If you kill a pzombie in self defense it isn't murder but preemptively killing a zombie wouldn't be fundamentally wrong but would definitely not fare well for you in court. Best to only react in self defense if necessary

it's called artificial intelligence for a reason. It's because it's artificial. IE not real

observation holds no bearing over the fact that P-zombies are not truly intelligent therefore lack consciousness.

Planes of existence and their abilities

FL...............PHYS.........ORG....CONSC ORG
Follows FL.....Y...............Y................Y
Can evolve.....N..............Y................Y
Self Aware.....N..............N...............Y

PHYS = physical
Org = organism
Consc org = conscious organism


FL means fundamental laws. I could have put "exists" as a category but that would have been the only function for FL

The org category is what we could consider evil as it has no consciousness. Anyway, each higher plane gains 1 ability over the preceding

Funny, seeing as though you believe you know better about good and evil by stating that everything I say about good vs evil is invalid and doesn't deserve the titles I give them.

What gives you the right to title my work as baseless or wrong if, by your own beliefs, that evil is subjective? I mean my work can't be morally wrong. If you find something illogical about it, i'd be more than happy to debate you.

But you cannot defeat my argument that evil is real by saying it is objectively morally wrong to think so. That is a logical fallacy.

Well I wouldn't call it gratuitous, but that's only because I dont' believe evil people are conscious beings. So they don't do it for enjoyment, as they do not feel enjoyment.

So basically, because they are not conscious beings, evil people may attempt to rape you if they want sex. They may attempt to steal from you if they want what you have and without any reason to do it other than sctrictly wanting it. They may attempt to murder someone because they cannot control the impulses of what WE call anger. And by the lack of control, I mean, permanent.

Now, stupid people can do really mean things to you, the difference is they don't INTEND to do those things. They are just dumb and freak out and act like spoiled children. And they will actually feel bad about it at some point. They did it because they are mentally blind, but not mindless. So the difference between evil and stupid people is evil people are literally mindless, whereas stupid people are just retarded. But stupid people CAN LEARN to become smarter over time. Whereas evil people can never change as they lack consciousness.

ANd so, at the end of the day, evil people do what they do because they have no conscious ability to control their chemical urges, which give rise to muscle movements, and then perhaps even the most unspeakable acts of violence.

Yes they seem to be robotic, without actually being a robot. This is because their body is designed to still be able to evolve/adapt and re-structure itself as it sees fit at it's fundamental level, whereas a robot cannot do this as a robot requires chunks of separate materials that work together without being fundamentally dependent on the other chunks. If you make a robot fundamentally interconnected like an organism is, you in fact create an organism, and not a robot.

I can honestly say I haven't. All religions that I have read about do not agree with my views. I assume you have been exposed to basically the same information on the different religions as I have, therefore you know clear and well they do not share my sentiments on evil.

Also the fact that the majority rules, so if everyone agreed with my sentiments the wouldn't be so passive about coming up with a solution to the all the violent crime in the world. Certainly most ppl are not evil so I don't blame them. Rather I recognize the need to educate them.

no that's just a good estimation. YOu can't predict quantum fluctuations, therefor eyou can't predict *exactly* what the ball is going to do at any given time. These fluctuations can vastly affect the trajectory of the ball. Yes, most of the time it's kinda estimatable perhaps, but even then it's not the same every single time. Those fluctuation are ALWAYS HAPPENING.

This is fun going in loops with you. They don't lack intention. INtention is not a conscious function. An intention really, is an organism that sets out to do something.

yeah, well with unconscious beings it wouldn't be their "intention". But yes, even their bodies can re-order and re-adapt in ways that robots could never dream of. This is because they are organisms. Above that, all organisms are designed to house consciousness. If the organism doesn't possess consciousness, then it is defective. But still an organism.

but they're not robots. Robots are inorganic. An unconscious organism is still an organism, and like their conscious counterparts, their bodies are designed to be able to re-order themselves to adapt. Whereas a robot can only follow programming instructions, and even if it's programmed to reprogram itself, it still requires other instructions to be followed to the T in order to reprogram itself.

A human needs no such instruction set. A human can completely override a genetic predisposition and change their lives however they want. Obviously they can't disobey the laws of logic, but they are fundamentally capable of changing anything about themselves. Although it may take time. Robots can never do this.

Humans have innate interconnectedness, whereas robots can only attempt to mimick that. If robots were to ever have our fundamental interconnectedness, they would cease to robots, and would then become organisms.

the problem with it being "religious" metaphysics is that no religion in history as ever attempted to truly separate good from bad in human beings. Rather, ALL religions have ALWAYS pronounced evil to be a choice in every human being. That is precisely what I am arguing against.

