Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[Sonicblu]

Natural Law is illogical because it requires a sentient being to interpret it.  All sentient beings are biased in one way or another due to how they were raised, and thus even if there were one natural law, we wouldn't see it.  This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.

Human Rights are whatever a culture deems them to be, and if some oppose it, that is only natural.  Furthermore, I feel that the whole concept of them is logical only if view from a particular perspective: evolution.  We want to survive, we want to reproduce, and we want our children to reproduce.  Thus, we want the species to continue on (albeit in our own image).  If our biodiversity suffers, then so do the reproductive effectiveness of the carriers of our genes.

I did not say that what we did to the Native Americans was wrong, I said that it was genocide, and not a well known genocide.  This is a classic example of accidental distortion- you added tone to a literal phrase, and it wasn't your fault either.  Without tone, we cannot understand all but the simplest ideas.

-Penguin

This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.


How do you know anything you are posting if this statement is true? How can you claim everyone's mind distorts information?

You are claiming you have the truth that there is no natural law yet you just said no one can see it because our minds distort it. How are you able to see this absolute truth but no other one.

evolution is a non intelligent unguided process. It only has survival value. So it is illogical for you to claim logic from this world view.

a debate presupposes the laws of logic, since evolution cannot account for such laws, this proves that there are absolute truths. Only one world view can account for these laws and a sentient being capable of it.
 

[FireDrgn]

We have been discussing balance in good and bad nature, not in simple good or bad. What is the difference?The very topic contains the word nature. Human Nature - is it good or bad. Once again I state, our nature and our actions are very different.  Our nature? Nature is non intelligent.  Our nature is nothing more than random chemical interactions.   

The same as your claim, you just refuse to look past your thoughts. I acknowledge your evidence and tackle it in my replies. You seem to ignore my comparison between physical balance and psychological. Many experiments in physics have acted as an example of balance that requires no intelligent (or none that we know of). You have no more proof to dispute natural psychological balance than I have to prove it. Random chemical interactions in the brain do not create balance it creates unbalance .  Choice which requires intellects can balance or it can unbalance further.Nature is balanced. A natural food chain is balanced. Physical laws are balanced. Life or death is a daily balance. Human nature is often balanced.   Should you expect this from a random chemical interaction worldview?
It is our intelligence that causes imbalance, not sustains balance.  Negative ghost rider. intelligence can balance or imbalance. .  We would except random chemical reactions to do just that randomize.
 
Balance is the natural state of being. To achieve balance nothing must be tampered with at all. Dont eat for about 10 days and tell me this is true.   Just going to guess here but i think you are going to be pretty unbalanced.

Disagree. Balance is normality. Imbalance is the abstraction.  With out intelligent humans would all stave to death. eating requires action and you have aleady defined a difference between our nature and action.

How can this be true? Many things cycle in a constant balance in real time.    If it is cycling it can not be in balance at the same time. The very word cycle states the opposite of balance. Balance must already happen or you cant say it is balanced.  It would be unbalanced unless it has already happend.  

Put water and oil in a cup in equal portions. Balance will be achieved without intelligent.  Please use an example that does not use intelligent. I would be more open to that kind of example.Physics to psychology, if you dont like the concept I don't wish to push it on you. .  If it was not a logical fallicy i would be more open to the comparison.     Balance in physics does not equal balance in psychology.   

Great discussion bat.


1. From a non intelligent worldview how do you get good and bad? We are nothing but random chance.  There is no reason why we are here. There are no penalties after we die. There can be no good and bad.  Mob rule may make a common reality when we choose to agree. It does not make good and bad.

2. Is it logically true for good and bad to exist in a world of random chance and non intelligents?

3. Did good and bad exist before human intelligent?

[mechanic]

Another challengine reply, thanks. I will have to reply to the green later when i have time! I will do i promise.

question 1. These statements, to me, appear to be partialy your beliefs and partialy your predictions and observations. I can't answer anythign here.

2. No, but it is logically true for positive and negative to exist in a world of random chance. The physics again, I know. Replace those two with the two most powerfull human emotions. Love and hate. It is clear to me that our global human nature must be comprised of an extreme ammount of hate to fully appreciate the extremes of love. Without the hate, love would be worth less. It is my suggestion that a majority of individuals, when we forget the global scale, are comprised of roughly equal portions of love and hate.

