Luis Jimenez, UFO Threats |551|

I keep holding out faith that were trying to get to something more fundamental... something about the nature of Good and Evil... and in particular about the nature of good [[621]]

The nature of Good and Evil is a recurring theme with you, so let's dig into that a little more. We have two separate contexts to deal with:
  1. The philosophical ( intellectual ) framework of good vs evil that manifests itself in topics like ethics, morality, and theology.
  2. The firsthand experience of sensing good and evil — analogously to the way we sense beauty or danger.
Each of these contexts has two very different "natures". The first is fairly easy to map out. It might be called The Easy Problem of Good & Evil. The second context might be called The Hard Problem of Good & Evil. These are of course a nod to Chalmers' Easy and Hard problems of consciousness. So we might ask ourselves a similar question: Why should there be anything that it's like to feel the presence of good or evil? Why isn't it all just a matter of following the intellectual maps?

In my experience, it seems that not everyone has experienced what it's like to really sense the presence of evil or good. It's like some people can see auras. I think many people register these "feelings" on an intuitional level. They give people a "gut" feeling. However they don't really sense it the same way as people who are particularly sensitive to it. I think that part of the reason for that is that they haven't been exposed to a high enough contrast between the two to register that there's a difference.

By analogy, how would you know what danger feels like if you've never been exposed to it? You could write a whole essay about it and how people behave when confronted with danger, but unless one has experienced it, they are still missing something of importance that cannot be relayed in text. Am I making any sense?
 
The nature of Good and Evil is a recurring theme with you, so let's dig into that a little more. We have two separate contexts to deal with:
  1. The philosophical ( intellectual ) framework of good vs evil that manifests itself in topics like ethics, morality, and theology.
  2. The firsthand experience of sensing good and evil — analogously to the way we sense beauty or danger.
Each of these contexts has two very different "natures". The first is fairly easy to map out. It might be called The Easy Problem of Good & Evil. The second context might be called The Hard Problem of Good & Evil. These are of course a nod to Chalmers' Easy and Hard problems of consciousness. So we might ask ourselves a similar question: Why should there be anything that it's like to feel the presence of good or evil? Why isn't it all just a matter of following the intellectual maps?

In my experience, it seems that not everyone has experienced what it's like to really sense the presence of evil or good. It's like some people can see auras. I think many people register these "feelings" on an intuitional level. They give people a "gut" feeling. However they don't really sense it the same way as people who are particularly sensitive to it. I think that part of the reason for that is that they haven't been exposed to a high enough contrast between the two to register that there's a difference.

By analogy, how would you know what danger feels like if you've never been exposed to it? You could write a whole essay about it and how people behave when confronted with danger, but unless one has experienced it, they are still missing something of importance that cannot be relayed in text. Am I making any sense?
Great post and premise.
There’s a spiritual reference that relates to that examination - The idea that Evil is simply The absence of good, or The result of the absence of good. And in spiritual terms you (typically) could replace “Good” with “God”. Or at least that’s the way it’s explained.

This last week I was thinking about “Vacuum” in the same way. I wonder the vacuum of space is the base/natural state of things, and if so wouldn’t it be more efficient to label it in that regard like “base state” of atmospheric pressure. I picture gravity pulling things away from this base state. Granted, if all things are relative there is no primary medium.
I think this is analogous with Good. Gravity per se = good. Or: If gravity didn’t exist, it would mean nothing matters… get it?
 
Last edited:
The nature of Good and Evil is a recurring theme with you, so let's dig into that a little more. We have two separate contexts to deal with:
  1. The philosophical ( intellectual ) framework of good vs evil that manifests itself in topics like ethics, morality, and theology.
  2. The firsthand experience of sensing good and evil — analogously to the way we sense beauty or danger.
Each of these contexts has two very different "natures". The first is fairly easy to map out. It might be called The Easy Problem of Good & Evil. The second context might be called The Hard Problem of Good & Evil. These are of course a nod to Chalmers' Easy and Hard problems of consciousness. So we might ask ourselves a similar question: Why should there be anything that it's like to feel the presence of good or evil? Why isn't it all just a matter of following the intellectual maps?

In my experience, it seems that not everyone has experienced what it's like to really sense the presence of evil or good. It's like some people can see auras. I think many people register these "feelings" on an intuitional level. They give people a "gut" feeling. However they don't really sense it the same way as people who are particularly sensitive to it. I think that part of the reason for that is that they haven't been exposed to a high enough contrast between the two to register that there's a difference.

