Humans are fundamentally evil - according to Science

[TimeSeeker]

Why would you need to do an 'experiment' to see what arseholes humans really are? Isn't the entire history of humanity enough information to go on?

No.

It doesn't tell me why they are assholes. And if we want to stop being assholes to each other, I think that is a very important question to answer.

Appearances can be deceiving. What seems like asshole behavior from your perspective, may be perfectly rational behavior from theirs. A lesson I learned only after 99% of all instances where my girlfriend was an 'asshole' and we ended up fighting turned out that we are just miscommunications even though we both had valid complaints. Don't we both feel stupid now?

So we learned to communicate. It is harder than you imagine at first! http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

[Nick_A]

Self-defence is the clear-cut case. It is not interesting.

You are using the word 'aggressor' which implies intentional harm. I explicitly said that I will end your life even if you bring upon my loved ones ignorant harm. At that particular moment of ignorance.

In the American legal system this is the distinction between Manslaughter and Homicide. And so I will DELIBERATELY harm you to prevent manslaughter.

You asked whether it was evil, and I replied 'yes' - if not self-defense/protecting others. Vengeful actions = evil.

You are missing the point.
1. My action is not vengeful, but it is purposeful.
2. It is protecting others - those that I love BUT at your expense.
3. YOUR actions are not deliberate - merely ignorant, but that distinction is immaterial to my decision-making and so I kill you anyway.

I am CHOOSING my loved ones over you.

Is that evil?

Hello Timeseeker

It will help me to understand your position to know if you believe in objective evil or if evil is purely a subjective determination. I for example believe that objective evil is only possible for conscious beings. The human condition on earth makes Man in society Plato called the Beast creatures of mechanical reaction. As such society as the Great Beast is no more capable of objective evil than a beast in the jungle. Both live by mechanical reaction to universal forces as opposed to conscious choice.

[TimeSeeker]

Hello Timeseeker

It will help me to understand your position to know if you believe in objective evil or if evil is purely a subjective determination. I for example believe that objective evil is only possible for conscious beings. The human condition on earth makes Man in society Plato called the Beast creatures of mechanical reaction. As such society as the Great Beast is no more capable of objective evil than a beast in the jungle. Both live by mechanical reaction to universal forces as opposed to conscious choice.

This is about as difficult to answer as "Do you believe in God", so I will try to draw the important and (seemingly self-contradicting) distinctions.
1. I do not believe in objective anything in the philosophical sense of the word.
2. I am a perspectivist (Protagoras: man is the measure of all things) and so I believe we can invent objectivity via social consensus. I am a contractarian. The social contract is "No Harm". We can go with reciprocity as an operational definition and update it as we go along.
3. In the invented framework of objectivity I believe in objective morality. Ultimate good. I do not believe in objective evil ' pure evil' (I reject the law of excluded middle)

Violating the social contract is a no-no and the tribe can do with your "free will" as it pleases.

[Nick_A]

Hello Timeseeker

It will help me to understand your position to know if you believe in objective evil or if evil is purely a subjective determination. I for example believe that objective evil is only possible for conscious beings. The human condition on earth makes Man in society Plato called the Beast creatures of mechanical reaction. As such society as the Great Beast is no more capable of objective evil than a beast in the jungle. Both live by mechanical reaction to universal forces as opposed to conscious choice.

This is about as difficult to answer as "Do you believe in God", so I will try to draw the important and (seemingly self-contradicting) distinctions.
1. I do not believe in objective anything in the philosophical sense of the word.
2. I am a perspectivist (Protagoras: man is the measure of all things) and so I believe we can invent objectivity via social consensus. I am a contractarian. The social contract is "No Harm". We can go with reciprocity as an operational definition and update it as we go along.
3. In the invented framework of objectivity I believe in objective morality. Ultimate good. I do not believe in objective evil ' pure evil' (I reject the law of excluded middle)

Violating the social contract is a no-no and the tribe can do with your "free will" as it pleases.

