Philosophy Now Forum

The mind exists during the period between experience and causation (cause and effect). The mind cannot possibly be the result of matter activity then. Matter is a substance that exists without the need for human's mind. We didn't know about the structure of matter so much and we still don't have a complete theory about it. How possibly human's mind can cause matter if it doesn't know about the structure of it?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:06 pm The mind exists during the period between experience and causation (cause and effect). The mind cannot possibly be the result of matter activity then. Matter is a substance that exists without the need for human's mind. We didn't know about the structure of matter so much and we still don't have a complete theory about it. How possibly human's mind can cause matter if it doesn't know about the structure of it?

That's a very interesting idea you have. I also don't think mind is the result of matter activity. Nor does matter need mind for its existence. Both just exist. I really don't believe in any kind of causal nexus. Nothing comes into existence nor goes out of existence. As for the structure of matter. If matter has a structure, then that structure is something separate from the matter that has it.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:39 am
Why do you have to bring in fiction to justify your point?

It is not "MY" objective judgment.

What is objective is Justified True Beliefs is that which is verified within the specific Framework of knowledge.
A specific Framework of knowledge with its proven record will generate its own confidence level.

Science is at present the most reliable Justified True Beliefs varying upon the processes the belief has been put through.
You don't believe in Science objective judgment?

Other than Science there are other empirical evidences which has been collected over the ages and are very obvious.
Yes there are questionable evidences which can easily be discounted.
But there are loads of negatives with Religions, theism, magical thinking as supported with evidence, e.g. killings committed by believers in the name of their God and deity. You don't believe these are evidences that are objective.

I am an anti-substantialist. I don't believe there is one substantial reality beyond all the many appearances. There are the many fragmentary appearances and they are all real. They don't all fit together into one unified whole. It's a mash-up. You apparently live in a world fragment in which there are no gods. Another person lives in a world fragment in which there are gods. Both fragments exist, though they don't jive with each other.

I am also anti-substantialist but in the ontological sense, i.e. no substance existing as absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I believe there are fragments and wholes within appearances.

But whatever is claimed to be real must be verified to be real empirically and philosophically.

• If a schizophrenic claims the gnomes he conversed with in his garden are real, surely you are not going to agree with the schizo that the gnomes are real empirically and philosophically?
  When you take the schizo to the garden to show and verify the truth, it is noted the schizo is talking to some Gnomes-made-of-cement. They cannot be real.

Therefore whatever is claimed by anyone to be real, it must be verified to be real empirically and philosophically.

As for Science, I already wrote to you that good science is a matter of formatting. If some document has the appearance of good academic rigor, then it is accepted as true. Appearance is everything. Anyway, an experimenter can usually get the result he wants, one way or the other. As a psychologist you should know that the observer cannot be totally disentangled from what he is observing. There is no such thing as an objective stand point.

You got it wrong.

It is not that "an experimenter can usually get the result he wants, one way or the other" but what is critical with Science is when scientist[s] claimed something to be real and true, it imply that anyone [you, me & others] can test the claim in exactly what the claimant scientist[s] has done, the expected results will be the same, i.e. the confidence of repeatability.

E.g. Science & scientists claim when hydrogen and oxygen are burnt together the resultant [ truth and the reality] is water - all the time. If you dispute this scientific claim, then you can do the test and show with evidence, it is not true. Then you can claim your Nobel Prize.

There is a range of scientific knowledge ranging from general to sophisticated ones and theoretical knowledge. Provisions of consistency has to be made for the above range.

For you the "evidence" of mass killings by religion is convincing. But that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. I think your anti-religion is totally based on your feelings. You are possessed by some horror you see. So you look for reasons to not believe. And now your world has no God. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that someone else for some reason might see something else. You're both right. Here's one of your continental compadres - https://www.dropbox.com/s/veid26xkf20he ... s.pdf?dl=0

You missed the point again.

I am expressing the point from and relative to the theists point of view.
Theists believe God is real to the extent that God sent holy texts where believers MUST obey and also answers their prayers.

The Islamic God condones believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion [note Quran 5:33].
SOME evil prone believers [from a pool of 300 million - best estimate] had and will obey the above command in Quran 5:33 and other verses to kill non-believers to gain merit to Paradise [with virgins] and avoid going to Hell.

