritual level. Many believe evolution is physical only, that it ends there.

I disagree with you that Reality is confined to what is empirical; within the province of the physical:the body, the mental: intellect and sense mind. Many things that were not known, but nevertheless entered human consciousness through abstract thought experiments, and were discovered to exist even though they were not available either to sense perception or to the intellect, they were still found to be empirically real. But cognition has its limits.

The metaphysical in both our definitions is not empirical. Your definition that it is illusory because it is beyond matter and forces, not available to cognition; understanding through thought, experiences or the senses, is valid from your perspective that reality is limited to what can be cognized. Reality cannot be cognized. The mind can cognize inner and outer even to the further limits of abstract thought but no further. in addition to the external five senses that are available to cognition we also have an inner sense; perception. Reality is in the domain of perception an inner sense, not subject to the limitations of cognition which is a combination of sense perception and intellectual inferences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:18 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:37 pm
We are in metaphysical territory here. I define metaphysical as what is beyond the physical: matter, forces, the electromagnetic field etc. Some may define it as an area beyond sense perception but still within the range of abstract thought; the forces, etc.
Metaphysics is quite a loose term which generally involved the illusory that is beyond the physical, e.g. God, soul and the likes.
Where Metaphysics is to be relevant it must be within possible experience as its limit.
I could ask you why you think Consciousness is not real or that human consciousness is not derivative from Consciousness. Store-house consciousness appears to the equivalent of the subconscious mind; a container for past experiences and karmic action: very limited and very human.
Human consciousness that can be empirically verified and justified is real.

In the case of store-consciousness [as claimed by the yogacara schools] that is with reference to the ultimate absolute consciousness which is beyond the physical.
With the “Psychology and Existential Crisis within the individual” you are staying within the limitations of the human which Reality is not limited to. To have existence without consciousness would be meaningless and of course if there is not existence there is nothing to be conscious of; so they are intertwined. .
My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].
Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious paints.

To understand the underlying existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, one will have to cover evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, and the likes.
I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I agree with the concept of cognitive dissonance and the need to seek resolution and also agree with the ways of coping with it, or not coping, as the case may be. I also agree with what it takes to understand the existential crises. Buddhism as a philosophy, as way of life, is an effective way to deal with it, as it all starts with the mind and can only be dealt with by coming to terms with that reality and dealing with it. No point in saying it is evident God is dead or never existed in the first place. The Middle Way of negotiating a path between forces is rational and effective. It is evolution at the physic and spiritual level. Many believe evolution is physical only, that it ends there.

I disagree with you that Reality is confined to what is empirical; within the province of the physical:the body, the mental: intellect and sense mind. Many things that were not known, but nevertheless entered human consciousness through abstract thought experiments, and were discovered to exist even though they were not available either to sense perception or to the intellect, they were still found to be empirically real. But cognition has its limits.

The metaphysical in both our definitions is not empirical. Your definition that it is illusory because it is beyond matter and forces, not available to cognition; understanding through thought, experiences or the senses, is valid from your perspective that reality is limited to what can be cognized.
Reality cannot be cognized.
The mind can cognize inner and outer even to the further limits of abstract thought but no further. in addition to the external five senses that are available to cognition we also have an inner sense; perception. Reality is in the domain of perception an inner sense, not subject to the limitations of cognition which is a combination of sense perception and intellectual inferences.
What is real can only be empirical which is verifiable and justifiable.
Point is, what is not known but knowable must be empirically possible.

Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens someway in the galaxy one million light years away.
The above is possible because all the elements are empirically based, what is necessary to bring forth the evidences to verify and justify it empirically.
But empirical possibilities has degrees, thus due to our current resources I would predict the above empirically possibility at 0.001%.

"Reality cannot be cognized."
If you mean such a reality absolutely and eternally cannot be cognized, then it is not an empirical reality, as such is illusory.
If you mean such a reality is cognizable, then it has be an empirical reality.