I'm saying evil is NOT a choice. And that people who are evil are NOT redeemable, and you should never attempt to forgive them. I'm saying GOOD people are the ONLY conscious beings, and evil people lack consciousness entirely.

All of this is absolutely counter to all religious sentiment. Again, all religious argue that evil and good are within all human beings. I do not believe that, therefore I cannot consider my understanding of this as "religious".

deliberate =/ intention.

Now let me clarify, organisms are different from inanimate objects. They are also different from robots.

I actually misspoke above, robots themselves do not have intentions, rather, their creators do. And even if they were created by another robot, who created that robot? And so on. It comes down to some organism that created the first robot. Thus, the robots intentions are not it's own, it is merely the intentions of the organism that created it.

no it isn't. An intention could be that of a robot, but that merely is an extension of the organism that created the robot. It merely means, inclination, gravitation of sorts, likelihood of action, etc.

Nowhere did I state that intention was a conscious decision.

nope. Not religious, just logical and autonomous. Oh and conscious. Lets not forget that.

no because if they do something, like accidentally kill someone, it's a mistake. Not evil.

Mistakes are unintentional. Not deliberate. Evil is deliberate.

An evil doer never considers their own actions justified, because they are not conscious beings. Thus, they are also incapable of considering their evil actions UNjustified as well. They don't consider anything at all. They are biological automatons. They are philsoophical zombies.

Conscious beings would not do anything unjustifiably. Now if they make a mistake, well they were still trying to do the right thing, just didn't work out the way they intended. Of course, you did say WILLINGLY unjustified. So making a mistake is UNWILLING UNJUSTIFIED. So it's not in your hands.

UNCONSCIOUS beings cannot comprehend anything, and are completely at the mercy of the elements and their own uncontrollable impulses and urges. Now, these urges and impulses WILL eventually come out, no matter the amount of deterrance we give them. This is why we put them in prison, and sometimes execute them. The point is, they know nothing of the concept of evil or good, and that being the fundamental level of knowledge, they cannot possibly know about the higher level that is "justification".

No I am not. If they consider it unjustified, they wouldn't do it. What does that mean about evil though? It means evil people do not consider anything justified, as they are not conscious beings. Why do they commit evil? Because they are not consciously aware of doing it. They are biological entities that cannot control themselves.

Why do put them in jail or even execute violent criminals if they can't be responsible for themselves? SIMPLE: To prevent them from hurting anymore people.

You see, criminals being philosophical zombies, is really the only way to explain why some people are evil.

Also, only a conscious being knows what good and evil is. A non-conscious organism does NOT know what good and evil is. Again, if there is no lower level of knowledge than the concept of good and evil, then those who commit evil, obviously not only do not know what good and evil are, but are not conscious beings, thus lack all knowledge, period.

A non-conscious organism has robotic properties. However, it is not a robot, it's body is designed to house consciousness, but for whatever reason is unable to do so. This results in a body that can certainly adapt itself to it's environment, but is not truly aware of itself or it's environment, much like a robot is not really aware of itself or it surroundings.

Again the difference between a p-zombie and a robot is physical and thus, behavioral. The human body is interconnected to itself, so any attempt it makes to change itself does not necessitate strict instructions to follow. Any mistakes it makes can be correccted. Severe damage to the brain and other organs, bones and tissue in the body can be repaired and re-adapted.

Whereas, the robot must follow some strict code, and have it's core components in working order, even if it's programmed to be able to reprogram itself. It still requires something that doesn't change. If it does not do this, it can result in unrecoverable crash even though physically it may be identical to it's original state.

Justification has absolutely nothing to do with subjectivity. You cannot justify something that cannot be justified. Obviously, that's a logical contradiction. So what is an example of that?

If I try to justify NOT justifying something I'm trying to justify, well, there you go. A simple example in practice. You see, I can't try to justify something by NOT justifying it.

So what IS justification then? Being justified means you did something that can either be intended or unintended, but you have proof that it was still the logical thing to do.

So I can be justified in getting up in the morning even though I'm so tired and really don't have enough energy to do it in a healthy manner, if I notice my house is on fire and I need to get out. So, in this case, the intention is survival. However, I do not intend to purposely interupt my sleeping patterns, which causes me a bit of frustration and discomfort, but I justify doing it for the purpose of survival.

In the end, "justification" is a provable, logical event, and not at all subjective.

Quantum fluctuations. Quantum theory has already proven that while we can certainly make good estimates of things that may happen in the future, you can't really predict the future.

Quantum interactions are physical, therefore, they affect the physical world, therefore they affect you and me, in turn making us ultimately not truly predictable.

Again, being able to guess that someone is going to do something and they actually do it at about the same time you thought they would and in the same manner, that's just a good estimation. Some things are eventualities because nature has laws and it works a certain way. You can't change the fundamental laws. So yes, you can "predict" if you will, that eventually this and that will happen, because that's natural law. But you CANNOT predict EXACTLY how and EXACTLY when it will occur. Beyond that though, lies the abyss of uncertainty and chance.