• You can test my claim yourself.
  Go to a large square in Kabul - Afghanistan, then take out a Quran and burnt it among the people there.
  Then you would have realized my claim is true, regrettably and unfortunately thereafter you are no more [torn to pieces by a mob].
  You dispute this?

Note this example among many others:


So how can you insists the above killings has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not.
The truth and reality is because theists believed in a God as real that there are the above killings [note >200 millions killed since Islam emerged] upon the warrant/permission of God.

The point is not that I am right, what is morally right is humanity must prevent the above sort of evil acts of killing, rapes, mass murders, genocides and other evil acts committed by the compulsion from a God.

Therefore logically and in simple terms, getting rid of theism will eliminate all theistic-based evil acts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:01 am
I am expressing the point from and relative to the theists point of view.
Theists believe God is real to the extent that God sent holy texts where believers MUST obey and also answers their prayers.

The Islamic God condones believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion [note Quran 5:33].
SOME evil prone believers [from a pool of 300 million - best estimate] had and will obey the above command in Quran 5:33 and other verses to kill non-believers to gain merit to Paradise [with virgins] and avoid going to Hell.

• You can test my claim yourself.
  Go to a large square in Kabul - Afghanistan, then take out a Quran and burnt it among the people there.
  Then you would have realized my claim is true, regrettably and unfortunately thereafter you are no more [torn to pieces by a mob].
  You dispute this?

Note this example among many others:


So how can you insists the above killings has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not.
The truth and reality is because theists believed in a God as real that there are the above killings [note >200 millions killed since Islam emerged] upon the warrant/permission of God.

The point is not that I am right, what is morally right is humanity must prevent the above sort of evil acts of killing, rapes, mass murders, genocides and other evil acts committed by the compulsion from a God.

Therefore logically and in simple terms, getting rid of theism will eliminate all theistic-based evil acts.

You are a true disciple of Rousseau. You seem to think that man today is perpetrating evil because of the evil institutions that are oppressing him. If he could just free himself from them and return to his primal, native self then he would be good. The opposite view of man is held by the Marquis de Sade and Freud who believed that man's very nature is violent. If fact Nature itself is violent. Today, though, so many have a romantic view of nature as lovely and feminine. They see woman as good and pure. Nature is a Woman, full of care and gentleness. Institutions are the evil of the male spirit, which must be controlled.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:01 am
I am expressing the point from and relative to the theists point of view.
Theists believe God is real to the extent that God sent holy texts where believers MUST obey and also answers their prayers.

The Islamic God condones believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion [note Quran 5:33].
SOME evil prone believers [from a pool of 300 million - best estimate] had and will obey the above command in Quran 5:33 and other verses to kill non-believers to gain merit to Paradise [with virgins] and avoid going to Hell.

• You can test my claim yourself.
  Go to a large square in Kabul - Afghanistan, then take out a Quran and burnt it among the people there.
  Then you would have realized my claim is true, regrettably and unfortunately thereafter you are no more [torn to pieces by a mob].
  You dispute this?

Note this example among many others:


So how can you insists the above killings has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not.
The truth and reality is because theists believed in a God as real that there are the above killings [note >200 millions killed since Islam emerged] upon the warrant/permission of God.

The point is not that I am right, what is morally right is humanity must prevent the above sort of evil acts of killing, rapes, mass murders, genocides and other evil acts committed by the compulsion from a God.

Therefore logically and in simple terms, getting rid of theism will eliminate all theistic-based evil acts.

You are a true disciple of Rousseau. You seem to think that man today is perpetrating evil because of the evil institutions that are oppressing him. If he could just free himself from them and return to his primal, native self then he would be good. The opposite view of man is held by the Marquis de Sade and Freud who believed that man's very nature is violent. If fact Nature itself is violent. Today, though, so many have a romantic view of nature as lovely and feminine. They see woman as good and pure. Nature is a Woman, full of care and gentleness. Institutions are the evil of the male spirit, which must be put controlled.

You THOUGHT so, but;
You missed my point again.
Your view of evil above is too narrow and shallow.

