Again, you are reifying what people do — Banno

Where? I place evil inside the universe and ask how or if to deal with it.

It is isolated.

In your statement you recognise evil as something distinct from good.

"I place evil... inside the universe, how is it dealt with?

You recognise that evil must be 'dealt' with...

Thus, isolation.

Evil doesn't always make sense, can be destructive of such, it's one of the reasons why we are good aligned; per se, things thus appear to be what they appear.

Evil is thus isolated, to remain in tact.

I mean, focusing less on technology. Technology tends to de-humanize. — Hillary

Wow, nothing is simple. :grin: You make me think when humans transitioned from small nomadic tribes to cities they manifested a shared consciousness far beyond the limits of small tribes. As cities grew more and more ideas bounced off each other and greatly expanded our shared consciousness, and increasing our knowledge of nature, math, and science, and now the web unites the world and holds more information than ever before possible. Socrates and others saw information as essential to good moral judgment.

So now what can we make of the contradictions of good and evil? I mean this sincerely? How do we maintain our humanness and integrate our growing knowledge and technology with it? Like this technology should be our tool, not our master, but it seems to me it is coming up like the Borg, which consumes sentient beings and makes them part of the Borg. The Star Trek series frequently visited this idea of societies controlled by computers and I think, thanks to Prussian bureaucracy mixed with technology, we are a computer-controlled society but the components of the computer are programmed humans who are organized by policies, not just manufactured parts.

Where? — Hillary

See the examples I gave.

It is isolated.

In your statement you recognise evil as something distinct from good.

"I place evil... inside the universe, how is it dealt with?

You recognise that evil must be 'dealt' with...

Thus, isolation. — Varde

Good point and an exciting notion. I read in a very old book that the ancient Eyptians believed in the trinity of the soul. One part of the trinity died with the body. One part was judged and either got to enter the good afterlife or not, depending on the weight of the heart. No matter what, the third part reunited with the source. Christianity made the god spirit separate from who we are and made the trinity a supernatural father, son, and holy ghost, and created a separate being of evil to explain evil. This difference is a difference in how we judge each other and our relationships and how we understand good and evil.

I say evil is with us and part of us. It has shown itself. By what life does (not only people). Why is that reifying? What else approach can we take?

A moral interpretation of the phenomena implies that phenomena have inherent morals, as interpretations are phenomena.

A moral interpretation of a phenomena implies a distinction between "phenomena" and "the interpretation". An interpretation is not a phenomena and is likewise not an object (I would hold phenomena and object as synonymous). The main point I was trying to make is that morality is projection as opposed to discovery, so to speak. A moral interpretation does not imply anything moral about the objective nature of the phenomena (or object) in question.

That means that there are no goodness and badness in people or other creatures, which is contradicted by the phenomena.

Other humans are subjects, not objects. Subjects are not phenomena. In other words, there is no inherent moral "goodness" or "badness" in objects.

In practice though, what is interpreted as good or bad, can be annihilated.

I agree. But that wasn't what I was explicating: there's a difference between annihilating what one interprets as bad or good and annihilating what is bad or good. I don't think there are any valid ontic or phenomenological traits or properties or essence of objects that make them bad or good, nor any relations that produce "badness" or "goodness": it is solely a matter of contemplation of subjects.

History is full of examples.

I agree that history is full of examples of trying to fight (or even annihilate) what people (in their time) interpreted as wrong or right: that's doesn't have any relation to any objective morality.

The question is, should we allow irrational annihilation of the interpreted evil?

The way that question is framed heavily implies a specific answer (e.g. irrational annihilation pretty much turns the question into a statement hidden as a question). I'm not sure what you mean here. I think most humans would agree that we are striving to remove "evil" or even "annihilate" it if you will. Do you mean more like "should we walk to the edge of extinction to prevent 'evil'"?

Isn't annihilating interpreted evil even bigger (and objective!) evil than the evil being annihilated?

Again, I don't see how it would be objective. But, furthermore, how is annihilating evil, evil? Is this a question of "does the end justify the means"? I think the question would need to be formulated more precisely for me to give a substantive response.

Still, it seems to be happening.

If by "seems" you are trying to convey that it seems as though humans are naturally going to self-extinction, then I think that is a defensible position (I am not thoroughly convinced of it though).

The path of western man away from nature seems a path away from a natural moral.

