Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by yousers
Why don't you explain to me, then, how science, by direct or indirect observation can tell us what the mind is? How can the observer remove himself for objectivity and then discover the essence of himself? What is your scientific explanation of morality?
Where is this evolutionary process of morality that you based your intial claims on?
Or do claim authority from a definition with the word mind in it?

You are being silly. Of course psychology is a 'subjective' science, just like sociology and
anthropology. They cannot predict what a given individual is going to to with great accuracy, but
can predict the likelihood of a random individual's or, especially, a group's actions.

Yes, there is a degree to which a person cannot remove him/herself to achieve an objective
position, but such is the case even with language -- when you express something with words,
you assume that the person reading them uses the identical definitions for those words that you
use: an unsafe assumption.

However, simply because there is a degree of subjectivity does not make it utterly relativistic or
a matter of 'taste.' There is a degree of objectivity we can apply to the actions and thoughts of
others. For example, if a person say, 'I want to live' and 'I like to stab myself,' we can say with
confidence that this person has a mental or psychological deficiency. We can also make safe,
logical generalizations, such as, it is normal for a person to want to live and abnormal for a person
to desire to die (for this runs against biology), or for a person to fear food or his own shadow, and
so on. We can say that a person 'ought' to feel a certain way about a few things, since our
biology demands it. This is objective (unless you feel biology is subjective).

As far as I am concerned, morality is easily defined a framework for deciding for what is right
or wrong, or good or bad. Which morality makes the most sense is a bit harder to work out, but
we can make determinations based on an examination of a proposed morality. Logic is a necessity
for this effort: within a moral framework, there will be a few (hopefully) assumptions upon which
the rest of our conclusions are objectively drawn. Those assumptions are, generally, what we would
call fundamental (or essential) rights.

Now, the point of debate arises on which rights are actually conferred upon people and what
precisely makes a person have them (as opposed to, say, a tree). If you want to argue that we
don't have any intrinsic (or objective) fundamental rights, then state that. But I doubt you mean
that.

Nemesio

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've already demonstrated that immaterial things can be studied by science. I've shown that psychology is the science of the mind, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Here's another relevant quote:

[b]Psychology does not necessarily refer to the brain or nervous system and can be framed purely in terms of phenomenological or informat ...[text shortened]... e in light of the examples of immaterial things that are heavily studied by science I've given?

Let me show you where these ideas are coming from. Then maybe we can judge who is pulling what from where.
I assume you have heard of Descartes and Cartesian dualism. This dualism is at the heart of most of science and western thought, for that matter. Descartes started from absolute skepticism and came up with "I think therefore I am." Thinking necessarily implies a thinker, a mind. This is considered the most certain statement that one can make, i.e. the mind exists (hence the "essence of man" referred to the mind). Descartes goes on to distinguish substance from accident. I was careless with my terms 'material' and 'immaterial'. Substance is that which exists in the physical world ( if there is such a thing) - this is precisely what science is designed to describe. Substance has a few defining characteristics according to David Hume: 1. extension 2. solidity 3. ? (I can't remember offhand). Substance must have extension - either it can be measured or it is a mathematical point. Substance has solidity - it can be separated/distinguished from another substance. Since objects (substance) can be separated, they must be finite. Matter is obviously an example of something with extension and solidity. Things like magnetic/electric fields fall under the mathermatical point description or extension, and each can be separated from each other (solidity).
The mind, however, is infinite. An idea or thought does not have anything we can call extension, nor does it have solidity. We classify things like this as accident.
I don't know or care to share all of the details, but philosophers reach the conclusion that substance and accident cannot coexist. An infinite accident and a finite object cannot coexist or be compared.

This is a crude explanation of the basis of Cartesian dualism: there are two separate forms of existence, neither of which can affect the other.
This sets up a permanent division between the two aspects of reality. Science, I hope you will agree, always starts with an observation. Observation is a physical action that can only be initiated by substance. Hence, all of science is within the realm of substance.

Morality, I think, is not of the substance which science studies. Morality is an idea or a concept, infinite and indivisible as is the mind. Therefore morality is accident and not substance. We cannot make observations of substance and infer anything meaningful about accident because Cartesian dualism does not allow communication between the two.

The obvious way around this is to reject the dualism altogether. If that is what you wish to do, good luck.

Now I have shown you my basis for claiming that science cannot say anything meaningful about the immaterial (I should have said accident, but that would have been confusing). Show me your reasons for believing that morality has evolved and that science can describe such a thing.

Originally posted by yousers
Let me show you where these ideas are coming from. Then maybe we can judge who is pulling what from where.
I assume you have heard of Descartes and Cartesian dualism. This dualism is at the heart of most of science and western thought, f ...[text shortened]... t morality has evolved and that science can describe such a thing.

considering Descartes hadn't the slightest clue about mass/energy equivalence his dualism was only relevant for the science of his understanding. Science has a way of outgrowing the limits that seem reasonable to those who limit it to contemporary construction.

add- on Science has made a few Quantum Leaps since his time.