We disgree but that's OK. I appreciate your sincerity. For me the objective good for Man is what promotes conscious evolution. Objective evil is what strives to prevent it. In contrast the concepts of subjective good and evil are created by societal circumstances

I also believe in the potential for a human being to open to the experience of objective conscience or that attribute within the depth of human being which enables a person to transcend attachment to subjective values and feel objective value. This capacity couldn't exist without the existence of objective values.

BTW I have a good idea of what you've experienced. My grandfather came to America from Russia during the Russian revolution. I know the story of what was happening due to communist compassion. Family members were killed leaving the Russian church for not converting to communism. I am very familiar with the delights capable of an indoctrinated mind creating its own reality.

[TimeSeeker]

We disgree but that's OK. I appreciate your sincerity. For me the objective good for Man is what promotes conscious evolution.

You will have to define how you use the word 'evolution'.

The way I understand it (from Darwinian evolution) the phenomenon is inseparable from natural selection. Evolution is true.
99.9999% of species that ever inhabited Earth are extinct. That is also true.

And so you need to draw a distinction between an evolutionary change that promotes one's survival and an evolutionary change that doesn't make it past Natural Selection in 3 generations. If there was an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil' - I imagine the latter is pretty bad?

So from my perspective there are 'good' and 'evil' evolutionary changes.

Objective evil is what strives to prevent it. In contrast the concepts of subjective good and evil are created by societal circumstances

This is insufficient in context of my definition. Is it 'objective evil' to strive to prevent an evolutionary change that will render us extinct?

We could've gone extinct due to human error when Project Manhattan was testing the first ever Nuclear Bomb. All they had to do was mis-calculate by 20-30 orders of magnitude. And yet the evil of the Atom bomb is also good of Nuclear Power.

BTW I have a good idea of what you've experienced. My grandfather came to America from Russia during the Russian revolution. I know the story of what was happening due to communist compassion. Family members were killed leaving the Russian church for not converting to communism. I am very familiar with the delights capable of an indoctrinated mind creating its own reality.

It's not ideal, but one need not give up their commitent to knowledge just because of ideological pressure. Strategically - one can still choose the Kolmogorov Option: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376

That guy is a badass!

[Nick_A]

We disgree but that's OK. I appreciate your sincerity. For me the objective good for Man is what promotes conscious evolution.

You will have to define how you use the word 'evolution'.

The way I understand it (from Darwinian evolution) the phenomenon is inseparable from natural selection. Evolution is true.
99.9999% of species that ever inhabited Earth are extinct. That is also true.

And so you need to draw a distinction between an evolutionary change that promotes one's survival and an evolutionary change that doesn't make it past Natural Selection in 3 generations. If there was an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil' - I imagine the latter is pretty bad?

So from my perspective there are 'good' and 'evil' evolutionary changes.

Objective evil is what strives to prevent it. In contrast the concepts of subjective good and evil are created by societal circumstances

This is insufficient in context of my definition. Is it 'objective evil' to strive to prevent an evolutionary change that will render us extinct?

We could've gone extinct due to human error when Project Manhattan was testing the first ever Nuclear Bomb. All they had to do was mis-calculate by 20-30 orders of magnitude. And yet the evil of the Atom bomb is also good of Nuclear Power.

BTW I have a good idea of what you've experienced. My grandfather came to America from Russia during the Russian revolution. I know the story of what was happening due to communist compassion. Family members were killed leaving the Russian church for not converting to communism. I am very familiar with the delights capable of an indoctrinated mind creating its own reality.

It's not ideal, but one need not give up their commitent to knowledge just because of ideological pressure. Strategically - one can still choose the Kolmogorov Option: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376

That guy is a badass!

What you know of as evolution I define as adaptation. Evolution for me is the change of being from one thing into another like a plant into an animal. They are different qualities of being. A horse becoming smaller so as to need less food is participating in the process of adaptation.