As stated many times,

• DNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' with the potential to commit evil.
  DNA/RNA wise some percentile, approximately 20% are born with an active evil tendency - the EVIL PRONE.
  Therefore 80% of all humans are basically good unless some exceptional situations trigger them to be otherwise.

Note the focus on the 20% of naturally born humans with an active evil tendency, e.g. the psychopaths and the likes.

It is not exactly that I see evil institution are oppressing all humans.
It is the inherent existential crisis that is driving some of the 20% of the evil prone to commit evil when they are catalyzed by evil elements from various sources.

Note evil and violent materials in various media, movies, books, cartoons, computer games can trigger/catalyze the 'innocent' evil prone to commit terrible evil. This is why we have PG ratings for movies and censorship or banning of certain medias.

One of the evil-based-catalyst that trigger evil acts in the evil prone are the evil laden verses in the holy texts of certain religions [e.g. Islam] which are direct commands of their God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:58 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:01 am
I am expressing the point from and relative to the theists point of view.
Theists believe God is real to the extent that God sent holy texts where believers MUST obey and also answers their prayers.

The Islamic God condones believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion [note Quran 5:33].
SOME evil prone believers [from a pool of 300 million - best estimate] had and will obey the above command in Quran 5:33 and other verses to kill non-believers to gain merit to Paradise [with virgins] and avoid going to Hell.

• You can test my claim yourself.
  Go to a large square in Kabul - Afghanistan, then take out a Quran and burnt it among the people there.
  Then you would have realized my claim is true, regrettably and unfortunately thereafter you are no more [torn to pieces by a mob].
  You dispute this?

Note this example among many others:


So how can you insists the above killings has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not.
The truth and reality is because theists believed in a God as real that there are the above killings [note >200 millions killed since Islam emerged] upon the warrant/permission of God.

The point is not that I am right, what is morally right is humanity must prevent the above sort of evil acts of killing, rapes, mass murders, genocides and other evil acts committed by the compulsion from a God.

Therefore logically and in simple terms, getting rid of theism will eliminate all theistic-based evil acts.

You are a true disciple of Rousseau. You seem to think that man today is perpetrating evil because of the evil institutions that are oppressing him. If he could just free himself from them and return to his primal, native self then he would be good. The opposite view of man is held by the Marquis de Sade and Freud who believed that man's very nature is violent. If fact Nature itself is violent. Today, though, so many have a romantic view of nature as lovely and feminine. They see woman as good and pure. Nature is a Woman, full of care and gentleness. Institutions are the evil of the male spirit, which must be put controlled.

You THOUGHT so, but;
You missed my point again.
Your view of evil above is too narrow and shallow.

As stated many times,

• DNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' with the potential to commit evil.
  DNA/RNA wise some percentile, approximately 20% are born with an active evil tendency - the EVIL PRONE.
  Therefore 80% of all humans are basically good unless some exceptional situations trigger them to be otherwise.

Note the focus on the 20% of naturally born humans with an active evil tendency, e.g. the psychopaths and the likes.

It is not exactly that I see evil institution are oppressing all humans.
It is the inherent existential crisis that is driving some of the 20% of the evil prone to commit evil when they are catalyzed by evil elements from various sources.

Note evil and violent materials in various media, movies, books, cartoons, computer games can trigger/catalyze the 'innocent' evil prone to commit terrible evil. This is why we have PG ratings for movies and censorship or banning of certain medias.

One of the evil-based-catalyst that trigger evil acts in the evil prone are the evil laden verses in the holy texts of certain religions [e.g. Islam] which are direct commands of their God.

No one can argue with mere speculation as with your musing about DNA. I find it mind-numbing.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:58 am You THOUGHT so, but;
You missed my point again.
Your view of evil above is too narrow and shallow.

As stated many times,

• DNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' with the potential to commit evil.
  DNA/RNA wise some percentile, approximately 20% are born with an active evil tendency - the EVIL PRONE.
  Therefore 80% of all humans are basically good unless some exceptional situations trigger them to be otherwise.

Note the focus on the 20% of naturally born humans with an active evil tendency, e.g. the psychopaths and the likes.

It is not exactly that I see evil institution are oppressing all humans.
It is the inherent existential crisis that is driving some of the 20% of the evil prone to commit evil when they are catalyzed by evil elements from various sources.

