Since you seem to be unable to post anything without framing it as an insult, I have no wish to carry on a discussion with you. You came in my thread and attacked me. I never respond to anything you post, because I no longer read anything you post, unless, as in this case, you address it to me. I have you on my personal ignore list. Put me on yours, and we'll coexist on this forum. I have voiced my opinion to others what I think of your posts, and obviously, from what I've said here, it isn't much.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:21 pm Since you seem to be unable to post anything without framing it as an insult, I have no wish to carry on a discussion with you. You came in my thread and attacked me. I never respond to anything you post, because I no longer read anything you post, unless, as in this case, you address it to me. I have you on my personal ignore list. Put me on yours, and we'll coexist on this forum. I have voiced my opinion to others what I think of your posts, and obviously, from what I've said here, it isn't much.

BRAVO!

Hope you don't get banned over it.

Moi aussi!

Slammr (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:58 pm So, what is evil? Give me your definition of what you think evil is.

We're not on the political board. Please post no political posts to this thread.

The Bishop I mentioned I had several meetings with where minutes were actually hours had conducted several exorcisms and published about procession.

Most interesting was the personality profile of one most susceptible to procession. A real goody two shoes who denies their shadow (dark side).

I do believe in messengers, ghosts, spirits, good, bad and indifferent.

I did not choose to do so, I was drafted. Even lived in a haunted building. Several neighbors and my guests felt it. Never bothered me.

Moi

You guys are making Kristoff and I work, no more insults, the next one who does will get an unpaid vacation for a few weeks maybe more if I am in a good mood.

This thread is philosophical not political, keep it that way.

Management.

Before this thread got sidetracked, I was posing a philosophical question: does evil exist apart from the mind of Man. It was never about whether I thought certain historical events were or were not horrendous. Many of those mentioned, and others, such as the Holocaust, were horrific events in our history. That was never the question.

I started this thread because I had received a pm from a member who was responding to the Shakespeare quote in my signature. That member seemed to think evil exists as something separate from Man, an evil spirit of sorts, from what I gathered, like Satan, although he wasn't calling it Satan or linking it to any religion. My response was that I didn't think, apart from the mind of man, evil exists.

That person chooses to believe such spirits exist, but to argue that is akin to arguing religion. He can't prove to me they do exist, and I can't prove to him they don't.

If my word usage is problematic for you, please forgive me. Some circumstances (being autistic is one) of my life make this question difficult for me to reply to using words.

Methinks the question of what evil is, if evil is, may be about as profoundly difficult a question as is to be found within the philosophy of science realm. Said question has been a nearly lifelong puzzlement for me... Therefore, I have put effort into understanding it (the question, that is).

Because I am using words to write this, perhaps a brief word sequence about words as I experience them within my being autistic will help what I write be a little more possibly intelligible.

Words, for me, are only symbols of meaning, in accord with information theory engineering methods. As I understand information theory, any symbol can be used to convey any amount of information (aka, meaning) and any amount of symbols can be used to convey a given amount of information. Words, in isolation (or not in a particular context) are functionally meaningless. To me, meaning is found in associations of words and in the relationships of such associations.

Any given word, to be meaningful to me, has to be accompanied by connotation (what is in only my mind), and by denotation (what is only outside my mind) that is symbolically represented within my mind in order for my mind to be aware of it. If you prefer, let "mind" and "brain" be synonyms.

I do not experience thought(s) in the form of words; this is an aspect of my being autistic. Neither do I, as Dr. Temple Grandin has written in her book, "Thinking in Pictures," think in pictures. I find that I think in meaning(s) or, denotations. S. I. Hayakawa, in his book, "Language in Thought and Action," and I will here use his model, in paraphrase. If you and I are close to each other, so we can see one another and our surroundings, I can point to an object and we can know to what I am pointing without either of us needing words. In this writing, I cannot point because we are separated by a digital communication scheme (the Internet) and I would need words or pictures or music or something else that can be sent via the Internet. If I point to my computer keyboard while typing this, you would not be aware of my pointing by only watching me point because you are not here in the room in which is the computer I am using and, in the ordinary sense, cannot be watching me (unless you are good at remote viewing?).

