INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

What is Evil?

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#61 Post by Nirvanam » September 2nd, 2010, 1:20 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Marian wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:Marian, I was wondering where you are lol...you were so silent thru out this thread...guess you were not around. Anyway, I haven't read your post (just saw your name and the smiley)...will respond (if necessary) a lil later
Oh, I can't see you not having some kind of reaction to my post. I just felt the need to give you a hard time. :D

I've been around here and there but mostly I've been perfecting my evilness................ :wink:
Aww Marian, you laid such a big trap for me, you really are perfecting The Art of Eviling (there's this society formed by this chap, very nice genuinely happy go lucky chap as many of my friends who communicate with him say. The society/community is called "The Art of Living" so yours is the reverse - live and evil) that I ain't getting sucked into it... :wink:

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#62 Post by Marian » September 5th, 2010, 12:39 pm

Gee, that brought the discussion to an abrupt end...what did I do? :wink:
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: What is Evil?

#63 Post by Paolo » September 6th, 2010, 10:29 pm

Nirvanam wrote:Alright...cool, thanks - I didn't know about that.
So, then if we look at it on the opposite polarity, there would be a point of maximum temp too? Since all energy together cannot heat up more than a certain temp, just like they cannot be colder than a certain temp? If this is true, then temp is really not infinite, correct?
Correct - as I said, the maximum temperature possible in the universe should have occurred during the first moments of the Big Bang, where the universe was tiny, yet it contained all of the energy in the universe as it now stands. Unimaginably hot, but not infinitely hot.
Nirvanam wrote:Similarly we may be able to find it for other physical quantities as well, like say speed - light speed is max and absolute inertia or state of rest will be other extreme.
Yes, there are limits to physical quantities - that's part of what shapes the physical universe. However, the concept of infinity is a complex one - some things are so vanishingly large that they approach infinity, other things are infinite because their nature doesn't lend itself to finite boundaries (like the surface of a sphere or traversing a mobius strip).
Nirvanam wrote:So, physical universe is not exactly infinite? Can we infer that?
It sort of is and it sort of isn't. The universe is expanding in every direction at the speed of light. If you were somehow able to stop that expansion then the universe could be described as finite (within the conventional three dimensions it should be an approximate sphere with a radius of 13.75 ± 0.17 billion light years - I have no idea how other dimensions could be factored in to this). But of course the universe just keeps on expanding constantly, making it unmeasurable. Add to that the complexities of n-dimensional space that probably exists within, between and maybe outside the three spatial dimensions plus time, and there is a space so complex and vast as to merit being called infinite.
Nirvanam wrote:Edit: ps - I remember watching a program on NG/Discovery where some of the physicists were extending this viewpoint that the universe is not infinite but it does not have a boundary...like the surface of a sphere or of Earth...it is finite but there is no real boundary. But when I heard that I had a counter point that the moment we imagine space as a sphere we are causing a boundary and there is something that is not the sphere...so it comes back to infinity - would this be a good counter point?
Effectively that's a way of saying that there is nothing for the universe to be in, so it has no boundary - which isn't really knowable, as there could be something there, but it wouldn't have the same properties as the universe and we wouldn't be able to see it because we are in the universe. We simply assume there is nothing for the universe to expand into because that is the most parsimonious and best supported hypothesis - it's not observable.

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#64 Post by Compassionist » September 7th, 2010, 6:46 am

:)

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#65 Post by Compassionist » September 8th, 2010, 7:02 am

Culpability is directly proportional to ability. Given the existence of suffering, any omnipotent, omniscient and therefore, omniculpable being is either evil or imaginary and is totally, utterly and absolutely unworthy of any praise, any worship and any trust. I have won the ethics war with reality. :hilarity:

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#66 Post by Nirvanam » September 8th, 2010, 6:02 pm

Compassionist wrote:Sorry about the delayed reply. I was preoccupied with mood swings and chronic pain. Here is my personal definition: True Free Will is the Will that can do anything and everything, anywhere and everywhere, anytime and everytime. Omnipotence, omniscience and omniculpability are inevitable features of this Free Will. Clearly, I don't have Free Will. If I had Free Will, I would have PREVENTED ALL SUFFERING AN INFINITY AGO and we would all be in our omnibenevolent heaven for all forever and ever and no one would have suffered anywhere, ever. There are other definitions concocted by philosophers. But none of them are as omnisupreme as my personal definition of Free Will.
Compassionist, that definition of Free Will suggests that Free Will is above cause and effect, am I right in understanding that? If that is the way you describe Free Will then I guess Free Will doesn't exist, at least I am not aware of it...if it exists, I haven't seen it.

A 'miracle' as we normally call it may not be an act of Free Will, if it did happen i.e. See just coz we don't understand the science of how things happen or happened does not make it super-natural. If what we mean by 'natural' is that it belongs in the realm of the universe and its workings, then there is necessarily nothing super-natural. If the universe is governed by certain laws then nothing can happen outside of those laws, in other words there is no super-natural stuff out there. It is more likely that we do not understand what happened or how it happened that's all.

Back to Free Will...I believe Free Will exists...I have the option of choosing whatever I want to or do not want to. I have the option of doing whatever I want or do not want to, of course given the limitations of the universal laws. I don't think Free Will and cause-effect as mutually exclusive. See if I could not grow up any other way than I did given my (nutrition, etc, etc) and therefore decide only in the ways that I did, then basically 'I' am destined. I am as good as following a script...its a game and I am a pawn in it. I can't do nothing about it. Is that what you are trying to say?

