My theory of the nature of good evil and the soul

Tis A fair assessment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As much as I don't want to admit it this seems a fair enough assessment of the topic.

See though, part of it is I believe that this is in each of us just in varying degrees. So I was hoping to get you to to trigger it in yourself for the purpose of understanding the concepts I was trying to express.

It isn't at all tangible or quantifiable. But what of philosophy concerning general universal concepts is? Especially when were talking about so called "super natural" or religious concepts(which isn't exactly what what I'm talking about but eh)
True that doesn't change how hard a discussion about this is.

Well i don't know much about platos republic. I've been a philosopher from a young age but haven't really spent any time studding philosophy/ancient philosophers in the school sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I hope none of you think any less of me for it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hobbes,

I agree with your statement about the dad and hitler. I would look at it this way. Who is a better student, one who sits quietly and listens to the lecture without interfearing with the rest of the class. Or the guy in the back making jokes and throwing shit around the room. Sure people will remember the guy that made all the noise over the quiet person. But does that make him a better person, to me I would think he was dumb for disrupting the class and far from having any wisdom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very well said. Excellent analogy.To add to your analogy who is going to learn more and succeed in the field that he is in class to study? No answer to that is needed at all.

You shall know something by its fruits. Even if the methods be complex the fruit of evil is simple. Destruction is not at all complex. Thats why its easier to make a atomic bomb then it is to make a nuclear power station.

What did hitler did? Not much. He destroyed stuff. Sure it was on a large scale but 0 x 567 is still not much.

Anyways his position was much about dumb luck. Lets say he had used his influence and made Germany a nation among nations. One that was crime free and put the US's democracy to shame.

Wait you say? That is not a simple deed? Why you would be right. Its a very complex thing to do indeed.

To go back to the father who gave all to his daughter. The final outcome is complex and that reflects the source and the thinking that produced said fruit.

The fruit of evil is simple and the fruit of goodness is complex.
This reflects the source.

Does this in any way provide some kind of limited
objective proof to those who need it? I know it does to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have expressed profound wisdom here.

That or I farted.. Either way someone must have a comment for me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Come on I worked hard on this far.. er thesis

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Poppycock. What if he was disruptive because he was mind-bogglingly brilliant and bored to death? and then, after graduation (gaining high scores even though he never did his homework) then goes on to create a cure for cancer? resulting in long term benefits for millions of people... at the cost of a few "less brilliant" kid's exam scores.

The one sitting quietly at the back, on the other hand, may have been doing so simply because he didn't understand a word being said and is trying to avoid having the lecturer notice it, or him.

 

your missing the point. It was the premise not the details of the analogy that count. Analogies dont fit exactly what there being compared to. Thats what makes it a analogy.

So these "what if" scenarios are irrelevant. What if a meteorite was flying at the school and the guy in the corner is quite because hes too scared to death to speak? Still not relevant.

 

Sorry to get involved... but the use of analogies would be no good here... because what do you include and what do you leave out in every analogy? It depends on what point is trying to be made and thus the analogy will ALWAYS fit, but that same analogy, slightly altered might prove a point contrary to the original.. so in the end both are pointless, other than meerly to explain a point, not a proof in itself!

My problem with your theory Hobbes is that once again it requires faith , the same problem with most current religeons... No theory can be based on the assumption you believe the theory before you start....

Just my 2 cents... im ready to be slated!

 

Please do

An analogy is a way of describing a concept that doesn't have a word for it. Like if I wanted to describe density i might use a analogy of pillows and anvils. You could say well what if the pillow was stuffed with bricks or what if the anvil was hollow and I would say again.. Not the point.

A analogy is a way of describing a concept not proving a point.(you cant really prove a point with just a analogie can you?)
So the expresser of the concept is what you go by because who better to know what the expresser meant?

The point is to get what I mean not come up with a bunch of "what ifs" It does indeed take skill to use and understand analogy.

My theory requires no faith. Never did I use that word. It requires accessing within that which most already know and to successfully prove my point I think what I need to do is give a proper example analogy or logic argument to trigger that inherent knowledge. Of course analogies only work if people don't "what if" it to death and focus more on what someone is trying to say.