So what is real is only empirical reality [known or possible to be known by inner or outer sense].
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:38 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:18 am
Metaphysics is quite a loose term which generally involved the illusory that is beyond the physical, e.g. God, soul and the likes.
Where Metaphysics is to be relevant it must be within possible experience as its limit.


Human consciousness that can be empirically verified and justified is real.

In the case of store-consciousness [as claimed by the yogacara schools] that is with reference to the ultimate absolute consciousness which is beyond the physical.


My point is the existential crisis generate an unconscious cognitive dissonance which is vey painful for the person, the drive for those effected to seek consonance to soothe this unconscious pain.

The inherent cognitive dissonance comes in degrees from high to low.
Those with high degrees of cognitive dissonance will cling to a personal God, e.g. the Abrahamic God and the likes. As such those who have clung to such a god to soothe their terrible pains will even kill those who threaten their clinging to a god. [this is very evident]
Those with lesser degree of cognitive dissonance will cling to a pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic God and the likes [e.g. store-consciousness].
Those who are non-theistic will seek out drugs to soothe their terrible unconscious paints.

To understand the underlying existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, one will have to cover evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, and the likes.
I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I agree with the concept of cognitive dissonance and the need to seek resolution and also agree with the ways of coping with it, or not coping, as the case may be. I also agree with what it takes to understand the existential crises. Buddhism as a philosophy, as way of life, is an effective way to deal with it, as it all starts with the mind and can only be dealt with by coming to terms with that reality and dealing with it. No point in saying it is evident God is dead or never existed in the first place. The Middle Way of negotiating a path between forces is rational and effective. It is evolution at the physic and spiritual level. Many believe evolution is physical only, that it ends there.

I disagree with you that Reality is confined to what is empirical; within the province of the physical:the body, the mental: intellect and sense mind. Many things that were not known, but nevertheless entered human consciousness through abstract thought experiments, and were discovered to exist even though they were not available either to sense perception or to the intellect, they were still found to be empirically real. But cognition has its limits.

The metaphysical in both our definitions is not empirical. Your definition that it is illusory because it is beyond matter and forces, not available to cognition; understanding through thought, experiences or the senses, is valid from your perspective that reality is limited to what can be cognized.
Reality cannot be cognized.
The mind can cognize inner and outer even to the further limits of abstract thought but no further. in addition to the external five senses that are available to cognition we also have an inner sense; perception. Reality is in the domain of perception an inner sense, not subject to the limitations of cognition which is a combination of sense perception and intellectual inferences.
What is real can only be empirical which is verifiable and justifiable.
Point is, what is not known but knowable must be empirically possible.

Thus I can speculate there are human-liked aliens someway in the galaxy one million light years away.
The above is possible because all the elements are empirically based, what is necessary to bring forth the evidences to verify and justify it empirically.
But empirical possibilities has degrees, thus due to our current resources I would predict the above empirically possibility at 0.001%.

"Reality cannot be cognized."
If you mean such a reality absolutely and eternally cannot be cognized, then it is not an empirical reality, as such is illusory.
If you mean such a reality is cognizable, then it has be an empirical reality.

So what is real is only empirical reality [known or possible to be known by inner or outer sense].

I agree with “what is real is only empirical reality (known or possible to be known by inner or outer sense)” My definition of empirical reality would be physical form; sensory mind; intelligence and individuality. What is not physical I will explain in a post to your “Will Science Kill Philosophy” I will be posting that response shortly and that should explain what I mean in more detail and give the reason I think Perception is the route not just to knowledge but also to understanding. Empirical knowledge is available to both science and philosophy, understanding is not.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:18 pm I agree with “what is real is only empirical reality (known or possible to be known by inner or outer sense)” My definition of empirical reality would be physical form; sensory mind; intelligence and individuality. What is not physical I will explain in a post to your “Will Science Kill Philosophy” I will be posting that response shortly and that should explain what I mean in more detail and give the reason I think Perception is the route not just to knowledge but also to understanding. Empirical knowledge is available to both science and philosophy, understanding is not.
Perception cannot be the sure route to knowledge. Note the cases of the various empirical illusions associated with the senses. So far what we know as illusions are only those we have analyzed and understood, e.g. bent stick in water, mirages, etc. But there could be still very subtle empirical illusions we have not uncovered so are accepted [rather deceived] as real.