Originally posted by yousers
Let me show you where these ideas are coming from. Then maybe we can judge who is pulling what from where.
I assume you have heard of Descartes and Cartesian dualism. This dualism is at the heart of most of science and western thought, for that matter. Descartes started from absolute skepticism and came up with "I think therefore I am." Thinking neces ...[text shortened]... your reasons for believing that morality has evolved and that science can describe such a thing.

I appreciate this post, yousers. I skimmed it but I will get back to it and give it a deeper read and analysis maybe later tonight.

Originally posted by frogstomp
considering Descartes hadn't the slightest clue about mass/energy equivalence his dualism was only relevant for the science of his understanding. Science has a way of outgrowing the limits that seem reasonable to those who limit it to contemporary construction.

add- on Science has made a few Quantum Leaps since his time.

Do you think there are any limits to science?

Originally posted by yousers
Do you think there are any limits to science?

Am I looking at the science of 2000 years in the future?
10,000? What I see in present trends is that science is advancing quite nicely into the future. What " limits" we set now may only last a day or a week , much less 100,000 years or more.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Am I looking at the science of 2000 years in the future?
10,000? What I see in present trends is that science is advancing quite nicely into the future. What " limits" we set now may only last a day or a week , much less 100,000 years or more.

Science? Or is it maybe technology?

Originally posted by yousers
Let me show you where these ideas are coming from. Then maybe we can judge who is pulling what from where.
I assume you have heard of Descartes and Cartesian dualism. This dualism is at the heart of most of science and western thought, for that matter. Descartes started from absolute skepticism and came up with "I think therefore I am." Thinking neces ...[text shortened]... your reasons for believing that morality has evolved and that science can describe such a thing.

I assume you have heard of Descartes and Cartesian dualism.

I was not familiar with Cartesian dualism before I decided to respond to this post. Now I have read the Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_dualism

This dualism is at the heart of most of science and western thought, for that matter.

Wikipedia says this:

...most professional philosophers and scientists have abandoned this view and proffer other accounts of the mental. For example, mind-body problem presents competing philosophical positions and cognitive science generally assumes that mind is constructed from matter.

Do you think this is compatible with your statement that I quoted previous to the Wikipedia quote?

Thinking necessarily implies a thinker, a mind.

So the mind is defined as that which thinks and "the essence of man" is defined as the mind. All right.

...this is precisely what science is designed to describe.

I don't know if I agree science is only designed to describe "substance" though certainly it does do so.

Things like magnetic/electric fields fall under the mathermatical point description or extension, and each can be separated from each other (solidity).

Actually, they cannot, in theory. There is really only one electric field for example. In physics it's too complex to deal with the single electric field, so approximations are made in which electric fields are separated in order to simplify the problem. Fields are also not points. They are infinite in volume (or at least they fill all space) though their magnitude dwindles to insignificance (for most human purposes) at long distances.

The mind, however, is infinite.

Infinite in what dimension or respect?

An idea or thought does not have anything we can call extension, nor does it have solidity.

Thoughts can be distinguished from one another. For one thing, thoughts of two different people can be distinguished as coming from two different minds. Clearly minds are also distinguishable from one another as well. In addition, thoughts about objects are distinguishable. If I think to myself "that rose is pretty" and then later think "that girl is pretty" those are two distinguishable thoughts.

I don't know or care to share all of the details, but philosophers reach the conclusion that substance and accident cannot coexist. An infinite accident and a finite object cannot coexist or be compared.

I don't understand or maybe I don't agree with the conclusion you describe. Clearly thoughts and rocks both exist at the same time; they coexist. I don't know if they can be compared or not. I can compare the value I hold for rocks to the value I hold for thoughts. Analogously, I can compare the mass of a rock to the mass of a banana. It seems thoughts and rocks can be compared after all.

This is a crude explanation of the basis of Cartesian dualism: there are two separate forms of existence, neither of which can affect the other.

Well, if the mind and the body exist in two separate forms, which I think you're implying, clearly they can affect each other. There is a connection between the physical world and the mind. There is a connection between the mind and morality. Therefore science can study morality by studying the material world.

I think I do reject this Cartesian dualism.

Show me your reasons for believing that morality has evolved and that science can describe such a thing.

I will address this later.

Originally posted by Starrman
Morals are a concept which has grown out of the balance between instinct and productivity. What is an instinctive desire for an individual may not be beneficial for the continuance of the group, so society instills a sense of 'law' (for want of a better word) which may in the short term go against the instincts of the individual, but in the long term ben ...[text shortened]... advancement of the group. Over the centuaries this concept has taken on the label of morals.

Agree with this post. Will further add that humans ask the question, "why?". In the absence of any clear answer to this question, humans have invented religion. Nature abhors a vacuum. Different cultures have molded this concept into different shapes over time. "Values" have developed to explain the "reasons" for the balance between the instinct and productivity as explained by Starrman. These values are buried within religion.

The question, "why?" is a very difficult one to answer. Religion provides an easy way to answer it. It makes humans feel safe from the unknown. Since facing the unknown causes "fear", people mistrust anyone who might challenge these values. Evil then becomes the failure of other persons to adopt your values.

On a large scale, war is usually viewed by both sides as a battle between good and evil caused by different understandings of Starrman's "balance". Evil then becomes a relative term. Thus it is so very difficult for humans to resolve these issues.