Hmm ... Perhaps I've not expressed myself properly in this post, Hopefully some people will know what I mean at least.

Feed back helps with the process of refining my logic and expressing it better.

So please. more feedback

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

P.S. I appreciate your thoughts FunkyJuice even if it might have sounded like I didn't

 

And my response too was intended not too sound too downbeat about your views... in fact I really like the immeasurable soul concept..

This is what I have a slight problem with, it requires you to believe in 2d/3d intelligence to understand that concept...

My other concern with any theory is the problem of self interest... we all secretly would love immortality, whatever that form takes, whether it be reincarnation, heaven/hell or even the immeasurable soul that goes on beyond physical death..... I have many other questions regarding self interest with any theory but I wont go into them here....

 

Originally posted by hobbes
Feed back helps with the process of refining my logic and expressing it better.

So please. more feedback

Sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

First I believe energy only exists as the movement of particles and not as its self. Which means you can't convert energy to mass and back if energy is only the movement of mass. Which puts me at odds with most current conventional science beliefs. Even light has shown to have particle properties.

Our concept of an atomic (re: comprised of indivisible particles) universe is demonstrably incorrect. At the quantum level the universe is comprised of forces and energy… the particular concept of matter does not truly exist it is only a model to explain what we see happening. This model fails at certain points... a better model is actually the reverse of your conception here… it is matter that is the illusion… all that exists is energy. What we "see" as the material universe is actually only the interplay of forces upon each other.

I believe if you kept on going down the chain from atom to proton to electron to quark and smaller you keep on finding smaller and smaller particles. (what binds them is still a question mark in my mind but i have several theories on that. )

Time for some physics research… the forces that bind "particles" together are: Electromagnetic, Gravity, Stong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear. As yet quarks have not been broken down into smaller units except mathematically where they can be explained as a combination of three "smaller" units.

My theory goes that a web of ultra small particles line our central nerves system. We already know electrons pass back and forth like a small electrical current. What if some other particles were involved too. This web/pattern of small particles while connected to our nerves system would also be independent of it.

Like if you lost part of your brain due to disease that web would still exist in that area but freed of the influence of the brain would work differently perhaps. As part of it would still be part of the brain the part that isnt could still affect the brain except more indirectly.

If you died this pattern would survive Which would mean the soul would have infinitely small mass.

Pure conjecture, but interesting. How would this "pattern" propagate itself… that is how would it continue when the nervous system that was it's framework decomposed? What about people who are born with brain defects, are their souls deformed too?

There are three basic kinds of intelligence.
Information is what/one dimensional- building blocks.
cunning is how/2d- Adding those building blocks together to create advanced items.
wisdom is why/3d- Is being more then the sum of your parts.

Interesting concept.

What does this have to do with good and evil?
When you do evil things you loose track of the why. You become more simple. In short you destroy your soul. This act of self destruction of ones soul is evil. The act of growing and expanding in complexity with ones soul is good. The acts we describe as good and evil have direct consequences to our soul and its complexity.
Which is why,'why we do something' is as important as what we do.

If the "soul" as described above is the result of a physical structure how do one's action affect it?

Which is also why according to this theory at least. If god did exist he would have to be good because in order to reach the magnitude of power as is described to him he would have to become very very complex and very good/kind/loving.

Volumes of data dont make a program complex and effective.
Efficient smart programming does. As any programmer knows smaller amounts of data can be good for more effiecient and fast running of a program.

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Expert systems need a large amount of data to work well… since they can't actually discover anything on their own all such "intelligent" systems are dependant on data. A database system is worthless if there is no or little data.

Evil thoughts and such could even be described as a virus of the soul perhaps.

Care to elaborate? I don't see that you've really defined how this would work.

An interesting approach... I've tried to point out some problems for you. Hope it helps.

~Raithere

 

i don't believe i am. i'm basically saying that the way you see something is not necessarily what is truth.

 

Well of course what I say might not necessarily be true.
But when someone is using a analogy there basically using the language creatively to express a idea that normally has no word for it.

So its a matter of what I mean not whether I'm right.

If you get what I mean then let that be enough please.
Please don't dissect how I expressed it.