Are you familiar with the great Chain of Being? If you reject it than the the idea of conscious evolution will be meaningless. Here is a little on the Great Chain of Being. Notice that objective evil is a necessity. Without it there could only be the Source.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

The idea of the chain of being was first systematized by the Neoplatonist Plotinus, though the component concepts were derived from Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s “idea of the good” in the Republic, eternal, immutable, ineffable, perfect, the universal object of desire, is fused with the demiurge of the Timaeus, who constructed the world of becoming because “he was good, and in one that is good no envy of anything else ever arises.” Aristotle introduced a definition of the continuum and pointed out various graded scales of existence. Thus, in the words of Plotinus, in his Enneads, “The one is perfect because it seeks for nothing, and possesses nothing, and has need of nothing; and being perfect, it overflows, and thus its superabundance produces an Other.” This generation of the many from the one must continue until all possible varieties of being in the descending series are realized.

The scale of being served Plotinus and many later writers as an explanation of the existence of evil in the sense of lack of some good. It also offered an argument for optimism; since all beings other than the ens perfectissimum are to some degree imperfect or evil, and since the goodness of the universe as a whole consists in its fullness, the best possible world will be one that contains the greatest possible variety of beings and so all possible evils. The notion died out in the 19th century but was given renewed currency in the 20th by Arthur O. Lovejoy (The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, 1936).

I've noticed that the Russian and Armenian mind are more open to levels of reality or the idea of worlds within worlds. The Russian dolls one existing within the other is a good example. The Great Chain of Being is like this. One level of being exists within the next as an ascending process leading to the source of existence. The process is called evolution. It makes perfect sense to me but I understand how unflattering it is to the ego believing itself as the end all which is why it is so hated.

Conscious evolution begins where mechanical evolution ends along the Great Chain of Being. Can a microcosm consciously become a macrocosm through the process of conscious evolution? We know a caterpillar can mechanically change its being and become a butterfly but can animal man change its being to become conscious man. This we don't know. We can be intuitively attracted to it much like the moth is attracted to the light and "feel" what the sensory mind cannot comprehend.

[TimeSeeker]

What you know of as evolution I define as adaptation. Evolution for me is the change of being from one thing into another like a plant into an animal. They are different qualities of being. A horse becoming smaller so as to need less food is participating in the process of adaptation.

Then I do not understand how your conceptions/definitions of 'evolution' and 'change' are different?

"Plant" and "animal" are still human conceptions. We ascribe them some qualities, but that is still value choice.

Or maybe I do...

Are you familiar with the great Chain of Being? If you reject it than the the idea of conscious evolution will be meaningless. Here is a little on the Great Chain of Being. Notice that objective evil is a necessity. Without it there could only be the Source.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being
(ETC...)
Conscious evolution begins where mechanical evolution ends along the Great Chain of Being. Can a microcosm consciously become a macrocosm through the process of conscious evolution? We know a caterpillar can mechanically change its being and become a butterfly but can animal man change its being to become conscious man. This we don't know. We can be intuitively attracted to it much like the moth is attracted to the light and "feel" what the sensory mind cannot comprehend.

I have scanned it. I have one word for the entire idea it conveys: self-determinism.

And I'll add more words so as to evoke the idea more vividly: free will, self-creation, deification, Will to power.

[TimeSeeker]

I've noticed that the Russian and Armenian mind are more open to levels of reality or the idea of worlds within worlds. The Russian dolls one existing within the other is a good example.

It is as good a metaphor as any. So I will take out my broad stroke brush and connect some ideas for you:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Our minds create knowledge and our conception of reality. Our bodies..... we are slowly learning about them how they work with science and medicine. But the nature/phenomenology of human experience hasn't changed much in 3000 years. Only our languages and technologies have.

According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.[1] Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.

2. All recursion (Russian dolls, Fractals) is computation! This is not in a metaphorical sense. Algorithms recurse. They start with an input and they produce a useful output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

You could say that change/evolution is algorithmic but.... see conclusion right at the end.

3. As the scientific community iterates/recurses and creates new knowledge they influence society and the 'social mindset' changes too. This is Kuhn's paradigm shift ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift )


And so what you call "evolution" I would probably call "knowledge". Of the world and of self.