Note evil and violent materials in various media, movies, books, cartoons, computer games can trigger/catalyze the 'innocent' evil prone to commit terrible evil. This is why we have PG ratings for movies and censorship or banning of certain medias.

One of the evil-based-catalyst that trigger evil acts in the evil prone are the evil laden verses in the holy texts of certain religions [e.g. Islam] which are direct commands of their God.

No one can argue with mere speculation as with your musing about DNA. I find it mind-numbing.

mind-numbing???

Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

• DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. Its molecular structure was first identified by Francis Crick and James Watson at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, whose model-building efforts were guided by X-ray diffraction data acquired by Raymond Gosling, who was a post-graduate student of Rosalind Franklin at King's College London. DNA is used by researchers as a molecular tool to explore physical laws and theories, such as the ergodic theorem and the theory of elasticity. The unique material properties of DNA have made it an attractive molecule for material scientists and engineers interested in micro- and nano-fabrication. Among notable advances in this field are DNA origami and DNA-based hybrid materials.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Re inherent traits of human from their inherent DNA;

• Genomic DNA is tightly and orderly packed in the process called DNA condensation, to fit the small available volumes of the cell. In eukaryotes, DNA is located in the cell nucleus, with small amounts in mitochondria and chloroplasts. In prokaryotes, the DNA is held within an irregularly shaped body in the cytoplasm called the nucleoid.[89]
  The genetic information in a genome is held within genes, and the complete set of this information in an organism is called its genotype.
  A gene is a unit of heredity and is a region of DNA that influences a particular characteristic in an organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Genes_and_genomes

You cannot insist on your views based on ignorance, in this case you are ignorant that you are ignorant of what DNA really are.
More likely you are ignorant of the monumental Human Genome Project [I'd linked this before?];
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:53 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:58 am You THOUGHT so, but;
You missed my point again.
Your view of evil above is too narrow and shallow.

As stated many times,

• DNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' with the potential to commit evil.
  DNA/RNA wise some percentile, approximately 20% are born with an active evil tendency - the EVIL PRONE.
  Therefore 80% of all humans are basically good unless some exceptional situations trigger them to be otherwise.

Note the focus on the 20% of naturally born humans with an active evil tendency, e.g. the psychopaths and the likes.

It is not exactly that I see evil institution are oppressing all humans.
It is the inherent existential crisis that is driving some of the 20% of the evil prone to commit evil when they are catalyzed by evil elements from various sources.

Note evil and violent materials in various media, movies, books, cartoons, computer games can trigger/catalyze the 'innocent' evil prone to commit terrible evil. This is why we have PG ratings for movies and censorship or banning of certain medias.

One of the evil-based-catalyst that trigger evil acts in the evil prone are the evil laden verses in the holy texts of certain religions [e.g. Islam] which are direct commands of their God.

No one can argue with mere speculation as with your musing about DNA. I find it mind-numbing.

mind-numbing???

Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

• DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. Its molecular structure was first identified by Francis Crick and James Watson at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, whose model-building efforts were guided by X-ray diffraction data acquired by Raymond Gosling, who was a post-graduate student of Rosalind Franklin at King's College London. DNA is used by researchers as a molecular tool to explore physical laws and theories, such as the ergodic theorem and the theory of elasticity. The unique material properties of DNA have made it an attractive molecule for material scientists and engineers interested in micro- and nano-fabrication. Among notable advances in this field are DNA origami and DNA-based hybrid materials.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Re inherent traits of human from their inherent DNA;

• Genomic DNA is tightly and orderly packed in the process called DNA condensation, to fit the small available volumes of the cell. In eukaryotes, DNA is located in the cell nucleus, with small amounts in mitochondria and chloroplasts. In prokaryotes, the DNA is held within an irregularly shaped body in the cytoplasm called the nucleoid.[89]
  The genetic information in a genome is held within genes, and the complete set of this information in an organism is called its genotype.
  A gene is a unit of heredity and is a region of DNA that influences a particular characteristic in an organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Genes_and_genomes

You cannot insist on your views based on ignorance, in this case you are ignorant that you are ignorant of what DNA really are.
More likely you are ignorant of the monumental Human Genome Project [I'd linked this before?];
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

I know all about DNA and the human genome project. What I am objecting to is your so confidently grounding human behavior in all that. That 20% - 80% stuff is pure guess work.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:53 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:02 am
No one can argue with mere speculation as with your musing about DNA. I find it mind-numbing.

mind-numbing???

Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

• DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. Its molecular structure was first identified by Francis Crick and James Watson at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, whose model-building efforts were guided by X-ray diffraction data acquired by Raymond Gosling, who was a post-graduate student of Rosalind Franklin at King's College London. DNA is used by researchers as a molecular tool to explore physical laws and theories, such as the ergodic theorem and the theory of elasticity. The unique material properties of DNA have made it an attractive molecule for material scientists and engineers interested in micro- and nano-fabrication. Among notable advances in this field are DNA origami and DNA-based hybrid materials.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Re inherent traits of human from their inherent DNA;

• Genomic DNA is tightly and orderly packed in the process called DNA condensation, to fit the small available volumes of the cell. In eukaryotes, DNA is located in the cell nucleus, with small amounts in mitochondria and chloroplasts. In prokaryotes, the DNA is held within an irregularly shaped body in the cytoplasm called the nucleoid.[89]
  The genetic information in a genome is held within genes, and the complete set of this information in an organism is called its genotype.
  A gene is a unit of heredity and is a region of DNA that influences a particular characteristic in an organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Genes_and_genomes

You cannot insist on your views based on ignorance, in this case you are ignorant that you are ignorant of what DNA really are.
More likely you are ignorant of the monumental Human Genome Project [I'd linked this before?];
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

I know all about DNA and the human genome project. What I am objecting to is your so confidently grounding human behavior in all that. That 20% - 80% stuff is pure guess work.

Your denial on the grounding of human behavior to DNA [& RNA] is based on ignorance.

Surely you cannot deny all your primal instincts, emotions and crude reasonings are driven by faculties established from the human genetic codes.
Even the formation of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex is generated from the human DNA.
What is not DNA driven are only the nurturing elements after birth which is relatively insignificant to the 'nature' elements.

The 20% is a very conservative estimate.
I define 'evil' as any human propensity, thought and act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.
Lying is an evil act, albeit with a very low degree of evilness.

• The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies.
  https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 061002.php

It is very obvious, the other lower range of evil e.g. stealing, corruption, petty crimes, are committed by more than 50% of people.

Therefore my 20% is very conservative to cover those higher degree evil acts from serious violence, crimes, rapes, to the highest mass rapes, genocides, and the likes.

One point is, I always maintain an above average intellectual integrity and you can assume all my claims will be substantiated with evidences and arguments. I don't produce the detailed supporting evidence to save time and effort.
I am not that stupid [disgraceful for me] to simply pick subjective opinions based on feelings and from the air, which on the other hand you are more prone to do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:43 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:53 am
mind-numbing???

Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

• DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. Its molecular structure was first identified by Francis Crick and James Watson at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, whose model-building efforts were guided by X-ray diffraction data acquired by Raymond Gosling, who was a post-graduate student of Rosalind Franklin at King's College London. DNA is used by researchers as a molecular tool to explore physical laws and theories, such as the ergodic theorem and the theory of elasticity. The unique material properties of DNA have made it an attractive molecule for material scientists and engineers interested in micro- and nano-fabrication. Among notable advances in this field are DNA origami and DNA-based hybrid materials.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Re inherent traits of human from their inherent DNA;

• Genomic DNA is tightly and orderly packed in the process called DNA condensation, to fit the small available volumes of the cell. In eukaryotes, DNA is located in the cell nucleus, with small amounts in mitochondria and chloroplasts. In prokaryotes, the DNA is held within an irregularly shaped body in the cytoplasm called the nucleoid.[89]
  The genetic information in a genome is held within genes, and the complete set of this information in an organism is called its genotype.
  A gene is a unit of heredity and is a region of DNA that influences a particular characteristic in an organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Genes_and_genomes

You cannot insist on your views based on ignorance, in this case you are ignorant that you are ignorant of what DNA really are.
More likely you are ignorant of the monumental Human Genome Project [I'd linked this before?];
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

I know all about DNA and the human genome project. What I am objecting to is your so confidently grounding human behavior in all that. That 20% - 80% stuff is pure guess work.