By analogy, how would you know what danger feels like if you've never been exposed to it? You could write a whole essay about it and how people behave when confronted with danger, but unless one has experienced it, they are still missing something of importance that cannot be relayed in text. Am I making any sense?

But jrm you're a scientific materialist... Consciousness is a brain phenomenon, right? so there's no there there when it comes to Good and Evil. it can always, only, in every situation be a social construct.
 
But jrm you're a scientific materialist... Consciousness is a brain phenomenon, right? so there's no there there when it comes to Good and Evil. it can always, only, in every situation be a social construct.

There's a miscommunication happening someplace. Perhaps it might help to point out that whether or not consciousness is a "brain phenomenon" is irrelevant to the two contexts of good and evil.
  1. An intellectually derived model.
  2. A sensory experience.
In other words, whether consciousness is considered to be a scientifically material phenomenon or not, sensory experience is still different from an intellectual analysis. That being said, I don't consider myself to be a scientific materialist anyway. My perspective on the nature of reality is out there on the borders between naturalism and physicalism — where physicalism is an evolution of classical materialism.

When it comes to consciousness and the brain, the evidence is so overwhelming that the brain is intimately involved, that only a fool or a subjective idealist would claim it's not. That being said, no philosophical or scientific model explains the existence of consciousness. Lots of people have some idea about what the word refers to, and some thinkers like Chalmers and Searle and Dennett have lots to say about it.

But nobody has an adequate explanation. When it comes to explanations for the existence of consciousness, I'm closer to being with the New Mysterians a.k.a. mysterianism. It aligns pretty well with my naturalist perspective. Ultimately, there is no explanation that can account for the existence of anything – including materials.

So from that perspective, it makes no difference what model one prefers. None provide the ultimate answer. The best we can do is accept that consciousness exists and map out the relationships between it and other things that exist ( and we also have no ultimate explanation for ).

In other words, placing consciousness into a "spiritual" or holistic or reductive or ( insert your prefered model here ), doesn't do anything to move us closer to what the truth is about the fundamental nature of consciousness. I would however contend, that some models are more coherent than others, and can at least help us determine what isn't the case about some concepts e.g. certain notions about afterlives.
 
Last edited:
whether or not consciousness is a "brain phenomenon" is irrelevant to the two contexts of good and evil.

I think you and I have been through this a bunch of times... and of course this has been a much-discussed topic on many many shows.

So if Consciousness is a brain phenomenon then, despite a lot of arm waving, Consciousness is essentially an illusion. it has no agency as the cool kids like to say. it can't really do anything. any discussion of good or evil gets thrown into the laps of the social scientists.
 
I think you and I have been through this a bunch of times ...
We've touched on it a couple places, but never really hashed it out. There's always a disconnect. I'd like to see us get past that.
and of course this has been a much-discussed topic on many many shows.
Yet it remains unresolved — so I figured why not see if we can get past the roadblock?
So if Consciousness is a brain phenomenon then, despite a lot of arm waving,
I'm not certain what you mean by "a lot of arm waving". Are you sure you don't mean "hand-waving"? Arm waving would be attention getting, whereas hand-waving would be ignoring the points made by others. Or maybe you mean something else?
Consciousness is essentially an illusion.
When it comes to consciousness being an illusion, philosophers don't typically mean that to be taken synonymously with nonexistent.
... it has no agency as the cool kids like to say. it can't really do anything.
When one follows that particular path, the question becomes one of how something non-material, like consciousness, is able to affect a material system. If some people interpret that as you have put it, then they haven't thought about it enough. Either that or they don't get the significance of the situation.
... any discussion of good or evil gets thrown into the laps of the social scientists.
That would be a hand wave on their part ( of the sensory aspect of the phenomenon ). As was outlined at the beginning, whether or not consciousness is an illusion, or a "brain phenomenon" is entirely beside the point of whether or not we can sense good and evil, because we still sense the world around us, and our senses have an effect on our behavior. I'm pretty sure that we can get a whole auditorium of medical scientists to agree with that.

What we'd have a harder time doing is getting them to agree that people can sense good and evil. We could probably get them to agree that people can sense danger, provided that some sort of verifiable danger is apparent to the subject's other senses. Where the divide would start is when we ask how many believe that people can sense danger before it's detected by the other senses.

Finally, I suspect that an even larger portion would drop out if you asked how many believe that people can sense evil and goodness — just like a good many probably don't believe people can see auras. So to be clear, at this juncture, I'm in the camp that says, Yes — evil can be sensed, not unlike danger, before it becomes apparent to our other senses.

