but wish to retain the comforting sense that someone is on overall charge? — karl stone

Science points to a creator of the universe (of some form). I do find it reassuring to know the universe was designed rather than just a random occurrence.

But if your tribe believes that eating the heart of a vanquished enemy will give you his strength - then killing and cannibalism are good — karl stone

That makes the tribe as a whole wrong and unpopular with other tribes. They would not last long as a tribe.

Acting on those idea - just following orders, they murdered millions of people, and they thought it right and good — karl stone

The Nazis were wrong and they paid the price for it.

because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition — karl stone

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain

If everyone was doing the right thing, the world would be a happy place.

At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways.
— karl stone

1) Science addresses facts about reality.

2) Religion addresses our relationship with reality.

Apples and oranges. — Jake

Creative editing on your part. Science was only one of the disciplines I said, grew out of religion. There was also philosophy, politics, law, economics etc... do they not address our relationship to reality?

Or to put it another way: bananas and bananas!

^Exactly, everyone did the wrong thing most of the time. Most of them did the wrong thing. and most of them THINK and also FEEL that the way to have a long term happiness IS that wrong thing.

Have you ever heard the phrase "I Feel something so Right, doing the wrong thing" ?

That is the proof, and this world reality is the proof, that human are fundamentally Evil. We are bondage by it, we are not free.

that's why a morally good person, according to Kant, is a free person. That's why lock's (i think) said that a good person who lived by the social contract is Living Against His Nature.

: D

But Evil is merely getting it wrong; IE making sub-optimal decisions.

Humans are natural optimisers so we tend to get it right (=good) rather than wrong (=evil)

Science points to a creator of the universe (of some form). I do find it reassuring to know the universe was designed rather than just a random occurrence. — Devans99

Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator?

That makes the tribe as a whole wrong and unpopular with other tribes. They would not last long as a tribe. — Devans99

It's a hypothetical example used to illustrate an idea - the idea being that right and wrong are fundamentally a sense, that works on knowledge (false or otherwise.) It's like me saying imagine there was a four seater plane crashed high in the mountains... And you saying, "Awww no, a Sesna can't fly that high." So what? What does that have to do with whether cannibalism is inherently right or wrong?

The Nazis were wrong and they paid the price for it. — Devans99

Were they? So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong, are you? So, what you're saying is - ordinary people did what they did, believing and knowing it was wrong. No! They acted on lies, but they believed it was right.

because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition
— karl stone

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain — Devans99

Finding out one is wrong is not at all pleasurable - as you pointed out in regard to atheists. If right is pleasure greater than pain, we should allow people to believe whatever they like, and should not strive to understand, nor communicate understanding. Science would grind to a halt if that were true. But it is by disproving others, potentially causing them pain - science moves forward. Is that wrong? Surely, you must agree it's not wrong - or you'd be wrong. In which case, you're wrong!

Doesn't make sense, does it?

( / w \ ) Ahh I see what you're getting. You believe that human (Because of reason that you said) Tend to do Right things, you believe, or maybe you hope that in reality, human tend, or should to do the right things.

BUT, psychology, statistic, anthropology, social science said otherwise, "We Tend to do the wrong thing". we should (if listen to desire) do the wrong thing


You look into the Process, and Input (That is, because human are X, human are (Output) Good).

"X" is your argument btw (Optimiser, long -term creature, etc)


While I look first in the output (that is, This world is "Z", because human are bad, why human are bad, because [Input research journal here])

Z is my argument (Filled with suffering, filled with wrong decision, etc)

The reality are this world is bad. For your argument to works, the world must be good. The people who today (in TED, etc) is a kind of people who are acting againts their impulse and natural desire.

Saying human is fundamentally bad, doesn't mean we have a pessimistic, this world couldn't be a better place view.

Because by saying human is fundamentally bad, there's hope that human can rise more beyond natural instinct, beyond animalistic instinct, beyond our implanted program. Saying human is fundamentally bad, is a statement full of hope dude / w \

Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator? — karl stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong — karl stone

Right and Wrong are mathematical. The Nazis did what was pleasurable for them in the short term, but they were wrong because it was painful for them in the long term (loosing the war).

But it is by disproving others, potentially causing them pain — karl stone

Scientific progress is an example of right: Pain in the short term (working on the discovery) but pleasure in the long term (exploiting the discovery). Even the person who's theory was superseded benefits in the long term.

Devans99
335
↪diesynyang If everyone was doing the right thing, the world would be a happy place.[/quote]

Girlfriend asks - do these jeans make my bum look fat?