Which is why I conceptualize my mind and the universe as a computer. it's useful and it works for me.

In the end it all ties up to self-similarity and self-definition. We identify with the universe and we reflect through the lense of our self-created understanding.

Except - the universe is trying to kill us. Which is the important part we seem to forget.

[Nick_A]

TimeSeeker

In the end it all ties up to self-similarity and self-definition. We identify with the universe and we reflect through the lense of our self-created understanding.

True, but can our appreciation of the universe grow not only in facts but in a conscious perspective as well within which facts are interacting? Is such a scale as is suggested in the Great Chin of Being possible for your perspective?

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/12 ... 0chain.htm

..........Indeed, each link in the Great Chain of Being represented a distinct category of living creature or form of matter. Those creatures or things higher on the Chain possessed greater intellect, movement, and ability than those placed below. Thus each being in the Chain possessed all of the attributes of what was below plus an additional, superior attribute:



God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness


As a result of this hierarchy, creatures and things on a higher level were believed to possess more authority over lower ones. Plants, for instance, were believed to have authority over the minerals in the soil. They were superior to minerals because, unlike inert matter, they were alive and capable of growth. Consequently, they had God’s sanction to draw nutrients from the earth and grow upon it, while the minerals and soil existed to support plants. Similarly, animals--a step higher on the Chain of Being--were thought to have authority over both inanimate plants and minerals. So horses could trod on rocks and earth and eat plants. Humans in turn were believed to possess greater attributes than animals. Thus it was proper for them to rule over the rest of the natural world. Similarly, spiritual beings like angels and God had greater ability than humanity and so ruled over and controlled humanity as well as the rest of the animal and the inanimate world.............

You seem to describe existence as function of one level of reality. I am suggesting that existence takes place within the vertical universal structure reflecting levels of reality. From this perspective the universe isn't serving us nor does it want to kill us. Consciousness serves a necessary universal purpose. Man is unique in that it can serve universal purpose as a mechanical creature or as a conscious being. But either way evil or imperfection is a necessary part of our universe. Only the Source is perfect so cannot create itself. Creation requires imperfection.

[TimeSeeker]

True, but can our appreciation of the universe grow not only in facts but in a conscious perspective as well within which facts are interacting? Is such a scale as is suggested in the Great Chin of Being possible for your perspective?

I don't really have much 'appreciation' for the universe. It's trying to (and succeeding) in killing life. It is not a very friendly place. Admiring one's executioner strikes me as Stockholm syndrome.

Our UNDERSTANDING of the universe.... that is growing. Enough to keep ourselves alive. Longer and longer through science and medicine.
WE, humans, did that! Not the universe!

I respect the universe. Like any underdog respects their stronger opponent

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

You need to expand this perspective. Put yourself in the total perspective Vortex. The Universe is big. like really REALLY big. In the grander scheme of the universe we are somewhere between "nothing" and "matter". Far closer to "nothing".

Our being, our planet, our solar system, our Sun, our galaxy, the observable universe. It is all just a drop in the ocean of time!
And so yes. Humans wish to become Gods. This is the idea of self-deification/apotheosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
Only - we don't want to put walls and admire role models (false idols). We want to avoid our own extinction! THAT is self-deification! And we will evolve to become cybernetic entities if we have to.

Or we will fail - and we will become extinct. Eventually.

All of these ideas you speak of. They are good, but they are murky and unpolished. Our scientific framework has polished them into diamonds and incorporate them into our (collective) human body of knowledge.

We call it complexity. Spend some time on this youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCca ... 9UR-DdLsAQ

[Nick_A]

True, but can our appreciation of the universe grow not only in facts but in a conscious perspective as well within which facts are interacting? Is such a scale as is suggested in the Great Chin of Being possible for your perspective?

I don't really have much 'appreciation' for the universe. It's trying to (and succeeding) in killing life. It is not a very friendly place. Admiring one's executioner strikes me as Stockholm syndrome.