It seems to me that the word, "evil" can refer to a construct (connotation) which exists only in a human brain (or mind), or it can refer to an entity (something that can be denoted), or it can refer to a process (something that has happened, is happening, or may happen).

Observe, if you will, the title of Hayakawa's book. Language may mostly refer to connotation. Thought may refer mostly to denotation. Action may refer mostly to process. For me to make any useful sense of "evil," I find I need a structure which associates Language (connotation) with Thought (denotation) with Action (process) with Language (connotation) and need to do so in accord with the context in which the connotation, denotation, and process occurs whereby "evil" comes to my awareness.

Good Grief! What a jumble of supposed suppositions! Did I just fall through the bottom of that fictional rabbit hole of Charles Dodgson's (pen name: Lewis Carroll) description? No wonder no one seems to get much of anywhere with the question of what "evil" is?

Some autistic folks have a trait, persistence (which is not perseveration); I have persisted for some seven decades in an effort to figure out what evil might really be, if it really is.

It seems to me that, if "evil" only exists in the human mind or in human minds, then it is only of connotation and therefore is, at the most, merely an imagined fiction. If it has denotation and if "evil" is something that occurs, then it, having both denotation and process, surely has some sort of "objective" existence (not totally dependent on human minds and their constructs) and "evil" may be a useful focus for a philosophy of science inquiry.

On my way to who and where I am, I happened to spend time as a college physics major. Quantum mechanics and its ramifications for human biology has long been a strong interest of mine. Were I to find a way to put high-dimension-space, complex-variable, relational tensor calculus equations here, it is my guess that "the management" of the Eunuch Archive might think my having been castrated to mostly prevent cancer did not go nearly far enough. I really prefer that "the management" not decide that the vasectomy doctor needed to have a brain surgeon as a colleague, to do a simultaneous total cerebrectomy.

For myself (and, for all I know, for no one else), the question of the nature of "evil" draws my attention to the cosmology of the beginning of physical existence and what preceded it. For me, the words become rather wild. A question of such rather wild words happens:

What is the limiting nature of the physical existence of physical non-existence; as, if existence (big bang or whatever) was created or evolved or otherwise was made of non-existence (or, "nothing").

Okay, there are those cycles of cycles of unending cycles which may be an aspect of the Hindu view. Okay, wherefrom came they? Endless cycles of cycles does not solve the problem of ultimate existential origin for me.

My whimisical notion is that there is a quantum mechanical way of making useful sense of this whole thing. Whether that useful sense is or is not true is beyond "my pay grade" to ponder... It has, however, after something approaching seven decades, given me a way to sort out my lifetime set of encounters with what might usefully be deemed evil. Whether it will be of interest or use to anyone else, I believe, remains to be learned.

For now, it seems to me that contemporary "evil" (connotation, denotation, and process) is a vestige of the physical non-existence of physical existence as the inevitable precursor to the existence of physical existence. What??? the? ??? #@&%*$ ? (pardon my ASCII characters)

There is, in philosophy, the puzzle of self-reference (or sets which include themselves as members). There is, for example, Bertrand Russell's "Barber Paradox" of a town with exactly one barber who shaves every man in town who does not shave himself...

Existence, which, by including everything which exists, is of the nature of a set of which it is itself a member?

Existence, in order to exist other than as a mere construct, needs to have connotation, denotation, and process? If Existence is of process and if existence includes itself as a member of the set of all that exists, then existence inextricably includes process, and it may be trivial whether that process is named "creativity" or "evolution" if evolution is creativity going comparatively slowly and creativity is evolution going comparatively quickly?