No dear. It's your giant fat bum that makes your giant fat bum look big!

Later, why am I sleeping on the sofa? I did the right thing!

Doing the right thing is painful in the short term and takes willpower. Thats the main reason people get it wrong; lack of willpower.

I think humans want to do the right thing but sometimes fail. They are attracted by the short term pleasure of wrong. But humans are more right than wrong; we would not be the dominant species if we got it wrong most of the time.

Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator?
— karl stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe — Devans99

Anthropic principle.

So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong
— karl stone
— Devans99

Right and Wrong are mathematical. The Nazis did what was pleasurable for them in the short term, but they were wrong because it was painful for them in the long term (loosing the war). — Devans99

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain — Devans99

This is how you defined right and wrong earlier - now it's long term and short term. I'm done.

Anthropic principle — karl stone

- The Weak Anthropic explains the universe must be compatible with life for us to be here. It does not explain why the universe is compatible with life.

- The Strong Anthropic explains that the existence of multiple universes with different properties account for our fine-tuning. But other universes are statistically likely to be like this one (Life supporting) so the SAP does not explain why the multiverse is fined-tuned for life.

How about doing some actual research rather than making whimsical claims? I really don’t understand the point of throwing out random unfounded opinions when there is plenty lf data out there to either back up or dismiss our rather sketchy idea.

You’re asking a psychological question. You’re idea of IQ and intelligence quite uninformed. I posted a link above detailing what “intelligence” means and how psychology is progressing toward answering various questions surrounding this subject with varying degrees of success.

Opinionated assertions are nothing more than ... well, just that. Step it up my friend if you want a seroius discussion.

This is an original idea; it is not covered by existing research. It's incorrect of you to try to suppress new ideas. Your effective intelligence is on the low side.

How are you measuring my “effective intelligence”? What is “effective intelligence”?

Effective Intelligence = IQ * Correctness

Define “correctness” then. I was actually under the impression that IQ tests required people to get the “correct” answer in order to score high.

Explain please.

Correctness is more about willpower than IQ. The right thing is often painful in the short term.

Someone with low willpower but high IQ will make mistakes like eating sweets; they are attracted to the short term pleasure.

Someone with high willpower but low IQ will not make the same basic mistakes. They have the willpower to cope with short term pain in exchange for long term pleasure.

Doing the right thing is painful in the short term and takes willpower. Thats the main reason people get it wrong; lack of willpower. — Devans99

^Yes, Yes, I do agree with that, yep, YES!.... when Willpower is weak, Impulse is strong! (The Impulse to do the wrong things) (The impulse that is planted since birth)

I think humans want to do the right thing but sometimes fail. They are attracted by the short term pleasure of wrong. — Devans99

^ It's not that simple, takes this example:

1) A person was given 2 choices, 1 choice would give him pleasure and happiness in the long term, but the other will bring displeasure to a group of random people. Knowing that, People will choose the first choice!

2) A Person was given a choice, to save 1 disabled person that he love, or to save 3 healthy, smart person that could bring good to the world and him in the long run. Knowing this fact, he would still choose number 1

3) A Child when without proper education, is an egocentric human.

Not all human, and not most human, want to do the right things, even after they know the consequence beforehand.

we would not be the dominant species if we got it wrong most of the time — Devans99

^ We are dominant, because through evolution, we are STRONG (Strong doesn't mean morally good). In the past we do many many bad thing (Slavery, Extreme Racism, War, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, Mass murder). We are able to stay exist because, we are weak and couldn't fully achieve our desire.

Human without proper education are Evil, a person that lives in the natural state are Evil.

By the way, Fundamentally means. "When you strip everything away (Education, Parent, Value, etc) you're left with X"

Example : When you strip Iron-man of all it's suit, money, power, genius, he become a normal man

that mean, when you strip a human of all of it education, value that's teach, contract and responsibility, you're left with Egoistic Human (Which is evil)

And how are you measuring this? Why do I have “low effective intelligence”?

If you don’t have an objective means of measuring then it is merely your personal assertion. You are obviously entitled to hold the opinion that I am “ineffective” just as I am you. So what?

I think Intelligence is made up of following two factors: — Devans99

I think "intelligence" is one of those words that we all understand, in general terms, but prove difficult to pin down when we try. There are lots of words like this, e.g. "quality" (cf. Pirsig), "beauty", "wisdom" (often considered to be a complement to intelligence), "God", "truth", "good" and "evil", and so on. Perhaps these terms are intended to be general and inexact, because that's how we use them? I'm not sure.