Your denial on the grounding of human behavior to DNA [& RNA] is based on ignorance.

Surely you cannot deny all your primal instincts, emotions and crude reasonings are driven by faculties established from the human genetic codes.
Even the formation of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex is generated from the human DNA.
What is not DNA driven are only the nurturing elements after birth which is relatively insignificant to the 'nature' elements.

The 20% is a very conservative estimate.
I define 'evil' as any human propensity, thought and act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.
Lying is an evil act, albeit with a very low degree of evilness.

• The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies.
  https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 061002.php

It is very obvious, the other lower range of evil e.g. stealing, corruption, petty crimes, are committed by more than 50% of people.

Therefore my 20% is very conservative to cover those higher degree evil acts from serious violence, crimes, rapes, to the highest mass rapes, genocides, and the likes.

One point is, I always maintain an above average intellectual integrity and you can assume all my claims will be substantiated with evidences and arguments. I don't produce the detailed supporting evidence to save time and effort.
I am not that stupid [disgraceful for me] to simply pick subjective opinions based on feelings and from the air, which on the other hand you are more prone to do.

Believing all that, how can you still say that you are not a materialist?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:07 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:06 pm The mind exists during the period between experience and causation (cause and effect). The mind cannot possibly be the result of matter activity then. Matter is a substance that exists without the need for human's mind. We didn't know about the structure of matter so much and we still don't have a complete theory about it. How possibly human's mind can cause matter if it doesn't know about the structure of it?

That's a very interesting idea you have. I also don't think mind is the result of matter activity. Nor does matter need mind for its existence. Both just exist. I really don't believe in any kind of causal nexus. Nothing comes into existence nor goes out of existence. As for the structure of matter. If matter has a structure, then that structure is something separate from the matter that has it.

Minimally there are only matter and minds. The structure is simply the property and it is not a thing but the way that matter is. Mind also has a set of abilities, ability to experience, decide and cause.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:30 pm

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:07 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:06 pm The mind exists during the period between experience and causation (cause and effect). The mind cannot possibly be the result of matter activity then. Matter is a substance that exists without the need for human's mind. We didn't know about the structure of matter so much and we still don't have a complete theory about it. How possibly human's mind can cause matter if it doesn't know about the structure of it?

That's a very interesting idea you have. I also don't think mind is the result of matter activity. Nor does matter need mind for its existence. Both just exist. I really don't believe in any kind of causal nexus. Nothing comes into existence nor goes out of existence. As for the structure of matter. If matter has a structure, then that structure is something separate from the matter that has it.

Minimally there are only matter and minds. The structure is simply the property and it is not a thing but the way that matter is. Mind also has a set of abilities, ability to experience, decide and cause.

Your ideas about structure and abilities are pure nominalism. In the great nominalism-realism divide, I stand with the realists.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nominalism-vs-realism-2670598

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=451934 time=1587279194 user_id=7896

Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

[/quote]

I think you are familiar with Michel Foucault's book The Birth of the Clinic. What was once seen as the work of demons and was taboo to speak about became a clinical matter and was talked about greatly. The demons disappeared and in their place there was the chemistry of the brain, in addition to psychoanalysis. You have a clinical view on the matter. You certainly don't believe in demons. I think you believe religion is evil because it still believes in evil spirits. I am religious. And I think the question of the relationship between religion or the gods and evil is a very interesting question. I would be very happy to discuss it from a non-clinical point of view. I am not afraid of the taboo of silence. Look up Gadhimai mela festival. https://www.google.com/search?q=gadhi+m ... 66&bih=625 And then there is this - https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-7.htm

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:43 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:11 am
I know all about DNA and the human genome project. What I am objecting to is your so confidently grounding human behavior in all that. That 20% - 80% stuff is pure guess work.

Your denial on the grounding of human behavior to DNA [& RNA] is based on ignorance.

Surely you cannot deny all your primal instincts, emotions and crude reasonings are driven by faculties established from the human genetic codes.
Even the formation of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex is generated from the human DNA.
What is not DNA driven are only the nurturing elements after birth which is relatively insignificant to the 'nature' elements.