 

Re: Re: My theory of the nature of good evil and the soul

Your expressing this opinion as fact. Please don't try to teach me.
What has lead you to the conclusions that you state as fact here?
(its really as much conjecture as anything i've said)

Indeed pure conjecture. What else but conjecture does one have to consider such issues such as souls? Unlike a religious person I base this not on "faith" but logic.

Anyways back to your counter argument-questions.

Defined by and locked into the nervous system but not supported by it.
The nervous system in this theory being the exoskeleton of the soul. (sort of. But unlike most creatures who have exoskeletons a soul can exist without one)

Well in theory part of there soul would exist and develop outside of the exoskeleton of the nervious system which means a soul development with a unusual nature compared to others. But not necessarily deformed.

Interesting in what way? Do you see truth or folly in that statement of idea?

Ones thoughts affect ones self and soul not ones actions.
Well indirectly actions can because actions affects how we think just as much sometimes as what we think affects what we do.

The point is something having massive amounts of data doesn't automatically make it complex.

Some information can be destructive. With both computers and souls.

Yep thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

keep em coming please guys and gals

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just a quicky..

Hobbes you wrote

OK a few thought regarding this..... Thoughts affect ones soul? What about the monk like man, that may contemplate evil acts, may even feel compulsed to do them, but ultimately decides against it.. and either seeks help or beats it with willpower...

Is he evil? surely the self control shown not to harm another individual must be viewed as good?!

The other problem is who is to define what "thoughts" are good and what are evil? as has previously been argued, views in morality and the laws a society will keep are open to change in time, thus what we view as evil then (adulterous women/ eating of milk and meat together) is not viewed with quite the same verocity now....

 

Re: My theory

Originally posted by hobbes
Your expressing this opinion as fact. Please don't try to teach me.
What has lead you to the conclusions that you state as fact here?
(its really as much conjecture as anything i've said)

I will give you that these are all only models… all such concepts are. However, the most accurate models to date are those that have moved away from the atomic structure. You'll need to do more than simply propose that the currently favored models are dead wrong… do you any evidence or argument to support this proposition? More to the point, even the atomic models included energy… how do you have a universe without energy?

In addition your statement "Which means you can't convert energy to mass and back if energy is only the movement of mass." is demonstrably incorrect. Fission creates a loss of mass which directly converted to energy. E=MC^2.

Well in theory part of there soul would exist and develop outside of the exoskeleton of the nervious system which means a soul development with a unusual nature compared to others. But not necessarily deformed.

Okay.

Here's another question: At what point during life do these soul particles begin to attach? Also, is one particle enough for a soul? How many are required before a being can be said to have a soul?

Interesting in what way? Do you see truth or folly in that statement of idea?

I can follow your logic here but I'm wondering if you can use it to explain anything other than this particular concept…

Ones thoughts affect ones self and soul not ones actions.

Again, how? How does thought change the pattern of "soul particles" that have adhered themselves to one's nervous system?

The point is something having massive amounts of data doesn't automatically make it complex.

It depends on what is done with the data. An interactive system will be more complex the more data it has. Consider a tank with one atom in it… not much going on and very simple. Then consider a tank with a million atoms in it… it is inherently a more complex system.

Also… according to your model of intelligence, raw data are the building blocks of higher intelligence. Wouldn't it fit then that the more raw data one has the more cunning and wisdom one has? After all, if I have 1 raw data I cannot build any cunning or wisdom. If I have 9 raw data I can build 3 wisdoms.

Some information can be destructive. With both computers and souls.

Can you provide any example of how information, itself, is destructive?

~Raithere

 

Re: Re: My theory

You need to do more then just quote the most popular scientific theories of the time. At one time we even thought the world was flat. Do you have any evidence or arguments to support your claims? As the most popular current scientific beliefs it should be easy to provide such proof. You have yet to do so.

You did not understand what I was saying it seems.
There is energy it just doesn't exist as itself but only as the movement of mass and there is such movement in atoms.

If energy only exist as the velocity/movement of matter then that means energy can not exist on its own which means energy and mass can not be converted back and forth.
As far as things like nuclear power and bombs that is the release of said movement within the atoms of the material in question.