Perception-proper only provide raw sensible data which could lead to opinions and beliefs but not objective knowledge.
To arrive at objective knowledge we need the the processes of the Understanding [intellectual and rationality] and judgments plus other necessary mental processes to organize the perceptions into knowledge.

I believe you have the wrong concept of what is Understanding-proper.
So scientific knowledge or philosophical knowledge which based on 'inferences' rely on the Understanding not as you claimed above.

Another point is, besides empirical illusions, there are also illusions from the Understanding, logic and those of Crude Reasoning.

The other concept is 'intuition' which grounds perception.
Without intuition there is no perception.

I believe any reference to 'knowledge' [justified true belief] must be reinforced with the knowledge of the whole process of cognition conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], where the scientific FSK is the standard.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:11 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:18 pm I agree with “what is real is only empirical reality (known or possible to be known by inner or outer sense)” My definition of empirical reality would be physical form; sensory mind; intelligence and individuality. What is not physical I will explain in a post to your “Will Science Kill Philosophy” I will be posting that response shortly and that should explain what I mean in more detail and give the reason I think Perception is the route not just to knowledge but also to understanding. Empirical knowledge is available to both science and philosophy, understanding is not.
Perception cannot be the sure route to knowledge. Note the cases of the various empirical illusions associated with the senses. So far what we know as illusions are only those we have analyzed and understood, e.g. bent stick in water, mirages, etc. But there could be still very subtle empirical illusions we have not uncovered so are accepted [rather deceived] as real.

Perception-proper only provide raw sensible data which could lead to opinions and beliefs but not objective knowledge.
To arrive at objective knowledge we need the the processes of the Understanding [intellectual and rationality] and judgments plus other necessary mental processes to organize the perceptions into knowledge.

I believe you have the wrong concept of what is Understanding-proper.
So scientific knowledge or philosophical knowledge which based on 'inferences' rely on the Understanding not as you claimed above.

Another point is, besides empirical illusions, there are also illusions from the Understanding, logic and those of Crude Reasoning.

The other concept is 'intuition' which grounds perception.
Without intuition there is no perception.

I believe any reference to 'knowledge' [justified true belief] must be reinforced with the knowledge of the whole process of cognition conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], where the scientific FSK is the standard.
Sense perception, inferences, abstract thought, or intuitions that can be true or false cannot be a true route to knowledge. Even though there is consensus and something becomes a theory it may hold for a time but there is no guarantee that it will hold forever.

Understanding that is based on inferences on any of the above is very tenuous.

There can be intuition based on data, inference, abstract thought or on inner perception but that is no guarantee that it is accurate. It might be totally false.

Perception that is based on Intuition that is not based on any of the above, is outside empirical time, is accurate universally over time and in any context is what is meant.

Intuitive Perception is based on the sixth sense; Intuition free from all of the above intermediaries between what is empirical and what is true; universally true, not time sensitive, true over time to the end of time. It is perceived to be accurate; there is no doubt about its veracity, it will stand the test of time, as it is outside temporal time. It is usually achieved by Awareness and Dispassion without prejudice, attachment or mental clutter that prevents its arising.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 8:51 pm Sense perception, inferences, abstract thought, or intuitions that can be true or false cannot be a true route to knowledge. Even though there is consensus and something becomes a theory it may hold for a time but there is no guarantee that it will hold forever.

Understanding that is based on inferences on any of the above is very tenuous.