I don't see how advancing society away from nature strays away from "natural" morals because they don't exist: morals aren't something objectively real in the universe. Sure, there's benefits to being connected with nature, but I don't see how that has anything to do with straying away from morals: our morals and ethics have progressed substantially over the millennia.

The digression from this moral translates in natural chaos and chance of natural annihilation.

There's no "natural" morality. Deviating into what most people may consider "evil" nowadays (or what they considered it three thousand years ago) does not imply that "natural chaos" ensues.

Well, according to masochists there is no evil, assuming evil is (physical) pain because pain = pleasure for them.

I've never heard of masochists going happiness = (psychological) suffering.

The brain/mind is a very complex organ!

:snicker:

All creatures, including humans, are born with instincts and evolution has favored the development of instincts that promote the survival of the species — Athena

I think this is almost irrefutable!

However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise. — Athena

A clarion call of caution against how technology is employed and how it might affect all stakeholders involved is one that the human race has to hear and fully understand, through past examples which prove the point. We are technologically smart but we must become much wiser in its use.
To do this, however, we must obtain better control. WE CANNOT allow technological advancement and technological applications to be left to the whims and machinations of creatures such as Elon Musk.

Wow, thank you for being so supportive. I work and I have every little energy so I have not done all those things yet, but I am working on them. I devoted today to following the steps that the hospital told me to follow, before calling in the big guns.

In the past, I took my social concerns directly to the newspaper and almost always got my letters to the editor printed, but the locally own paper was sold and the staff is out of town and very different from the past! In the past, I have also taken concerns to the local and state levels of public hearings. I had a lot more fire and energy back then and I miss my working relationship with the newspaper.

After failing to make progress with the medical facility I have asked for help from a local synagogue and I am waiting for a reply. I forgot about the Human Rights Commission, and thanks to you, I bookmarked the Commission page and have called and left a message. I hate confrontation, but with the support, you have given me and my sister pointing out how damaging that experience was to his effort to get counseling, I am willing to do as much as my time and energy allow me to do. — Athena

It is all of us who have to thank you, your sister and your like for being the brave, vital front-line warriors for good that you sound like you are. You connect with many more people than you realise, which is why your 99% figure seemed too high to me.
I would not like to be in the shoes of the moronic counselor you describe. The Jewish community are known for producing many lawyers for example. I would write to one or two of their legal groups as well.
You only need one of those to feel angry at how your friend was discriminated against to start legal proceedings against the company/group that employs this counselor on a no win no fee basis. You should also cite those who tried to obstruct your ability to complain. I probably don't have to tell you to retain every piece of evidence you can including on those who are trying to hinder you. I hope some 'energetic' people volunteer to support you and help you do some of the groundwork involved.
If I lived in the same country as you, I would volunteer my time and effort, free of charge to help in any way I could. There must be plenty of folks nearer to you who would do the same.
Thank you again for your fight for human equality of treatment and respect, regardless of ethnicity or national identity. ALL POWER TO YOU! And please always remember YOU are part of the solution and NOT part of the problem.

Again, you are reifying what people do; that strikes me as a poor way of approaching the problem. — Banno

:up: :clap: :100:

Again, you are reifying what people do
— Banno

Where? I place evil inside the universe and ask how or if to deal with it — Hillary

It's what humans judge as evil behavior or evil acts performed by other humans.
That's how the human label 'evil' manifests or exemplifies.
Evil has no objectively real existence as a fundamental part of the Universe.
That's just more supernatural woo woo BS!

Evil has no objectively real existence as a fundamental part of the Universe. — universeness

Open your eyes!

Already at the most fundamental level of the universe, good and evil rule. Particles either attract or repel. Which are the good and the bad struggling (or the other way round, that's how we interpret it). And they can't live without each other.

The greatest evil present in modern society, but not recognized by them in the middle of it, is the distancing from nature. Woowoo visions of a future super transhuman testify of this. Somehow, modern man and woman are not satisfied with the gods-given.

Open your eyes! — Hillary

My visual sensors work fine and provide real input, unlike the 'dreams' based input you assign significant value to.

It's what humans judge as evil behavior or evil acts performed by other humans. — universeness

Aint the judgement part of the universe? You might say it's a feature caused by evolution, to whatever nonsensical woowoo purpose, but then you take away it's fundamental existence and replace it by your own interpretation.