Its like popping a balloon. While the air is in the balloon it is contained and seems solid. When you pop the balloon the random movement of air within the balloon forces itself out as the pressure out side the balloon is so much less. Does that mean the matter/air within the balloon was converted to energy? No its just that that mass was released. Something like a atomic bomb is the same. You are causing a chain reaction that "pops" all the atoms around it thereby popping more atoms and so on.

How many cells equal a person? Does one cell equal a person?
Do a bunch of them? When does a person become a person while in the womb? When fertilization happens?

Find the answers to these questions and you will find the answer to your own questions concerning how many particles equal a soul.

Yes I can.
silicon=knowledge.
circuit board=cunning.
computer=wisdom
alot of silicon does not necessarily equal a computer. Neither does a pile of circuit boards.

If they adhere to ones nerves system that means there affected by the nerves system forming itself in the same shape as that pattern.
Ones thoughts affect the pattern of nerves in there brain which affects there soul

Which is more advanced? a 10 tons of sand or one crystal glass swan?

The point is that while you need some knowledge to make cunning and wisdom. A whole bunch of it doesn't necessarily add up to cunning or wisdom. Sometimes it can be counterproductive.
Which is stronger? A sword made of stainless steel. Or a sword twice the size as the one i mentioned earlier made with a mix of stainless steel and aluminum or gold?

Blacksmiths hammer out the air and work out the impurities in there metal mix when trying to make a weapon such as a sword. Even air is rigorously beaten out of the mix.

Why? because they know more metal isn't necessarily better its all about the quality and purity of the metal.

You need some metal to make a sword and some sand to make a crystal glass swan. More doesn't necessarily mean a better sword or a better swan.

One more analogy. Is 10 gigabyes of data that is random ones and zeros more advanced then even the smallest of programs?

I did already, A computer virus. It is information that destroys other information.

heres another one. Information to a city that everyone needs to evactuae is good. Information that they need to evacuate because a swarm of terrible mutants that are going to torture and kill everyone is bad because of the mass panic it would cause which would ultimately make it harder to get everyone out.
(ok so the analogy is a little outlandish. You get what I mean though right?)

 

Originally posted by hobbes
You need to do more then just quote the most popular scientific theories of the time. At one time we even thought the world was flat. Do you have any evidence or arguments to support your claims? As the most popular current scientific beliefs it should be easy to provide such proof. You have yet to do so.

You're the one proposing an alternative theory… I'm querying it. The burden of proof is upon you. And actually, I have given evidence, I'll reword it:

In a fission reaction mass is lost and energy is released.
Explain, according to your theory, what happened to the mass?

Here are some more, these questions are based upon observed results:

If everything is a particle:
Explain how light particles interfere with each other at a distance.
Explain the non-locality of particles.
Explain what a light particle is since it has no mass.

You did not understand what I was saying it seems.
There is energy it just doesn't exist as itself but only as the movement of mass and there is such movement in atoms.

That's not what I'm arguing… movement of mass is energy. Your statement was that mass cannot be converted to energy, yet this is demonstrably wrong (see the fission example above). To put it simply; Mass decreases, movement increases. How do you explain this without using an equivalent of energy?

Again, I would point out that these are models. The model of the Universe as comprised of infinitesimal billiard balls fails to explain many observed phenomena. It's not that it's wrong so much as there are better ways of explaining things. Presently, the most accurate models we have describe a Universe that is comprised of forces acting upon one another at a distance rather than particles smashing into each other. Reality, however, at this level is something we can never truly perceive. All we can do is work to find what conceptual model best explains our observations.

How many cells equal a person? Does one cell equal a person?
Do a bunch of them? When does a person become a person while in the womb? When fertilization happens?

Find the answers to these questions and you will find the answer to your own questions concerning how many particles equal a soul.

This is your hypothesis not mine, you find the answers, that's not my job. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't know. Which is fine… I was just wondering.

Yes I can.
silicon=knowledge.
circuit board=cunning.
computer=wisdom
alot of silicon does not necessarily equal a computer. Neither does a pile of circuit boards.

This analogy doesn't really equate to me. How does silicon = knowledge, I don't see the connection here. You're also mixing up terms… is knowledge = information?

The point is that while you need some knowledge to make cunning and wisdom. A whole bunch of it doesn't necessarily add up to cunning or wisdom. Sometimes it can be counterproductive.