There can be intuition based on data, inference, abstract thought or on inner perception but that is no guarantee that it is accurate. It might be totally false.
The most credible knowledge we have at present is that from the scientific framework but that is at best merely 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

So it is well recognized there is no certainty of any absolute knowledge but that the framework that generate its specific knowledge must be credible and trustworthy plus the challenge open to anyone who disagree and will change upon new evidences to reject or amend it.
Perception that is based on Intuition that is not based on any of the above, is outside empirical time, is accurate universally over time and in any context is what is meant.
Whatever the intuition & perception it must be grounded on the human conditions and thus subjected to errors and must be verified and justified within a credible framework of knowledge.

I believe what you imply above are metaphysical speculations from crude reasonings which are not related to intuition nor perception.
For example, from the experiences of empirical things, one may speculate there is an original creator of the universe. Some may claim it is intuitive, but it is not intuitive but rather they are metaphysical speculations.
Intuitive Perception is based on the sixth sense; Intuition free from all of the above intermediaries between what is empirical and what is true; universally true, not time sensitive, true over time to the end of time. It is perceived to be accurate; there is no doubt about its veracity, it will stand the test of time, as it is outside temporal time. It is usually achieved by Awareness and Dispassion without prejudice, attachment or mental clutter that prevents its arising.
Whether it is sixth sense or whatever, whatever is thought must be constructed into a hypothesis and therefrom polished via a credible framework of knowledge. This is how it is done in science.
Over the years many scientific theories started as imaginations [some claimed it is from their sixth sense or whatever] then converted to a hypothesis to be 'polished' till there is consensus.

Whatever the "Intuitive Perception" you claim, they are merely frivolous thoughts unless verified and justified empirically as real via a specific framework of science.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:55 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 8:51 pm Sense perception, inferences, abstract thought, or intuitions that can be true or false cannot be a true route to knowledge. Even though there is consensus and something becomes a theory it may hold for a time but there is no guarantee that it will hold forever.

Understanding that is based on inferences on any of the above is very tenuous.

There can be intuition based on data, inference, abstract thought or on inner perception but that is no guarantee that it is accurate. It might be totally false.
The most credible knowledge we have at present is that from the scientific framework but that is at best merely 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

So it is well recognized there is no certainty of any absolute knowledge but that the framework that generate its specific knowledge must be credible and trustworthy plus the challenge open to anyone who disagree and will change upon new evidences to reject or amend it.
Perception that is based on Intuition that is not based on any of the above, is outside empirical time, is accurate universally over time and in any context is what is meant.
Whatever the intuition & perception it must be grounded on the human conditions and thus subjected to errors and must be verified and justified within a credible framework of knowledge.

I believe what you imply above are metaphysical speculations from crude reasonings which are not related to intuition nor perception.
For example, from the experiences of empirical things, one may speculate there is an original creator of the universe. Some may claim it is intuitive, but it is not intuitive but rather they are metaphysical speculations.
Intuitive Perception is based on the sixth sense; Intuition free from all of the above intermediaries between what is empirical and what is true; universally true, not time sensitive, true over time to the end of time. It is perceived to be accurate; there is no doubt about its veracity, it will stand the test of time, as it is outside temporal time. It is usually achieved by Awareness and Dispassion without prejudice, attachment or mental clutter that prevents its arising.
Whether it is sixth sense or whatever, whatever is thought must be constructed into a hypothesis and therefrom polished via a credible framework of knowledge. This is how it is done in science.
Over the years many scientific theories started as imaginations [some claimed it is from their sixth sense or whatever] then converted to a hypothesis to be 'polished' till there is consensus.

Whatever the "Intuitive Perception" you claim, they are merely frivolous thoughts unless verified and justified empirically as real via a specific framework of science.
It is true the scientific framework is “polished conjectures.” Why treat it as if it is ultimate truth? It is the case that science can unravel the mysteries of the physical world which for some is all there is, so they expect science to solve all the mysteries of life. It may point the way, if at the quantum level everything is tenuous, there are no events without an observer.