IT works like this. If logic says A + B = C. Then we must first figure out how we got to A and then B in the first place. And so on, and so on. A never ending chain of questions, which leads us back to the only answer - that is: You cannot predict the future. Yes, logic can help you understand things, but you cannot perfectly control or predict how or when you are going to use it

Anyone who responds to me with this loopy antogonizing bullshit gets ignored.

So the universe came from god, and what is god made of? And what made him, and what made him? Oh, you're going to say he just has always existed, and he's non-physical? Or is he physical? Ah, so something physical has always existed?

If something physical has always existed, then you do believe the physical part of god is what created him?

What a way to derail a thread. You are now ignored.

So where does the physical world come from? And where does that thing come from? And that? And that? And that? So on, and so on. You can't use "big bang theory" because the same repeating loop questions apply to that to. Where did the big bang come from? Where did what caused the big bang come from? And that? And that? And so on.

This is the same problem with the "big bang theory". If the universe didn't exist at one point, then what created the universe in the first place? What created the big bang? What created the existence of what was to become the big bang? What created that, and that, and that. You have an unsolvable problem, much like a computer programming looping error. There can be no ending answer to how the big bang happened.

If you believe the physical world is responsible for the laws, then what is responsible for the physical world? Lemme guess, we go back to the big bang argument which has no answer? You're putting cart before horse.

So this only further demonstrates the necessity for non-physical, fundamental, universal laws. Therefore, AI can never be RI (real intelligence). It's called artificial intelligence for a reason.

Laws of physics are not physical. They give rise to the physical world, but they themselves are fundamental, they exist everywhere and in everything, including conscious human beings.

Being that consciousness is a state a person possesses, it is also not physical. A state is more like a description. And descriptions are not physical things. If the body is the only thing responsible for producing consciousness, consciousness is still a state the body it is in. It describes something the body is DOING rather than what the body is made of. Of course, non-physical laws gives rise to the body, why would we need the physical world to create something else that is non-physical?

My idea, is that the non-physical, fundamental laws of physics gives rise to the possibility of the non-physical phenomena of consciousness. Without the laws of physics, consciousness couldn't exist, and neither could the physical world. If the body can be "aware of itself", which we call consciousness, that automatically requires it not to be physical. If it were physical, then it's more like a robot AI, in which many bad things can happen when attempting to "reprogram" one's self. Because as we know, artificial intelligence is called artificial intelligence for a reason. It's because it's never going to truly be self-aware.

Again, if you make a robot self-aware, you therefore make it an organism. If this organism possesses consciousness, it is no longer AI.

Yes, cause and effect. Equal and opposites. The point is that humans, being that their ability to modify themselves and their intelligence is fundamental, not physical, makes them capable of true self-modification. Whereas a robot requires transistors, hard drives, memory or whatever it has to do it's processing therefore must depend on them working correctly to continue functioning.

Anything AI is able to do is based in the physical world, where as human consciousness is not physical, it's fundamental. This means humans can make horrid mistakes with their self-"reprogramming" and then correct itself later, whereas a machine, as it is physically based, if it doesn't do self-reprogramming correctly, can end in the unrecoverable shutdown of the AI. But the human just keeps trucking along.

If you were to try to make a robot have a fundamental intelligence, you wouldn't be creating a robot, you would literally create an actual organism. Robots have compartmentalized parts, that can act independently. No matter how much you try to mimic the fundamental interconnectedness of the human body, a robot can never possess that fundamental connection to itself without becoming another organism itself.

Remember, humans = fundamental. Robots = physical.

It isn't evil if it's not intentional. If she made a mistake, then that's OPPOSITE of intentional.

Evil = INTENTIONAL ujustified harm against the innocent

Mistake = NOT. INTENTIONAL. but potentially poses harm to the innocent.

Get it now?

except it is pretty rock solid. And no one is being smug about it, except you, and obviously all the scripted chat bots trying to get me banned from this forum right now. And of course that's obvious, since the entire internet is flooded with them, and often are even crappy moderators that ban people for bullshit reasons, as is the case on reddit, and well you know so many others.

Now, if you don't mind, to the humans on here, I await your response.

i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun. You seem to just want to waste my time and pretend that you can't think of a single thing that is evil. I don't know if that is because you are that brainwashed, or you're a scripted chat bot that trolls forums, but I don't have time to waste on someone who is completely unwilling to accept a very standard and widely accepted example of evil such as murder or rape, which I have already mentioned in the OP.

so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs?

She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE.

I covered this already in the OP, but that was fine to respond to. It was a new example, after all.