Doesn't necessarily, yes I agree. It would depend on the interaction of those bits of data. But I would argue that given the same rules of interaction more data results in a more complex system.

One more analogy. Is 10 gigabyes of data that is random ones and zeros more advanced then even the smallest of programs?

Random ones and zeroes are not what I would term "data", "information", or "knowledge". It's noise.

I did already, A computer virus. It is information that destroys other information.

But a computer virus is not simply information. It is a system designed with intent… in other words by the cunning and wisdom of a human agent.

heres another one. Information to a city that everyone needs to evactuae is good. Information that they need to evacuate because a swarm of terrible mutants that are going to torture and kill everyone is bad because of the mass panic it would cause which would ultimately make it harder to get everyone out.

But it's people's actions that you're describing. How is the information itself intrinsically bad? I don't see that you've demonstrated this… what you're describing is information in the hands of a human agent. The information about the mutants could be a good thing… knowing the threat they might choose to evacuate by boat whereas if the threat were a hurricane travel by boat would not be a good idea.

~Raithere

 

I want to discuss this with you not the general scientific community.
So please. Please provide your own thoughts or if you feel a need to quote others please provide the proof. Theoretically as its other persons stuff proof should be easy enough to glean,

Mines just thought exercises not at all easy to prove. But if I did quote someone It would only be reasonable if I said who and what they did to show this.

So you say. Mass might be transmuted into another form but I don't believe it was lost.

Observed by who and how? I don't see any of those things you ask me to explain as true.

No of course not.:bugeye: Thats what I was arguing

Demonstrated by blanket statements of fact.

These questions are the same as yours. Questions everyone has there own opinion and perspective on. I was trying to demonstrate the magnitude of your questions.

Its a analogy.
Trying to show how the levels of complexity from 1d knowledge to 3d knowledge compare to one another.

Yes information. As in one dimensional knowledge. Sorry typo.

Scratch "complex" for "advanced" then. Take windows. Its a very boated and flawed piece of OS. Compared to linux which is a much smaller program and even requires less processing power to use and is even getting rather close to windows user friendliness and easy of use.

 

Mines just thought exercises not at all easy to prove. But if I did quote someone It would only be reasonable if I said who and what they did to show this.

Okay:

Explain how light particles interfere with each other at a distance.

Explain the non-locality of particles.

Explain what a light particle is since it has no mass.

Scratch "complex" for "advanced" then. Take windows. Its a very boated and flawed piece of OS. Compared to linux which is a much smaller program and even requires less processing power to use and is even getting rather close to windows user friendliness and easy of use.

It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of data… simply a far superior programmer for it's genesis and a far better method of continuing development. Otherwise the standard "Hello World" program from programming classes would be one of the most advanced programs ever. You're speaking of systems and organized processing… not raw data.

Much of 1d knowledge/information is noise. But I do get what your saying here. Put the names of all animals and plants and there description in my example instead.of random ones and zeros. Raw data.

Yes. I find it far more advanced. A list with every animal known can be used for many interesting processes… compare this with a list with just Dog and Cat.

All computer data is made by someone. Not using 3d knowledge/wisdom though of course. That doesnt change the fact its data. Destructive data. You asked for a example of destructive data I just gave you it.

No. I asked for an example of how data itself is destructive. But we're way off base here so I'll let it drop.

~Raithere

 

I keep saying something that your not hearing.
What i'm not saying is that smaller means more advanced.
What I am saying is bigger doesn't necessarily mean more advanced either.

You might find it useful but its not at all advanced. Its basic info.
You just don't seem to be getting what I'm trying to express. Though I do appreciate the effort.

Lets say we put that list on the middle of config.sys. That would make windows larger. Would it make it run smoother? You of course don't need to answer that rhetorical question. My point is that for the most part it isn't how much data you have but what kind and what you do with it.

If more data meant more advanced then the internet is the most advanced program imaginable. Yes I know the internet is not a program. Thats my point.

Did you not get the point of my blacksmith/sword analogy? You act like I hadn't even said it.

As far as the rest concerning light being a particle at all. I shall look through it. Take the time to digest it all and get back to you. Thank you for the time and effort you used to dig all that up