To ground anything on the human condition would require an understanding of what that is; it is physically subject to motion, time, space, and the atom, to forces, to change; all tenuous. Building one’s house on sand rather than on a rock” would be a Christian perspective of this grounding.

Living by knowledge as it unfolds in the course of time without a template is possible but not desirable. As above anything that is creditable cannot be founded on the human condition or the temporal.

Intuition that is real is not metaphysical speculation. Einstein was hesitant about revealing his theory of relativity although he knew it was true. He also knew it would be attacked. Knowing that his theory solved the longstanding problem of Mercury’s orbit, miscalculated by Newton, gave Einstein the courage to reveal it. He had used abstract thought alone. Real intuition is similar it is not idle speculation bearing no relationship to reality. Depending on empirical things to supply answers is the opposite of being grounded in reality.

A hypothesis can be developed into a theory by a process, that involves reason more than perception. Perception is more a connecting of the dots; knowing how to make connections, it is more intuitive than cerebral. Real intuitive perception can be given credence by accord but it has credence prior to any accord, as it corresponds to reality; to time-space reality which is far as science can go. Quantum reality may be other, and ultimate reality still other. Reality has different levels based on perception.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Humans are "Programmed" with the Potential for Evil

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:33 am It is true the scientific framework is “polished conjectures.” Why treat it as if it is ultimate truth? It is the case that science can unravel the mysteries of the physical world which for some is all there is, so they expect science to solve all the mysteries of life. It may point the way, if at the quantum level everything is tenuous, there are no events without an observer.
Just in case, I never treat it as an ultimate truth.
To ground anything on the human condition would require an understanding of what that is; it is physically subject to motion, time, space, and the atom, to forces, to change; all tenuous. Building one’s house on sand rather than on a rock” would be a Christian perspective of this grounding.

Living by knowledge as it unfolds in the course of time without a template is possible but not desirable. As above anything that is creditable cannot be founded on the human condition or the temporal.
Ground in this case meant it will always be connected to the human conditions without exception.
There is no way humans can extricate themselves from the reality [all there is] they are part-and-parcel-of to conclude any judgment that is absolute independent.

Anything that is credible cannot be founded on individual[s]'s opinion and beliefs but must relate to a credible framework of knowledge constructed by humans thus agreed intersubjectively as objective.
Intuition that is real is not metaphysical speculation. Einstein was hesitant about revealing his theory of relativity although he knew it was true. He also knew it would be attacked. Knowing that his theory solved the longstanding problem of Mercury’s orbit, miscalculated by Newton, gave Einstein the courage to reveal it. He had used abstract thought alone. Real intuition is similar it is not idle speculation bearing no relationship to reality. Depending on empirical things to supply answers is the opposite of being grounded in reality.

A hypothesis can be developed into a theory by a process, that involves reason more than perception. Perception is more a connecting of the dots; knowing how to make connections, it is more intuitive than cerebral. Real intuitive perception can be given credence by accord but it has credence prior to any accord, as it corresponds to reality; to time-space reality which is far as science can go. Quantum reality may be other, and ultimate reality still other. Reality has different levels based on perception.
Note the triune brain which is very general and crude but relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
You familiar with this?
Image

1. Whatever the intuition, it must be related to reptilian and mammalian brain. There is no other type of 'intuition' that is independent of such conditions.
2. From the intuition, it give rise to perceptions when related to things.
3. From there 'reason1-2-3' [understanding] polishes it to be real.
4. But that intuition and perception can also be wrongly polished by crude reasoning and EXTENDED and stretch to be something unreal beyond possible experience resulting in metaphysical ideas that can never be verified as real, thus are illusory, e.g. God, absolute original cause and the likes.

It seem you are subtly trapped by 4 which is a psychological matter where you seemingly gravitate to something or some original.
Post Reply