 More importantly to me is the prediction that even without any hate left, love would inspire hate somehow. Two people loving the same person and only one getting loved back is a prime example. So hate is unavoidable if we want to love. The positive and negative of human nature for you.


3. Possitive and negative did, it just had not been translated into consious emotion.

side note - on the nature vs actions: We might think to kill but not do it. This would make our nature 'more bad' than our actions.

i'll come back to this for the green.

[Penguin]

Does the presence of a bias to interpretation entirely preclude the existence of meaning?

You just proved my point- literal definitions are set in stone, interpreting them gives them meaning.

For example, the term 'retard'

Originally, it meant someone whose development was slowed¹
Now, it means (to most) someone who is mentally normal, but simply foolish (much to the dismay of actual retards, I might add)

As you can see, the definition didn't change, but the meaning did- from a direct way to say that someone's development was slowed, to merely an insult.

-Penguin

Sources:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard

[FireDrgn]

Another challengine reply, thanks. I will have to reply to the green later when i have time! I will do i promise.

question 1. These statements, to me, appear to be partialy your beliefs and partialy your predictions and observations. I can't answer anythign here.  Cant argue with that.

2. No, but it is logically true for positive and negative to exist in a world of random chance. The physics again, I know. Replace those two with the two most powerfull human emotions. Love and hate. It is clear to me that our global human nature must be comprised of an extreme ammount of hate to fully appreciate the extremes of love. Without the hate, love would be worth less. It is my suggestion that a majority of individuals, when we forget the global scale, are comprised of roughly equal portions of love and hate.

 More importantly to me is the prediction that even without any hate left, love would inspire hate somehow. Two people loving the same person and only one getting loved back is a prime example. So hate is unavoidable if we want to love. The positive and negative of human nature for you.


3. Possitive and negative did, it just had not been translated into consious emotion. So good and bad does not exist without intelligence.  side note - on the nature vs actions: We might think to kill but not do it. This would make our nature 'more bad' than our actions.   I have to think about killing just to understand what you said.  Your still applying things to nature that i am not sure is possible.   I will have to come back to this .i have to go to work.  I will see if i can explain in a logical way.i'll come back to this for the green.

[Simaril]

You just proved my point- literal definitions are set in stone, interpreting them gives them meaning.

For example, the term 'retard'

Originally, it meant someone whose development was slowed¹
Now, it means (to most) someone who is mentally normal, but simply foolish (much to the dismay of actual retards, I might add)

As you can see, the definition didn't change, but the meaning did- from a direct way to say that someone's development was slowed, to merely an insult.

-Penguin

Sources:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard

I'm not sure I follow your point - unless I didn't communicate mine well....which I'm thinking is the case.

When I said "meaning" I wasn't talking about "definition", the semantically oriented sense of the word. Instead, I was talking about more of a Platonic ideal - the thought that some things have meaning or substance in themselves. Think about the contrast between the "meaning" of "red octagon with STOP written on it" and the meaning of "5+7=12." One is a purely societal construct, while the other is a representation of a concept with non-subjective meaning, expressed in TERMS that are societally agreed upon. That's a subtle, but essential, distinction.


BTW, Penguin - thanks for an interesting and thoroughly civil discussion. I suspect deep down that you and I are starting from different places, and on BBS's that commonly doesn't bode well - but this has been fun!

[Simaril]

Great discussion bat.


1. From a non intelligent worldview how do you get good and bad? We are nothing but random chance.  There is no reason why we are here. There are no penalties after we die. There can be no good and bad.  Mob rule may make a common reality when we choose to agree. It does not make good and bad.

2. Is it logically true for good and bad to exist in a world of random chance and non intelligents?

3. Did good and bad exist before human intelligent?

Penguin and I have been having similar discussions parallel to yours but up till now not intersecting. Thought I'd toss in a few ideas.

1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.