I end up without pragmatic recourse to the notion that existence has to creatively evolve in order to exist, else it would remain only as the non-existence of existence.

And the onrushing light at the end of the end of the tunnel is a phosphene?

Or, is the light somehow real and is of the continuing evolution of human society, such that enough more evolution will allow creatively solving the long-standing puzzlement of whatever "evil" is or is not?

You have the answer to that? Tested and verified? If you don't mind, please let others in on it...

t...

A profound, interesting post, just what I wanted when I started this thread. Autistic or not, we all have difficulty communicating over the Internet. What I mean by a word might not be how someone else interprets that word.

I want to digest your post and discuss it later, when I have more time. Thank you for it.

I would also like to see what you have to say about quantum physics. I've long been interested in quantum physics. I don't have a strong background in math, but I've read most of the Pop science articles written about the subject.

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am If my word usage is problematic for you, please forgive me. Some circumstances (being autistic is one) of my life make this question difficult for me to reply to using words.

Methinks the question of what evil is, if evil is, may be about as profoundly difficult a question as is to be found within the philosophy of science realm. Said question has been a nearly lifelong puzzlement for me... Therefore, I have put effort into understanding it (the question, that is).

I agree, which is why I have Shakespeare's quote as a tag line. Shakespeare said, good or bad, but, to me, good - bad, not evil - evil, are one and the same. I think he's saying that they exist as human concepts and are not external to Man. Anytime we label something good or bad, we're making a choice to do so. No matter how horrific we might think something to be, it's not good or bad, until we label it so.

On a grander scale, on a Universal scale, does anything we do matter? Does the Universe care that a few million humans are killed? Does the Earth care? Possibly - probably - it would be better off without us. We still seem to think the Universe - despite all evidence that we are not at the center of it - was made for us, even though, on the time line of the Universe, we've only been around for an infinitesimal period of time.

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am Because I am using words to write this, perhaps a brief word sequence about words as I experience them within my being autistic will help what I write be a little more possibly intelligible.

I'm struggling, too, trying to make my meaning understood. As we've seen from previous posts, what I was trying to say was completely lost on at least one reader, and I have no doubt that I was misunderstood by others.

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am It seems to me that the word, "evil" can refer to a construct (connotation) which exists only in a human brain (or mind), or it can refer to an entity (something that can be denoted), or it can refer to a process (something that has happened, is happening, or may happen).

Observe, if you will, the title of Hayakawa's book. Language may mostly refer to connotation. Thought may refer mostly to denotation. Action may refer mostly to process. For me to make any useful sense of "evil," I find I need a structure which associates Language (connotation) with Thought (denotation) with Action (process) with Language (connotation) and need to do so in accord with the context in which the connotation, denotation, and process occurs whereby "evil" comes to my awareness.

Good Grief! What a jumble of supposed suppositions! Did I just fall through the bottom of that fictional rabbit hole of Charles Dodgson's (pen name: Lewis Carroll) description? No wonder no one seems to get much of anywhere with the question of what "evil" is?

Some autistic folks have a trait, persistence (which is not perseveration); I have persisted for some seven decades in an effort to figure out what evil might really be, if it really is.

It seems to me that, if "evil" only exists in the human mind or in human minds, then it is only of connotation and therefore is, at the most, merely an imagined fiction. If it has denotation and if "evil" is something that occurs, then it, having both denotation and process, surely has some sort of "objective" existence (not totally dependent on human minds and their constructs) and "evil" may be a useful focus for a philosophy of science inquiry.

Like the definition of porn, people are likely to say, "I may not be able to define Evil, but I know it when I see it."

Unfortunately, throughout history, what one person or nation sees as evil, another person or nation sees as necessity. We saw

Slammr (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:22 am the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan

as a necessity. I doubt the Japanese saw it that way; so we have a horrific event judged a necessity by one people and an unmitigated evil by another.

Until we can scientifically define evil, I con

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am tend that it does not exist, except in the mind of man.