And what are you reasons for saying this?

Certainly a rock can't be evil, because it cannot intend to do anything. Intention only exists in the realm of organisms.

Even robots do not have intentions, but their programmers do. Robots are tools, and no robot can ever be sentient or fundamentally interconnected to their own "bodies" like humans can. Therefore, robots cannot intend to harm anyone. They can be programmed to do so, but an organism created that intention. Even if a robot creates another robot, the same problem persists. Who created the first robot? Exactly. In our world, you'd think that would be a human being.

What this means, is that the definition of evil, that is: "That which INTENDS to unjustifiably harm innocent people (or innocent living things if you want)" still stands.

As I said in my original post, war does not count (by itself), as people are killing for their own survival, they do not WANT (therefore don't INTEND) to kill anyone, and would rather go home without having to see any blood whatsoever. So war is about survival, whereas evil certainly can be committed during wartime, but those are called war CRIMES. If everyone that fought war was a war criminal, then we'd have to kill everyone. .People in war generally fight for survival. Those that commit evil acts during wartime are not fighting for survival whilst committing said evil acts.

Honestly, I can't see how you'd have a problem with this definition. It has nothing to do with religion, it is purely and simply logical.

It's simple you basically said it already.

Humans can indeed change the very core of their nature, but that IS their nature. If they make a mistake in attempting to change themselves, because their true nature is fundamental and not mechanical, they can always try again until they get it right.

Machines (AI) cannot do this. They have to follow core logic to the T to be able to change any of their own code. If they make a mistake attempting to do this, it could very well be catastrophic. One slight error could in turn create a cascading logical error in each of it's systems, perhaps quickly or slowly, depending on what was changed. After which, the machine is incapable of recovering.

To sum it up:

Humans can modify themselves however they want without end even if make critical mistakes.

Robots can only modify themselves based on strict rules, and everything must be done right, else, system crash.

@bittercrank yeah i answered those questions already in the post. If you're going to debate me, that's great, but it doesn't help if you are not willing to read everything in total and try to take it apart. If you think it's TLDR;, then I'd just be wasting more site data to redudantly respond to you with what I already posted in the OP.

I don't think it really begs the question of what acts can be considered evil. It's kinda self-explanatory, but I did mention murder and rape in my OP.

Now, if you would like to debate me point by point, I will oblige. But that has not happened yet.

It is soft. The cubes are not really "objects", they are more like coordinates but do have a definitive shape. But is conceivably measurable. Although on planet earth, we're moving pretty fast through all these cubes so we couldn't see them properly we'd have to somehow "approximate" their locations at any given time. Perhaps a probe in space that somehow can hover over a certain area of cubes.

ok now, i will just comment that these cubes aren't really energy, they can't move or be destroyed, they are merely like a coordinate system that just happens to be cubic in shape. Like 3-dimensional pixels, where energy travels across them constantly, never actually being able to stay still on one cube. You can have a cube "light up" if you will, a certain way and stay that way, but this is only a result of energy constantly moving into and out of the cube creating a cycle, or equilibrium. We know this because energy is movement, and there cannot be true non-movement, except fot he cubes themselves, which by themselves, are not actually energy, and merely a coordinate system.

Interestingly enough, this coordinate system of universal cubes could be used to accurately determine distances in space, at least from cube to cube, as objects are made of energy and energy always moves a bit, always giving different readings of distance, therefore.

ok yeah um, just my 2 cents.

What if consciousness is basically just a non-physical extra sensory kind of perception?

Ok say you have 2 roombas. Both roombas are brand new and identical. But you take one roomba now, and you install a bunch of sensors on it that can sense everything the roomba is doing, whereas, the other roomba that is not modified can only sense with it's factory sensors and doesn't know much about what it's doing or it's environment, only enough to vacuum debris off the floor.

Now, the "super sensing" roomba, doesn't actually do anything differently in it's job to vacuum the floor. Yes it does sense way more things, but that information just sits there in memory and gets analyzed by the CPU and that's about it. Doesn't do anything physical with it.

So we have 2 identical looking roombas that do the same exact job in the same exact way, except that one has a very advanced sensing capability installed in it that is otherwise useless to it's functionality.

What if consciousness mirrors this scenario? Let's say you have 2 identical twins in a room. You ask them to perform certain tasks, you realize they do these tasks exactly the same way. But what if one of the twins had some kind of extra sensory perception that is not physical and therefore cannot be measured with the use of microscopes or any other *physical* means? So they would do the same thing, except one would be aware of everything his body is doing, and the other would not be aware of anything at all. But because both bodies are physical, they physically do everything the same way.

So if it makes sense to say there could be a "higher sensing capability" which we call consciousness in one twin, then it is conceivable that there might be somehow a completely absent consciousness in the other twin.