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#67 Post by Compassionist » September 10th, 2010, 5:55 am

:)

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#68 Post by Nirvanam » September 10th, 2010, 7:48 pm

Compassionist wrote:I understand what you are saying. My definition is not above cause and effect. This is because being omnipotent and omniscient means that one can control all causes and all effects. So, being omnipotent and omniscient is all about being the master of cause and effect, not being above cause and effect.
Alright...so what you are saying is that the concept of Free Will extends beyond the act of decision making but it also extends to the effects after the decision has been made...how the events will pan out and all, right?

I am considering Free Will as the possibility of an individual making a decision...not beyond that or before that. Yes, he may be influenced by what has happened before and what may happen later as he sees them, and his decision will depend on them, no doubt. But can he make the decision himself, or is the decision being made for him by something else. That to me is talking about Free Will. If Free Will is real then he can make the decision himself. He can decide to 'break the flow' of past given his nutrition, etc, or continue with it, or a combination of the two in infinite different ways. The decision is still his. If he can make only one decision at any decision point then it is lack of free will.

pls interpret decision to involve choice, option, etc...just dont wanna get caught in semantics.
Compassionist wrote:Obviously, living things make choices. Conscious living things even experience the act of making a choice but the choices occur entirely according to causality, according to the constantly changing dynamics of genes, physical environments, nutrients and subjective experiences. Do you understand?
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the choices available to a person are pre-determined. And also that what will transpire after a choice has been made is also pre-determined (as in it is bound causality). You are connecting these two to the act of making the choice and from there you see that it is all pre-determined and hence there is no Free Will. That is not my understanding of Free Will. Secondly, the availability of choices, and how things will transpire after you make a decision do not curtail an individual's ability to make a choice, to decide...they will influence sure but they will not curtail him.

See the implication of what you are saying is that, all is destined...the past could not have been even a bit different and given that my present also cannot be any different I will decide in a pre-determined way, then the future also will pan out in a pre-determined way. No sir, I don't believe that. To me it is saying I cannot be anything else than what I am now and more importantly I can't do nothing about it.

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#69 Post by Compassionist » September 13th, 2010, 6:47 am

:)

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

SUFFERING IS EVIL. CAUSING SUFFERING IS ALSO EVIL.

#70 Post by Compassionist » September 13th, 2010, 10:57 am

:)

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#71 Post by Nirvanam » September 13th, 2010, 11:22 am

Compassionist wrote:No, I have failed to clarify what I meant. I will try again now. I mean that the choices we make are dynamically determined every nanosecond by the dynamic and constant interactions of the forces of causality. Because we are sentient biological organisms, genes, physical environments, nutrients and subjective experiences are the key macro-level (as opposed to nano-level) ingredenients behind each and every choice dynamically determined (not pre-determined). If we were cybernetic sentient beings, genes and nutrients would not be in the picture. Instead it would be hardware, software, electricity and subjective experiences which would be the dynamic interactors behind each and every choice made by the cybernetic sentient being. The distinction between pre-determination of conscious choices by a deity and dynamic determination of conscious choices by causality is subtle but profound.
Sorry Compassionist, I think you are confusing yourself based on semantics. Let me make try and express it the following way instead of a passage.

a. Causality = for effect there is a/many cause(s) i.e. for event there are a/many causing events
b. Humans are governed by causality
c. A human's sentience or noesis depends upon his nutrition, etc, etc, etc
d. An act of making a decision, md, at a given point in space-time, pst, depends upon causes - human's sentience, hs, and environmental events leading upto pst, ee.

If you say there is no free will, you are saying that 'md' is deterministic immaterial of whether its chief influencers 'pst', 'hs', 'ee' (in fact pst can be moved to second level cause because pst influences hs and ee directly) occur one minute before, one nano-second before, one year before, or one trillionth of a second before the act of 'md' is done.

1. In other words, the human could not have made a different decision - that is what you are proposing when u say free will does not exist.
2. I infer that given '1' your definition of free will necessarily means that free will and causality are mutually exclusive
3. But you argued later that your definition of free will is within the confines of causality
4. If a human is governed entirely by causality i.e. the deterministic causality then I don't see any way how free will can be part of such an existence without it rising above causality

My personal view is that free will exists. the ability to choose is not deterministic or entirely based on causality. Immaterial of my nutrition, etc, etc at any given point in time I have the ability to decide something that potentially trashes determinism. I may not decide so, but I have the ability to decide so, and in deed every human being does decide so.

What you are saying is that a human could not have decided in any way...that is pre-determined immaterial of whether the 'pre' is dynamic as in nano-second or ultra dynamic as in one gazillionth of a second. It is not real-time coz if it the decision is happening in real-time then it necessarily means the human's mind has the ability to decide differently.

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#72 Post by Compassionist » September 13th, 2010, 1:27 pm

:)

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: What is Evil?

#73 Post by Nirvanam » September 13th, 2010, 3:48 pm

Compassionist, I think you are right about free will and causality...in fact my root belief basically leaves me with no option than to know that you are right in your viewpoint. I believe that 'existence' is what we believe it to be and that all beliefs are equally true and false considering time, space, perspective, and context. Therefore, your belief about what 'existence' is, is definitely right.

My argument was not from the root belief but from a level lower than that...the level where I have chosen this particular belief of causality-free will-existence for myself.

I cannot imagine what your experiences are...I am too sensitive to violent experiences and I tend to be disturbed mentally for months together when I read about it, or hear, or see on TV or movies.

My most sincere apologies for arguing my pov without being sensitive to your experiences. Please forgive me.

Compassionist
Posts: 3523
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: What is Evil?

#74 Post by Compassionist » September 15th, 2010, 4:46 am

:)

Post Reply