For many with a viewpoint that is "materialist" (meaning all that exists is the material world) and even "material determinist" (materialist who also believes that mechanistic chemical or physical properties control our thoughts, minds, and experiences), morality is only a socially agreed on arbitrary ruleset. This is the post modern view that everything is relative. With the foundation, the only thing that determines who makes the rules is who has the power to do so. In this view, nothing is absolute or unchangeable.

However it is also possible to be both materialist and believe in "morality." We've been talking some about natural law, the idea that there is a ruleset programmed into humanity and at some level common to all of us. While some theists will talk about natural law (for them the "Law Giver" is God), it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct, an evolutionarily developed meta-rule that drives us to certain ideals (instead of regular instinct, that drives us to certain actions like eating or sex).

For natural law theorists, the origin of morality is thus a set of principles that is accessible to just about everyone and is consistent across cultures. To steal a quote, "A man might believe it is allowable to have one wife or to have many, but he may not have any woman he wants."

[FireDrgn]

Penguin and I have been having similar discussions parallel to yours but up till now not intersecting. Thought I'd toss in a few ideas.

1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.

For many with a viewpoint that is "materialist" (meaning all that exists is the material world) and even "material determinist" (materialist who also believes that mechanistic chemical or physical properties control our thoughts, minds, and experiences),Basically we can not know anything because we are controlled by random chemical reactions. The problem is this claim claims to know something- therefore it is false. It violates its own claim. morality is only a socially agreed on arbitrary ruleset. This is the post modern view that everything is relative. With the foundation, the only thing that determines who makes the rules is who has the power to do so. In this view, nothing is absolute or unchangeable.  Every thing is relative claims to be True  --- not relative. therefore it is false. it violates its own rule.

However it is also possible to be both materialist and believe in "morality." We've been talking some about natural law, the idea that there is a ruleset programmed into humanity and at some level common to all of us. While some theists will talk about natural law (for them the "Law Giver" is God), it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct, an evolutionarily developed meta-rule that drives us to certain ideals (instead of regular instinct, that drives us to certain actions like eating or sex). Nature is a chain of event not the events themselves. Nature is not intelligent. It would only be possible for nature to create something randomly by chance. So even if it has survival value there can not be a reason for it. So no real morality can not logically exist. Morality from a materialist or natural law worldview is completely irrational. Intelligence can override any meta program which proves that a preprogrammed morality is just random at best. Its just an accident. Nature can not know when it has failed or succeeded.

For natural law theorists, the origin of morality is thus a set of principles that is accessible to just about everyone and is consistent across cultures. To steal a quote, "A man might believe it is allowable to have one wife or to have many, but he may not have any woman he wants." Morality is accessible to everyone, but only a intelligent design world view allows it to be logically possible.

[Sonicblu]

1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.


1. By "intelligent Design worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean " round earth society "! non-intelligent, materialist, evolutionist, worldview" can be used as a cover for atheism, and I'm betting that's what you're talking about.

I think I stated in my first post this was about world views.

I have to admit Simaril that is one of the most clever ad hominem fallacies I've ever seen.

We need to clear the logic fallacy hurdles first.

This could stay a philosophical, critical thinking debate.

Intellectual bankruptcy will hit before this ever becomes  another kind of  debate.

"it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct,"


This argument presupposes intelligence to even conceive it. The argument has an intelligent designer, you! IT has nothing to do with theism.

1. natural law is instinct.                                       
2. evolution developed instinct.
3. therefore natural law is developed by evolution.

Natural law is  known by reason and logic.

I propose that logic and reason presuppose intelligence. Therefore to my view.
1. Natural law presuppose intelligence
2. evolution by definition is non-intelligent
3. Therefore evolution cannot create natural law.



 

[Penguin]

In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical. 

However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information.  This is how we 'know' things.  However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue:

• None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
• What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)

These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras!  )

Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science.  In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.

-Penguin

[Simaril]

In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical. 

However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information.  This is how we 'know' things.  However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue:

• None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
• What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)

These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras!  )

Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science.  In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.

-Penguin

Good post, logically and internally consistent.

So then - from your last statement -- can there be such a thing as an immoral government, or is that a paradox?

[Simaril]

1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.