Our UNDERSTANDING of the universe.... that is growing. Enough to keep ourselves alive. Longer and longer through science and medicine.
WE, humans, did that! Not the universe!

I respect the universe. Like any underdog respects their stronger opponent

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

You need to expand this perspective. Put yourself in the total perspective Vortex. The Universe is big. like really REALLY big. In the grander scheme of the universe we are somewhere between "nothing" and "matter". Far closer to "nothing".

Our being, our planet, our solar system, our Sun, our galaxy, the observable universe. It is all just a drop in the ocean of time!
And so yes. Humans wish to become Gods. This is the idea of self-deification/apotheosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
Only - we don't want to put walls and admire role models (false idols). We want to avoid our own extinction! THAT is self-deification! And we will evolve to become cybernetic entities if we have to.

Or we will fail - and we will become extinct. Eventually.

All of these ideas you speak of. They are good, but they are murky and unpolished. Our scientific framework has polished them into diamonds and incorporate them into our (collective) human body of knowledge.

We call it complexity. Spend some time on this youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCca ... 9UR-DdLsAQ

Obviously we differ. You reject Man's potential for conscious evolution. Just so I understand you better, do you believe the universe has a conscious purpose or is it just the result of an accident?

[TimeSeeker]

True, but can our appreciation of the universe grow not only in facts but in a conscious perspective as well within which facts are interacting? Is such a scale as is suggested in the Great Chin of Being possible for your perspective?

I don't really have much 'appreciation' for the universe. It's trying to (and succeeding) in killing life. It is not a very friendly place. Admiring one's executioner strikes me as Stockholm syndrome.

Our UNDERSTANDING of the universe.... that is growing. Enough to keep ourselves alive. Longer and longer through science and medicine.
WE, humans, did that! Not the universe!

I respect the universe. Like any underdog respects their stronger opponent

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

You need to expand this perspective. Put yourself in the total perspective Vortex. The Universe is big. like really REALLY big. In the grander scheme of the universe we are somewhere between "nothing" and "matter". Far closer to "nothing".

Our being, our planet, our solar system, our Sun, our galaxy, the observable universe. It is all just a drop in the ocean of time!
And so yes. Humans wish to become Gods. This is the idea of self-deification/apotheosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
Only - we don't want to put walls and admire role models (false idols). We want to avoid our own extinction! THAT is self-deification! And we will evolve to become cybernetic entities if we have to.

Or we will fail - and we will become extinct. Eventually.

All of these ideas you speak of. They are good, but they are murky and unpolished. Our scientific framework has polished them into diamonds and incorporate them into our (collective) human body of knowledge.

We call it complexity. Spend some time on this youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCca ... 9UR-DdLsAQ

Obviously we differ. You reject Man's potential for conscious evolution. Just so I understand you better, do you believe the universe has a conscious purpose or is it just the result of an accident?

No, I do not reject it. I recognise it as an absolute necessity for survival. I just don’t use your model.

I am indifferent to whether the universe is conscious or not. Whether it has a purpose or not. I know what it holds in store for us and I don’t like it.

[surreptitious57]

The Universe has no purpose other than to exist and is entirely indifferent to us and to everything else as well
Whether we mutate with artificial intelligence or not we will eventually become extinct just like all other life

[TimeSeeker]

The Universe has no purpose other than to exist and is entirely indifferent to us and to everything else as well

Until the universe ceases to exist. Maximum entropy. Heat death.

That is where this river goes.

Whether we mutate with artificial intelligence or not we will eventually become extinct just like all other life

And you will eventually die. But if you had any say in the matter - would you prefer to die tomorrow or 85 years from now?
And by proxy - do you think it is better to go extinct tomorrow or a million years from now?

Why wait to die if we can get there right now?

[surreptitious57]

I had a perfect existence before my parents decided to create me but I shall return there eventually
I have no fear of death at all so it can take me any time but hopefully it will be a peaceful transition

Who wants to die now not me even though it is for me an absolute freedom simply because suffering cannot be experienced
An eternal state of non existence with no suffering is infinitely better than a finite one with suffering such as this existence