On my way to who and where I am, I happened to spend time as a college physics major. Quantum mechanics and its ramifications for human biology has long been a strong interest of mine. Were I to find a way to put high-dimension-space, complex-variable, relational tensor calculus equations here, it is my guess that "the management" of the Eunuch Archive might think my having been castrated to mostly prevent cancer did not go nearly far enough. I really prefer that "the management" not decide that the vasectomy doctor needed to have a brain surgeon as a colleague, to do a simultaneous total cerebrectomy.

For myself (and, for all I know, for no one else), the question of the nature of "evil" draws my attention to the cosmology of the beginning of physical existence and what preceded it. For me, the words become rather wild. A question of such rather wild words happens:

What is the limiting nature of the physical existence of physical non-existence; as, if existence (big bang or whatever) was created or evolved or otherwise was made of non-existence (or, "nothing").

Okay, there are those cycles of cycles of unending cycles which may be an aspect of the Hindu view. Okay, wherefrom came they? Endless cycles of cycles does not solve the problem of ultimate existential origin for me.

My whimisical notion is that there is a quantum mechanical way of making useful sense of this whole thing. Whether that useful sense is or is not true is beyond "my pay grade" to ponder... It has, however, after something approaching seven decades, given me a way to sort out my lifetime set of encounters with what might usefully be deemed evil. Whether it will be of interest or

use to anyone else, I believe, remains to be learned.

In the last few years, scientists have made astounding discoveries and come to astounding conclusions about the nature of the Universe, only to discover there's so much more we don't know. Dark Matter and Dark Energy, neither of which we can explain, make up 90% of the Universe.

I remember years ago, when someone proposed a many universe explanation for quantum mechanics, contending that every time an observation was made, the Universe split. I was never comfortable with that, but I do believe in the Multiverse, as do people like Stephan Hawking. If the Big Bang is a correct theory and what is now the Universe we observe was once infinitesimally small, quantum mechanics had to apply to it, and all possible Universes exist, and have always existed.

Most likely, there are infinite copies of ourselves existing in infinite Universes. I'm not sure how much choice I have in this or in any of the others. We observe an arrow of time pointing in one direction, but how much of that is an illusion? If we step outside of time, do not all times exist already? Perhaps, in this Universe, we are predestined to do what we do, while in another, we might do something different. On a quantum level all possibilities exist, but if all possible universes already exist, maybe, we

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:06 am have no choice what we do in this particular Universe.

Existence, which, by including everything which exists, is of the nature of a set of which it is itself a member?

Existence, in order to exist other than as a mere construct, needs to have connotation, denotation, and process? If Existence is of process and if existence includes itself as a member of the set of all that exists, then existence inextricably includes process, and it may be trivial whether that process is named "creativity" or "evolution" if evolution is creativity going comparatively slowly and creativity is evolution going comparatively quickly?

I end up without pragmatic recourse to the notion that existence has to creatively evolve in order to exist, else it would remain only as the non-existence of existence.

And the onrushing light at the end of the end of the tunnel is a phosphene?

Or, is the light somehow real and is of the continuing evolution of human society, such that enough more evolution will allow creatively solving the long-standing puzzlement of whatever "evil" is or is not?

You have the answer to that? Tested and veri

fied? If you don't mind, please let others in on it...

I'm still searching for answers, but until someone can provide me proof of the existence of God or scientific proof that evil exists outside the mind of man, I will conclude they are both man made constructs.

What I can prove is spiritual incidences as can be verified by others who were effected.

It does not stand up to the "maze" or scientific method tests nor have I known many similar persons able to access "it" for personal profit.

When YOU know stuff you could not possibly know and others can confirm it,

that is what I call being drafted. Not a matter of faith.

Think of it as a sense like hearing. Actually most have this sense but, plug their ears.

I do believe it ghosts, just as I believe in the sun and stars. Hard to deny one's experiences especially when verified by others.

Moi