1. By "intelligent Design worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean " round earth society "! non-intelligent, materialist, evolutionist, worldview" can be used as a cover for atheism, and I'm betting that's what you're talking about.

I think I stated in my first post this was about world views.

I have to admit Simaril that is one of the most clever ad hominem fallacies I've ever seen.

Have to admit I'm a little confused. I agree that one's idea of morality flows from one's world view, without any doubt at all.

But I'm befuddled about where you get "ad hominem"? I have in no way attacked anyone's integrity, intelligence, or value as a person. Unless you have a misconception about what the term means, I think you've made a non sequitur. (Might want to look that one up too. <grin>)

I'm also confused about the "fallacy" part of the comment. Your quotes refer to what amounts to the "since I didn't quite see just exactly what you were talking about, this is how I took your comment" part of the quoted post. There was no logic or conclusion involved. So what's the fallacy?

[Simaril]

Nature is a chain of event not the events themselves. Nature is not intelligent. It would only be possible for nature to create something randomly by chance. So even if it has survival value there can not be a reason for it. So no real morality can not logically exist. Morality from a materialist or natural law worldview is completely irrational. Intelligence can override any meta program which proves that a preprogrammed morality is just random at best. Its just an accident. Nature can not know when it has failed or succeeded.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I am going somewhere with the discussion, and then arguing against what I expect I am going to say next. In fact, I'm suspicious that what you THINK I believe is 180 degrees different from what I REALLY believe.

Now, on to your argument. For the materialist, nature can only create something randomly - absolutely true. But you're leaving out one important factor - natural selection. Among all the random things that develop, things that randomly correlate with reality are more likely to survive than things which do not.

For example, a random genetic development that makes someone believe "My six shooter has enough bullets to let me fire one at each of my 12 enemies" is not likely to make it to the next generation!

In this way, randomness can come to appreciate and value things that are objectively true, even without a Designer. With enough time, sequential and additional correlations with reality might explain actual intelligence and reliable approximations with reality.

And what is reality? For the materialist, the only Truth is physics.

[FireDrgn]

In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical.  Agreed if we are not able to know then we are unable to know logic.  Since we are having a logical discussion then we do know something.


However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information.  This is how we 'know' things.  However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue: Contradiction: your fist claim stated that we are random chemical reactions. Your second claim states that we are ordered this is HOW we  are able  to know things. . Therefore we are not random chemical reactions we are ordered.

• None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
• What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)

These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras!  )

Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science.  In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.
Morality claims to be true not relative.  laws of science can not be laws if they are relative  Laws claim truth not relative. Again your making a truth claim not a relative claim. this is a contradiction therefore not possible.-Penguin  

[FireDrgn]

Don't make the mistake of assuming I am going somewhere with the discussion, and then arguing against what I expect I am going to say next. In fact, I'm suspicious that what you THINK I believe is 180 degrees different from what I REALLY believe. If logic is true and if i use logic correctly then I can only go were logic takes me. So I can not make the mistake of assuming were u are going.  

Now, on to your argument. For the materialist, nature can only create something randomly - absolutely true. But you're leaving out one important factor - natural selection. Among all the random things that develop, things that randomly correlate with reality are more likely to survive than things which do not. Where do you get reality from? Your claim makes a distinction between the two so they are not the same thing. Your claim presupposes that reality already exists. Reality claims to be true and known not random. If it is random its truth can not be known. If reality exists before randomness(natural selection) the it requires pr existing intelligent because we did not exist yet.

For example, a random genetic development that makes someone believe "My six shooter has enough bullets to let me fire one at each of my 12 enemies" is not likely to make it to the next generation! Your claiming we can not know anything.  Yet your making a truth claim.  So your example can not be true.

In this way, randomness can come to appreciate and value things that are objectively true, even without a Designer. With enough time, sequential and additional correlations with reality might explain actual intelligence and reliable approximations with reality. Randomness can not appreciate anything this is a fallacy of Reification.
 Therefore this one is false also.
And what is reality? For the materialist, the only Truth is physics.   I have already show this to be false. Logic is not meterial or physics. You can not make your logical statment with out logic.  Therefore your statement can only be false.

[/color]