How about you? Do you believe that good and evil can be sensed? Have you ever felt their presence, rather than just made assumptions about them based on some intellectual or theological analysis?
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion Alex/Randall.

Randall: How can those who see consciousness as strictly "brain phenomenon" give any support to an independent concept such as good|evil or any other moral or ethical construct? Are you suggesting that good|evil somehow exists independently from consciousness?
 
Interesting discussion Alex/Randall.
Thanks, and by all means chime in if you want. I'm trying to do a deep dive past the usual fuzzy notions most people seem to have — and drag Alex along with me ( since he's always bringing it up ).
Randall: How can those who see consciousness as strictly "brain phenomenon" give any support to an independent concept such as good|evil or any other moral or ethical construct?
Moral and ethical constructs ( not to be conflated with experiences ) are intellectual in nature and therefore require a brain to formulate them. They are separate issues from consciousness. In theory, an AI could make moral and ethical decisions based upon a framework that is programmed into its system without having any conscious awareness at all.

That is the Type 1 context ( perhaps what @Alex would call a "Level 1" type discussion ), but personally I think the philosophy goes further than that. Philosophy goes deeper than the science. Philosophy is the foundation upon which science is built. But what I'm really interested in here is the second context — the sensory detection of good and evil. That takes into what Alex might call Level 2 and Level 3 discussions.
Are you suggesting that good|evil somehow exists independently from consciousness?
Sort of, but not exactly. To use the analogy of vision. The color red doesn't exist independently of consciousness, but unless you're a subjective idealist, flowers such as roses do exist "out there" someplace independent of our consciousness. However, when we happen across them, their redness is still all in our minds.

The situation there is that our sensory systems receive external stimuli that is translated into a subjective sensory experience that alerts us to the presence of a specific type of flower in the environment.

So if we look at good and evil as sensory phenomena, then when we sense good and evil, our sensory systems are translating external stimuli into the feeling that something good or evil is present. If you've never had that feeling, then it's rather hard to describe. Imagine trying to describe the color red to someone who has never seen it.

So the short answer is: Yes — there is an objective component, but we wouldn't know it was there without the ability to sense it subjectively. This sensory component is most commonly known as a "gut feeling", but if you're particularly sensitive to it, it's much more specific.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to consciousness being an illusion, philosophers don't typically mean that to be taken synonymously with nonexistent.

More arm waving Imo.

But the real Point here is that it's unnecessary/ irrelevant since consciousness equals brain phenomenon has been falsified experimentally:
Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

Again, strict neurological materialism leaves no room for any woo woo / spooky stuff. Radin's experiments demonstrate a lot of spooky stuff.

The other point that I repeat about a million times over is it this whole thing looks more like a psyop than anything else given that the alphabet agencies were clearly deeply involved in weaponizing consciousness. All this work presupposes that consciousness is more than a brain phenomenon.
 
The other point that I repeat about a million times over is it this whole thing looks more like a psyop than anything else given that the alphabet agencies were clearly deeply involved in weaponizing consciousness.
That's a tough one for me Alex. I get I'm a bit of a skeptic on the CT topic in general so feel free to discount this, but an effective CT on the single biggest existential question/topic? Of the thousands of humans that would have to be in on the gag, not one would have even a shred of moral decency to take this public?

I think there's possibly a simpler answer? One would be that the evidence isn't as broadly compelling as you might want to believe. Doesn't require a conspiracy IMO.
 
More arm waving Imo.

But the real Point here is that it's unnecessary/ irrelevant since consciousness equals brain phenomenon has been falsified experimentally:
Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

Again, strict neurological materialism leaves no room for any woo woo / spooky stuff. Radin's experiments demonstrate a lot of spooky stuff.

The other point that I repeat about a million times over is it this whole thing looks more like a psyop than anything else given that the alphabet agencies were clearly deeply involved in weaponizing consciousness. All this work presupposes that consciousness is more than a brain phenomenon.
Whether or not consciousness is a "brain phenomenon" or not, is beside the point with respect to the subject at hand ( good and evil ). Why? Because either way, we still experience the world through our senses and analyze it through our intellect. So at this juncture, it makes no difference to the subject at hand how those things come about. If we can both get to that place. then we can evolve the discussion. Otherwise we're just jumping tracks.
 
I get I'm a bit of a skeptic on the CT topic in general so feel free to discount this, but an effective CT on the single biggest existential question/topic? Of the thousands of humans that would have to be in on the gag, not one would have even a shred of moral decency to take this public?

I think there's possibly a simpler answer? One would be that the evidence isn't as broadly compelling as you might want to believe. Doesn't require a conspiracy IMO.
I genuinely don’t think you understand what a psyop is.
Can you give an example of a situation or scheme you recognize as a psyop?
 
Something like
Psyop = Implementation or use of psychological weaponry, offensive or defensive, with or without preplanning/forethought.
Thanks. "Weaponry" probably needs some additional clarification for me. For example, do any/all forms of advertising meet your definition? There's clearly a psychological manipulation element to advertising, but when or if is weaponry?
 
That's a tough one for me Alex. I get I'm a bit of a skeptic on the CT topic in general so feel free to discount this, but an effective CT on the single biggest existential question/topic? Of the thousands of humans that would have to be in on the gag, not one would have even a shred of moral decency to take this public?

I think there's possibly a simpler answer? One would be that the evidence isn't as broadly compelling as you might want to believe. Doesn't require a conspiracy IMO.

In my experience in universities, I hear professors talking amongst each other about what the latest trend is to research, where the most possibilities to get published are, to get funding etc.

For most academics in the university system, they're essentially in a system like a maze with cheese in certain places to scout out. And it's just a "given" that when one studies e.g. Buddhism or Hinduism academically, it's dominated by sociological, historical and psychological interest, rather than thinking there's something fundamental it's revealing about the nature of consciousness...

I've literally had such a discussion. At the time I kept my mouth shut but gave the professor I was talking to a slightly sceptical look. And I’m in general an outspoken individual. But here my employment was on the line, so I decided not to lose my prospects dying on that hill

The professor I was talking to was a decent guy, extremely intelligent, cultivated, a confidant and almost a friend. But I knew on this one topic he was quite closed-minded. So I kept my mouth shut. Almost everyone does this at some points in their life. One doesn't need a conspiracy of many people to manage a nevertheless powerful conspiracy to lead people the wrong way. All one needs is e.g. power over big banks / money creation, and such a group can then buy up media organisations, political parties, fund universities in directions they see fit

That's essentially what happened to academia more and more in the last 200+ years
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Thanks. "Weaponry" probably needs some additional clarification for me. For example, do any/all forms of advertising meet your definition? There's clearly a psychological manipulation element to advertising, but when or if is weaponry?
A hammer becomes a weapon when it’s used as a weapon.
 
Whether or not consciousness is a "brain phenomenon" or not, is beside the point with respect to the subject at hand ( good and evil ).

If Consciousness is more then angels and demons are on the table. Historically this is always been fundamental to the good v. evil debate.
 
More arm waving Imo.

But the real Point here is that it's unnecessary/ irrelevant since consciousness equals brain phenomenon has been falsified experimentally:
Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

Again, strict neurological materialism leaves no room for any woo woo / spooky stuff. Radin's experiments demonstrate a lot of spooky stuff.

The other point that I repeat about a million times over is it this whole thing looks more like a psyop than anything else given that the alphabet agencies were clearly deeply involved in weaponizing consciousness. All this work presupposes that consciousness is more than a brain phenomenon.

In this latest edition of Dreamland, Diana Pasulka and Whitley Strieber talk about an interview that was deleted from Dreamland because Strieber was under pressure not to publish certain content. They never say who insisted that the interview be deleted, but they do say the main topic in the material that was deleted was bilocation.

https://www.unknowncountry.com/drea...ing-scholars-on-the-question-of-the-visitors/
 
Last edited:
If Consciousness is more then angels and demons are on the table. Historically this is always been fundamental to the good v. evil debate.
Glad you're still in the discussion.

So let's sort out the variables of consciousness, demons, and angels, with respect to good and evil. Consciousness is the part that makes us aware of any of them in the first place. Demons and angels are part of religious mythology. It's generally assumed that they're good or evil, but they're more like avatars or symbols. If they're representative of actual beings, then the goodness or evilness of those beings is subject to the same Level 1 rules of goodness and evilness as any other being.

From that perspective, it's possible for some demons to be good, and for some angels to be evil. Where it gets interesting ( for me ) is when we try to explore the Level 2 aspect of goodness and evilness as experienced by our senses via our consciousness — the "what it's like" to know there's an evilness lurking in the shadows or a goodness shining its light. This is something entirely separate from social and cultural constructs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top