I am sure that, whenever I have seen attempts to define intelligence with precision, all we get is a discussion about the relevance and meaning of IQ tests. (Human) mental acuity, and the terms that describe it, are difficult to discuss. Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are. They, and the terms I forgot to list because I didn't think of them, all act together to describe our mental acuity and ability, as far as we understand it and them. They are related, not distinct. They are associated, not independent. They interact to produce the mental acuity we are so proud of.

Just my two pennyworth. :wink:

It was the way you dismissed my OP because it was different from the research you'd read. As I pointed out, its a new idea and its incorrect to dismiss it out of hand without mentioning any specific problem with my argument.

1) A person was given 2 choices, 1 choice would give him pleasure and happiness in the long term, but the other will bring displeasure to a group of random people. Knowing that, People will choose the first choice! — diesynyang

Can you give a specific example?

2) A Person was given a choice, to save 1 disabled person that he love, or to save 3 healthy, smart person that could bring good to the world and him in the long run. Knowing this fact, he would still choose number 1 — diesynyang

It's clearly wrong to save 1 person rather than 3.

We are dominant, because through evolution, we are STRONG — diesynyang

We are dominant because of our ability to work as a team; for which a natural understanding of right and wrong is required.

Human without proper education are Evil, a person that lives in the natural state are Evil — diesynyang

But it's not natural for a human to have no upbringing. So humans are naturally good.

Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are — Pattern-chaser

I think IQ and willpower are distinct enough. Willpower is required to make the 'correct' decisions. IQ is required to understand complex situations.

That wasn’t the reason.

The link I provided as an overview of what “intelligence” means in psychology and a review of how it is measured. It is helpful to know this if you’re talking about this subject.

Also, you’ve still not answered my question. How are you measuring my “effective intelligence”? You’ve presented an opinion of me not a means of measuring my “correctness.”

New idea? It appears that what you’re referring to is either part of some personality trait (“grit” or the more convential “conscientiousness”), or an issue of morality.

Adrenaline is also helpful for brain functioning. Like everything too much will produced drawbacks. When you do exercise epinephrine levels rise and increase blood flow. There is some evidence to suggest that this hormone can actually increase a persons ability to solve problems due to the physiological effects on the brain. This, I would randomly speculate, is maybe why physical fitness correlates with the g-factor (although how high the correlation is I cannot remember, but it’s significant enough aafter error margins are taken into account.)

It doesn’t matter what you “think” even by your own standards. What matters is whether you are right or wrong. How do you know you are right? Anyone can have any number of singular reasons for thinking they are “right.” What is is regardless.

Science was only one of the disciplines I said, grew out of religion. There was also philosophy, politics, law, economics etc... do they not address our relationship to reality? — karl stone

Which of these disciplines focus on falling in love with reality? Emotions Karl. Human emotions. Note how your list of nerd disciplines has little to say about them.

Here's an example to illustrate why this matters. This is a philosophy forum. It's about logic, right? Only on the surface. An inch below that surface this forum, any philosophy forum, is really fueled by human emotions.

Imagine that the mods removed all the screen names from the forum so that it was impossible to tell who said what, and there was no way to claim credit, establish a reputation, receive applause etc. This would be a better setup technically, logically, because removing the screen names would kill many emotional distractions in the threads. It would also kill the forum as most members would soon stop participating given the forum would no longer be a suitable vehicle for pursuing what we're really interested in, our emotional agendas.

Gotta go, more later...

Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are — Pattern-chaser


I think IQ and willpower are distinct enough. Willpower is required to make the 'correct' decisions. IQ is required to understand complex situations. — Devans99

"Red" and "green" are 'distinct enough', but when it comes to seeing colour, both are necessary, and not obviously distinct. Both are colours, and both are associated with seeing colours. I'm not saying that you can't distinguish (for example) IQ and willpower, but I am saying it's a fruitless endeavour. They belong together. The sense they convey does so as part of a greater whole.

How are you measuring my “effective intelligence”? You’ve presented an opinion of me not a means of measuring my “correctness.” — I like sushi

I would measure correctness as the tendency to use willpower in order to exchange short term pain for long term pleasure. Being rude and unhelpful may give you a short term kick, but it is counter productive in the long term.

Adrenaline is a stress hormone and it's damaging to the system in the long term (which is what matters). It's the fight/flight response, a danger signal. It does help cognition but only in the short term.

I think you get individuals with high IQ and low willpower. For example an intelligent person who overeats and is overweight.

Then you also get people with low IQ and high willpower. These are nice people who do the right thing but struggle with complex situations.

IQ tests exist. There are various ways of measuring willpower (walking on hot coal for example). So its possible to separate the two.