The 20% is a very conservative estimate.
I define 'evil' as any human propensity, thought and act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.
Lying is an evil act, albeit with a very low degree of evilness.

• The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies.
  https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 061002.php

It is very obvious, the other lower range of evil e.g. stealing, corruption, petty crimes, are committed by more than 50% of people.

Therefore my 20% is very conservative to cover those higher degree evil acts from serious violence, crimes, rapes, to the highest mass rapes, genocides, and the likes.

One point is, I always maintain an above average intellectual integrity and you can assume all my claims will be substantiated with evidences and arguments. I don't produce the detailed supporting evidence to save time and effort.
I am not that stupid [disgraceful for me] to simply pick subjective opinions based on feelings and from the air, which on the other hand you are more prone to do.

Believing all that, how can you still say that you are not a materialist?

Phew.. how many times already?
Why do you keep insisting I am a materialist [philosophical]?

Note this again:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

This concept [of Materialism] directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Hope you get it this time.

I am not a philosophical materialist.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:53 am Surely you cannot be that ignorant of what is DNA and what it represent ad that DNA was discovered since 1869 and its structure identified in 1953.
Relatively the existence of DNA is kindergarten stuff within Biology.

I think you are familiar with Michel Foucault's book The Birth of the Clinic. What was once seen as the work of demons and was taboo to speak about became a clinical matter and was talked about greatly. The demons disappeared and in their place there was the chemistry of the brain, in addition to psychoanalysis. You have a clinical view on the matter. You certainly don't believe in demons. I think you believe religion is evil because it still believes in evil spirits. I am religious. And I think the question of the relationship between religion or the gods and evil is a very interesting question. I would be very happy to discuss it from a non-clinical point of view. I am not afraid of the taboo of silence. Look up Gadhimai mela festival. https://www.google.com/search?q=gadhi+m ... 66&bih=625 And then there is this - https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-7.htm

I've read The Birth of the Clinic in 2010 and understood its theme generally.

Nope I don't have a 'clinical' view [or medical gaze] on issues.
I have already stated my attention is on both micro and macro at the same time within a holistic [Holism] and system approach.

Read this;

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.

Changing one part of a system may affect other parts or the whole system.
It may be possible to predict these changes in patterns of behavior.
For systems that learn and adapt, the growth and the degree of adaptation depend upon how well the system is engaged with its environment.

Some systems support other systems, maintaining the other system to prevent failure.

The goals of systems theory are to model a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions, and to elucidate principles (such as purpose, measure, methods, tools) that can be discerned and applied to other systems at every level of nesting, and in a wide range of fields for achieving optimized equifinality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

What is Holistic within Holism;

Holism (from Greek ὅλος holos "all, whole, entire") is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts.
The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
-wiki

This is why I am for 'spirituality' [well-being] within the holistic and system approach.

Nope, I have never said religions [all] are evil.
I stated some religions [especially the Abrahamic] are loaded with evil elements that catalyze its 20% of naturally evil prone believers to commit terrible violent and evil acts in the name of their God.

There religions that are overall good, e.g. Buddhism and the likes, but the point is a religion is generally only effective when organized within institutions.
Structured institutions inherently generate loads of scandals and evils by the various types of people therein.
For this reason, I would recommend humanity weaned off all institutional religions in the future [not now] whilst retaining the good principles to add to others for the whole of humanity.

Re Religion, God and Evil,
It would be more efficient for you to 'Know Thyself' in terms of the existential crisis [e.g. Angst re Heidegger, Kierkegaard] and how the potential for Evil is embedded inherently within you as any human being via the DNA. This existential crisis is the root cause of religions and God[s].

The 'potential for Evil' within every person cages all the terrible Demons waiting to be unleashed while in the natural evil prone, these Demons are already active waiting or already had wrought evil all over the world since humans emerged.

One of the greatest dangers [as evident] is when religion and God open the doors the cages the Demons are in and let them loose to wreak terrible violent and evil among humanity.

Therefore when we are able to wean off God[s] and religions in the future [not possible now] then there will be ZERO theistic-based violent and evils committed by theists.

Other types of secular violence and evil will still exist and humanity will find other ways to deal with them.