My visual sensors work fine and provide real input, unlike the 'dreams' based input you assign significant value to. — universeness

BS

My visual sensors — universeness

You'll make it to transhuman. In fact, you already are.

Btw, have you seen what they did what the question on stack exchange? They closed it. Do I have to say more?

Aint the judgement part of the universe? You might say it's a feature caused by evolution, to whatever nonsensical woowoo purpose, but then you take away it's fundamental existence and replace it by your own interpretation. — Hillary

Everything which is 'part' of the Universe does not permeate the entire Universe or else the word 'local' would have no meaning. A human judging a particular act of another human as evil is a local subjective judgment and the act involved, that is being judged, is not a consequence of, or a manifestation of, a fundamental force of evil that exists objectively, separately, and universally.

BS — Hillary

What are you calling BS. The fact my eyes work or the fact that you value your dreams as a source of a commlink with the supernatural?

You'll make it to transhuman. In fact, you already are — Hillary

Aw, thanks! Its nice of you to see me as an advanced human but my modestly must insist you are being too complimentary :blush:

Btw, have you seen what they did what the question on stack exchange? They closed it. Do I have to say more? — Hillary

Do they give you their reason?

WE CANNOT allow technological advancement and technological applications to be left to the whims and machinations of creatures such as Elon Musk. — universeness

What if the other option is Donald Trump? :snicker:

Btw, have you seen what they did what the question on stack exchange? They closed it. Do I have to say more? — Hillary

I just clicked on the physics stack exchange link to the post you are referring to. You had provided a link to it earlier in a PM. I got the following message:

Page not found
This question was voluntarily removed by its author.

Please explain!

What if the other option is Donald Trump? — Agent Smith

:lol: What a choice! :rage: :broken:
My only option in that circumstance would be to seek a third way.
I remember my exchange with 'Nikolas Gaspar,' regarding the choice between dropping the two A-bombs on Japan and the alternative or (probably even more horrific) invading Japan to end the war.
Any kind of 'Sophies choice,' scenario is horrific but I don't think the only two choices available to the human race for who can develop and wield current and future human tech is Elon Musk or The big orange balloon of Donald Trump. I hear the calls of caution from @Athena when it comes to how the human race employs tech. I suggest we don't allow F***wits such as Elon Musk or Donald Trump any significant influence in the area.

:smile:

Between Scylla and Charybdis. Right! My, my what a pleasant day it is.

Between Scylla and Charybdis. Right! — Agent Smith

You know much more about mythology than I do agent smith. I had to go to google again.
Thank goodness for the google search engine. I would not understand most of the references people use here on TPF without it. Its such a vital tool imo to try to understand the viewpoints of others:
Wiki offered:

"Being between Scylla and Charybdis is an idiom deriving from Greek mythology, which has been associated with the proverbial advice "to choose the lesser of two evils". Several other idioms, such as "on the horns of a dilemma", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", and "between a rock and a hard place" express similar meanings. The mythical situation also developed a proverbial use in which seeking to choose between equally dangerous extremes is seen as leading inevitably to disaster"

My, my what a pleasant day today is. — Agent Smith

You know I have difficulty understanding your 'true' state of mind from the enigmatic style of words you employ. Are you actually having a pleasant day today?

Do they give you their reason? — universeness

Lack of detail. Missing clarity. But I mean, how clear can I be? Rotating particles in the whole of spacetime. Rotating in space and time. Equivalent to rotating in energy and momentum, taking all possible values independently from one another, offering real (themselves, with an anti, being virtual particles with the relativistic energy momentum relation) charged particles the perfect means for interaction by coupling to them.

An analogy. Consider the virtual particles elastic strings all over space. Two charged particles interact by coupling both to a string. It breaks up and resembles the curvy line in a Feynman diagram. It delivers the right energy and momentum to both electrons (which is easy since it has all of them!). In the mathematical expression for the associated Feynman diagram this is accomplished by Dirac deltas which pick out the right energy and momentum value (or, in the position representation, the Fourier transform, the right times and position; that's why QFT in phasespace is perfect!). The photon, after the electrons have couple ld, decouples and returns to it's closed form, the "virtual" elastic string. A single electron continuously couples to a whole bunch of them. An electric potential is established. The elastic strings continuously break up, reach out, and return to the vacuum.

:smile:

Elon Must — universeness

Nice one! Like 10 000 tears... :lol: