Death to Humans!

[xLostWingx]

This ought to stir up some interesting conversation.  http://www.vhemt.org/

While I don't particularly agree with the reasons (i'm not an ultra-environmentalist) listed on this site, I do agree humans are evil and that basically all other forms of life on the planet have more right to life than we do.  Am I going to commit suicide to further this cause?  No.  Then again, I guess one would have to have some type of belief in God, (whatever you call the dimensionless, infinite being that may or may not exist depending on what you think) which I do, to decide if 'evil' or 'goodness' exist.  Anyway, I didn't really wanna discuss my personal beliefs and opinions (although I'm not opposed to doing so if the conversation veers that direction), I just figured this is guaranteed to provoke some highly emotional and/or intellectual conversation.

EDIT:  What is the value of a human life or 1,000,000 human lives?  Is it measured absolutely (life is life therefore it is valuable) or by quality (person A has AIDS, no legs or arms, and is in a coma...is their life valuable)?  who determines this?  Or is it whether or not a person values their own life? as in, its bad to kill someone who enjoys life, but its good to kill someone who hates life.  A natural disaster kills 10000 people living in a desert with no source of water or food.  Is this a good thing?  Or...we provide humanitarian aid to the 5000 survivors...enabling them to spend 10 more years living in misery.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

On your mark...set...DISCUSS!

[Kudistos Megistos]

This is a good idea.

If everyone stupid enough to take that site seriously were to an hero, the world would be a better place.

[DLPB_]

I think it is true that when you give men a brain they can then make choices that are evil or good, and I am not sure if it is a good thing we did evolve sentience.. but, nature designed it that way and so if we are evil then the universe and its laws are and thus so is god (should one exist) to some extent.

Or it could be that there is no good or evil in strictest sense... that everything is just mathematics and nothing matters.

Personally I thought too much about this and only beer seems to have a real purpose.

[The Seer of Shadows]

The people who made that site are seriously in need of something to do.

Still, this graphic made me laugh

[xLostWingx]

I think it is true that when you give men a brain they can then make choices that are evil or good, and I am not sure if it is a good thing we did evolve sentience.. but, nature designed it that way and so if we are evil then the universe and its laws are and thus so is god (should one exist) to some extent.

Or it could be that there is no good or evil in strictest sense... that everything is just mathematics and nothing matters.

Personally I thought too much about this and only beer seems to have a real purpose.

Personally I think that Man just evolved a frontal lobe and an opposable thumb before any other being.  Now its a race to see if we can destroy everything before Dolphins grow legs or Octopi (sp?) evolve lungs.  I wouldn't say "nature designs" though.  But in an effort to keep this from becoming too serious a discussion, I'll leave it at that.

[DLPB_]

Well the laws of physics are an absolute which started at the big bang (or so we think), everything after that point has been created from those laws in a pattern which was always going to happen.

Nature and science we live by would be the cause, we are merely the effect.  I am not saying that there is or is not a design in mind, that is a whole other question but everything from the actual big bang has happened based on the existing laws that existed then and exist now. 

So my point is, if we are evil then nature and our laws are to blame, not us.  Without evolution giving us a brain we would not be able to make choices that are "evil"

In fact powerful creatures prey on the weak for food.  That in itself could be classified as evil in some sense.  The point though, is that it is not our fault that we are here.

[xLostWingx]

I agree that the Laws govern the universe and all that resides in it, however what you're describing sounds like some sort of pre-determined scientific fate.  I guess it depends on how linear you think the sequence of events since the big bang are, because of course there are things (namely evolution) that occur based on environmental factors and genetic factors (chance) and how they come together produces something unique.  Laws decided that earth and crows and humans would come to exist, but they don't determine what the crow or human does during it's life.  We have a predisposition to act in a certain type of way (self-preservation) but I might decide to catch a fish from a steam or pick an apple off a tree, or if I were evil, kill a man and take his food.

Laws are a means by which humans can explain that which is.  We also aren't aware of every Law of Nature that exists which means there are potentially counter-laws or other subtle laws that affect known laws in unknown ways.  I don't know where I was going with this...

The notion of evil is a man-made construct, but then again Descarte claimed "I think, therefore I am" so I guess its up to the individual to determine if they believe in evil or not...when I say evil I'm not referring to survival of the fittest or vices - I mean the type of evil that insane or reckless people are responsible for.  Clear cutting a obscure island's vegetation destroying 10,000 unique species of life for a pouch of gold, or committing genocide (back to the unanswered topic of the value of life) are evil acts in my mind.


I think that sentience brings with it responsibility.  In that sense, I would say it is a person's fault if they commit "evil" acts whether they are responsible for their capacity for evil or not.

[DLPB_]

It is completely linear.  The reason why you don't know what a die will land on when you throw it is because you do not know all the variables involved but all those variables are based on what went before.  As soon as time began everything was fated to become what it has.  It was fated because the laws we live by give rise to planets spinning round stars etc etc etc etc.

If any of these laws did not work the way they have and do, we would not be here talking about it.  There is 1 theory that there are billions of universes and that this one had the correct laws to give rise to life... but I think that is a bit desperate and weak, and a way to explain away everything we do not understand.

You can never predict the future because you do not have sufficient data of the present or the past.  But if you did know all the variables including a full understanding of the quantum level, it is logical to assume that you could predict the future totally.  Unfortunately our own observations interfere with the randomness of the unverse (Quamtum physics again), and so from our perspective the world will always have a degree of randomness.  It would also take massive calculations regardless.  But the point is a simple one...  random is only random because you do not know the variables and what went before to a full understanding;  the future, including our fate can not be known but the laws we live by are directing us there day after day.

All the decisions you make in life are based on the current variables and the past.  You think you have free will, but do you?  The answer is no.. you don't.  At the fundamental point, you and me and everyone are slaves to what went before and ultimately to the laws we live by, that were created without any control from us.  The very start of the universe and time started us down a path of causality.

We are the snow ball rolling down a hill. 

It is not all bad though!  Because we don't know enough, we can never know enough to make this world predictable and boring.  The above is true if Time is in 1 direction and if the universe conforms to the strict mathematics it seems to.  Of course... I don't know of it does, but I'd say it is the best bet

[xLostWingx]

I agree 99%.  I agree that we can reliably predict absolutely everything until you arrive at thought.  I understand that if one were to view every particle of existence with complete understanding that everything would be predictable except I beleive that there is a quality to conciousness that exists independent of those laws.

I contend that if I had a million identical clones subjected to a million identical experiences in a million identical environments, that there would still be variability.  Free will may be a misnomer, but just because it isn't absolutely free, doesn't mean that it doesn't produce unpredictability.  Of those millions of clones millions of behaviors, I agree that the vast majority would act in the same way nearly all, if not all of the time - but because they have a mind (which possesses a quality that exists outside of laws/mathematics) it is inevitable that something unique will be produced.

In summary, I feel that the mind/conciousness/sentience whatever you call it, has the ability to defy the variables.  Insert the mind (or soul if you believe in it) into the equation and you no longer have 100% certainty.  Even if it was so minute as 1 chance in a dectillion to the dectillionth degree, it exists.  Personally I believe that it has a greater effect than this.

**You keep editing! lol...as far as betting is concerned, I would be inclined to bet the same way you have considering statistically speaking, you would be 100% accurate.  I just believe that there are things that exist independently from those almighty numbers.

***Any views on value of human life? or other types of life?  Don't let me keep you from the battle menu interface project if your busy.  Looks gorgeous btw.

[drfeelgud88]

A resurrected Hitler/Stalin? 

[xLostWingx]

If any of these laws did not work the way they have and do, we would not be here talking about it.  There is 1 theory that there are billions of universes and that this one had the correct laws to give rise to life... but I think that is a bit desperate and weak, and a way to explain away everything we do not understand.

I was just re-reading this thread while uploading new Revisited content, and I was paying attention to this paragraph.  If there is more than 1 universe, then there must be an infinite number of universes unless theres some law about subatomic particles that limits the number of universes to billions.  If there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of realities which contain life.  I do believe that time exists simultaneously with an infinite number of stages between each momemnt, which, I guess, would require an infinite number of universes, which would mean that there are an infinite number of universes that contain life.  But by no means do I beleive that life exists in only one universe if there is more than one universe.  Just to clarify in case someone doesn't fully comprehend the concept of infinity - if you have a library with infinity books and you take one book away, or a billion books away, the library will still contain infinity books.  If you add books to the library (which would be impossible, but hypothetically speaking) the library will still contain infinity books, not infinity +1 books.

The topics for discussion are:

1.  Evil and Goodness, do they exist?
2.  Are humans evil?
3.  What is the value of human life?  Of other types of life?
4.  Do the laws of nature apply to the possibilities of thought?
5.  What of multiple realities/universes/timelines/dimesions?

[endlessdamage]

Ok I am not going to go into a huge rant because I wont be able to stop, so I will just make one small interjection. You say that in order to believe in good and evil you need to be spiritual, yes? I dont believe that one bit. Someone can just be a shitty person and that in order to know that you dont need to believe in a higher power. You just know that they are not a good person. And I completely agree that we are the least civil, and least caring out of all living creatures but in no way does this mean that we should all have a mass suicide. But I do think that instead of having a death row, when someone gets convicted of murder/rape etc, something unforgivable IMO, we should just have a gun in the courtroom and when the gavel goes down and the person is guilty, they get a bullet in the head. Or like how some states have the 3 strike law? If you get a prison sentence longer then the average human life span you should also get a bullet straight in the head.
/rant I wasnt supposed to have(at least i kept it shortish)

[DLPB_]

I agree 99%.  I agree that we can reliably predict absolutely everything until you arrive at thought.  I understand that if one were to view every particle of existence with complete understanding that everything would be predictable except I beleive that there is a quality to conciousness that exists independent of those laws.

That depends...  I would contend that consciousness is directly created by chemical reactions in the brain which is a pure mathematical model.  If that is the case, predicting thought is just as easy if you have total command of all known variables.  If all thought and consciousness is created by simple chemical reactions then that works.  Of course "thought", "feeling" and "emotion" are things which are created by the arrangement of chemicals in the system and are not something easily explained.  There is a whole branch of philosophy that holds that emotions etc, are a completely separate phenomenon (as I think you do).

My view is that everything in the universe can be explained on a purely mathematical and scientific model (except where the laws came from.... which is a major stumbling block)

Also sorry about the edits... it is a habit of mine that winds everyone up.  It isn't intentional but I always think about things afterward... things that might be taken out of context etc.  Also, I am not sure if the religion thing was aimed at me by the above poster?  I certainly don't believe in religion or that to be good you need to be spiritual. No chance.

[xLostWingx]

And now in order for me to continue my side of the discussion, I have to divulge certain deep personal beliefs that are niether provable nor disprovable.  Should I save us each the time and say we agree to disagree?  Or bear some deeply personal beliefs to a FFVII Modding Community lol.  I beleive that if one were to dissect the chemical reactions you speak of, down to the smallest level, that we would in fact become quite confused - because I beleive that we would be able to witness two identical (at least according to our perception) events that are capable of producing different behaviors/thoughts/feelings.  Without the ability to observe these actions from a God-like perspective (the type of perspective you described earlier in the thread) we would not be able to make any sense out of it.  Basically, there are natural laws, and then there are supernatural laws.  The realm that man resides in and the capacity for man to percieve and comprehend this realm are limited.  If we had perfect perception of reality and perfect understanding, it would still be limited by the fact it is only this Universe.  If I have 100,000,000,000,000 x 100,000,000,000,000 Perception/Understanding Points, it is still 0 points when compared to the infinite. 

Of course we have no way of proving this, the very idea prohibits finite beings from being capable of proving such things.  A decent analogy would be vision.  We see everything in the visible spectrum with our eyes, but thats all we can see.  Using only our eyes, we could never hope to see radio waves, x-rays, infared, etc.  We design technology to translate these things into something we can actually see...but its only a translation.

As far as good and evil, religion spirituality blah blah goes...without some higher power, good and evil are totally subjective (depending on your views of the conscience/innate morality).  Keep in mind, I don't subscribe to any traditional notion of religion or God - to me scientific law and God are not mutually exclusive.  Creationists are dumb because laws exist.  Scientific Purists often act like the existence of science somehow disproves God...I don't see why science isn't simply a language spoken by God that we are capable of understanding.  For an infinite being to communicate directly would obliterate the universe (or something), science is merely a means of interpretation.

*I don't mind the edits at all.  I just wrote a response only to discover that I hadn't addressed each point because points had been added lol. 

[Prince Lex]

Dude, that's kinda beautiful.

I believe there's something beyond this reality, but I don't believe in naming whatever it may be, or even trying to understand it. I don't believe in calling whatever it may or may not be "god" and I DEFINITELY do not believe in religion. Of any kind. Having said that, I agree with some of the things you just said.

[xLostWingx]

  I'm glad you think so.  I think religion is just another form of culture.  You wouldn't go around saying "My culture is more true than your culture." Organized religion is a collection of values/beliefs/rituals etc. the same as a culture is.  Existence persists regardless of the existence of religion.  Its not as if there was no God/Origin of Life/Singularity before someone came along and said, "This is Zoroastrianism/Christinaity/Buddhism/Islam," and then BANG now God exists.  A professor once told me, "There is more within-group difference than there is between-group difference."  AKA on average men are physically stronger than women, but the range between the weakest man and the strongest man is much greater than the average difference in strength between man and woman, some women are stronger than some men, and some men are weaker than some women.  This can surely be applied to cultures and religions as well.  I guess the point I'm trying to make is that religion is largely superficial, and the individual values of a person matter a lot more.  Now I'm just talking to myself, sorry.

[The Seer of Shadows]

I don't see why science isn't simply a language spoken by God that we are capable of understanding.

This is something I've been saying to people for a long time, but I've never actually said it this well.

However, I agree to disagree with you that two realities, one tangible and one intangible, interact to produce variation from a single, sufficiently-controlled thought.  I do not believe that.  If two human beings were entirely identical in every way at the same point in time with the same memories and personalities and exposed to exactly the same environment, they would be exactly the same.  But it's impossible to create such conditions - even clones are dissimilar, if only because this neuron is connected to that neuron in the brain of Clone A, whereas it isn't in Clone B.  With 100 billion neurons in an average human brain, that'd kind of thing (which is thought to be involved in human thoughts and emotions) would be quite difficult to control.  And that's only one of the things that need controlling.

So I guess I'd have to admit that you're right in that your belief cannot be proven or disproven.  (Unless you also believe that these supernatural laws are in some way connected to an afterlife, as many religions do.  In which case, there'd be a very easy - if maybe a little inconvenient - way to prove/disprove it But I wouldn't recommend it.)

[DLPB_]

xLostWingx one correction. Buddhism isn't really comparable to the main religions, and is not really a religion strictly speaking   That is a common misconception.

You never see a Buddhist flying planes into skyscrapers either which is an added bonus..

[xLostWingx]

@Seer  Thats a good point about the neurons/synaptic connections.  I might just have to submit that two identical beings with identical circumstances including memories etc. etc. would act in identical ways.  If you think that time is continuous, then I guess the me of one instant ago and the me of this istant arer as close to identical as is possible, in which case the two instaneous mes are effectively doing identical things at the same time.  I have always wondered about a Donni Darkoesque flow of time where all instants are occuring at the same time just there are an infinite number of sequences involved.

Concerning the afterlife, once again I don't adhere to a Heavenly Paraidise in which all your hopes and desires are made reality.  I think that God is an infinite being with infinite conciousness (I must reiterate that infinite isn't just something really really big or something that can be measured, its a concept that includes all that is, was, and that ever could be and not in material terms) and infinite energy (maybe not energy in the sense that we understand it).  And I believe in the soul (not just a human soul, but a lifeforce/conciousness of sorts) which inhabits all living things, if not all things, that is connected to this reality (the limited reality) and may or may not return to the infinite source depending on events that take place in the limited reality.  Now can I say anything scientific or substantive about this...no I don't think I can, so it may as well be the same thing as faith.  But this is my interpretation of it (at least my articulation of it, because the understanding I have would have to be many more words than this).  I also don't know if you retain your individuality in any type of afterlife...I'd say it wouldn't be likely considering the infinite would already include your individuality, however, if you don't retain it, then it seems to defeat the purpose of life to begin with.

@DLPB Ah i see.  I'm not an expert on world religions, thanks for correcting me.