In the case of 'good', it cannot "precede value" as 'goodness' is a value judgement, nothing more (or less). Truth, admittedly, is a little more convoluted.psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 7:23 am My argument is that truth and good logically precede value, e.g. the spacetime Universe, and thereby are of a nature of which it can be said that there is no opposite.
Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
If you do not agree, can you address my logic and explain what exactly is wrong?
psyreporter wrote: ↑August 30th, 2021, 6:55 pmThe human being necessarily follows the information obtained by the senses. One is therefor to establish whether anything precedes the senses and if so, what that is/can be.
Logically, for senses to be possible something must have preceded it: valuing.
Valuing cannot find its origin on the level of the individual which implies that the origin of the human in its actuality (as a being that necessarily follows from information provided by the senses, ie its 'consciousness') lays outside the scope of the individual.
The origin of valuing cannot be value which is a simple logical truth (something cannot be the origin of itself). By the nature of value, valuing appropriates its essential distinguish-ability from good and if that indicated good could be anything other than 'good per se', it would need to have been valued which by the mentioned simple logical truth is impossible.
Therefor, good and truth necessarily exist as precursor to any value in the world, and thus, are of a nature of which it can be said that there is no opposite. This also implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
I would, but I'm a little unclear as to what your logic is. I offer these fragments, though:psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 9:46 am As indicated by my logic, the denotation 'good' as a judgment in a historical context that derives meaning from memory in time. differs from 'good per se', which logically exists by the nature of valuing.
If you do not agree, can you address my logic and explain what exactly is wrong?
psyreporter wrote: ↑August 30th, 2021, 6:55 pmThe human being necessarily follows the information obtained by the senses. One is therefor to establish whether anything precedes the senses and if so, what that is/can be.
Logically, for senses to be possible something must have preceded it: valuing.
Valuing cannot find its origin on the level of the individual which implies that the origin of the human in its actuality (as a being that necessarily follows from information provided by the senses, ie its 'consciousness') lays outside the scope of the individual.
The origin of valuing cannot be value which is a simple logical truth (something cannot be the origin of itself). By the nature of value, valuing appropriates its essential distinguish-ability from good and if that indicated good could be anything other than 'good per se', it would need to have been valued which by the mentioned simple logical truth is impossible.
Therefor, good and truth necessarily exist as precursor to any value in the world, and thus, are of a nature of which it can be said that there is no opposite. This also implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori).
Anything that precedes the senses is external to the human being in question. Sensation is the very first part of the perception process.
Nothing can be 'good per se', as "good" is a comparative term. It also applies specifically to something, or some group of things. Otherwise, we end up with what is good for X is bad for Y.
Valuing is something humans do. Outside of humans and our minds, value does not exist in the RL universe.
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
Correct, but when one senses, one derives at a requirement of 'qualitative distinct-ability', which is valuing.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 1:58 pmI would, but I'm a little unclear as to what your logic is. I offer these fragments, though:
Anything that precedes the senses is external to the human being in question. Sensation is the very first part of the perception process.
Valuing necessarily must take place before a physical 'sense' process can be put into motion, otherwise, what is sensed must have been known beforehand.
When it is assumed that anything is actually 'sensed' (thus unknown beforehand), than valuing must precede the senses.
The logic that I provided clearly shows that valuing cannot originate from the level of the individual, which implies that the origin of consciousness must lay outside the scope of the individual. This is based on simple and clear logic.
Correct, nothing (no value) can be 'good per se'. Value cannot be the origin of itself. The origin of value is valuing which origin, by the nature of value, is logically (of which it can be said that it is) 'good per se'.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 1:58 pmNothing can be 'good per se', as "good" is a comparative term. It also applies specifically to something, or some group of things. Otherwise, we end up with what is good for X is bad for Y.
No, as has been shown, valuing must precede the senses and thus it necessarily precedes the human.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 1:58 pmValuing is something humans do. Outside of humans and our minds, value does not exist in the RL universe.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
I'm really sorry, but I cannot parse any sense from this apparently English sentence. For example, the combination "derives at" is unknown to me.psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 2:50 pm Correct, but when one senses, one derives at a requirement of 'qualitative distinct-ability', which is valuing.
What is sensed is whatever light/sound/etc impinges on us from the external universe. Is this what you refer to, or are we talking at cross-purposes?psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 2:50 pm Valuing necessarily must take place before a physical 'sense' process can be put into motion, otherwise, what is sensed must have been known beforehand.
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
It was already established that what one can consider to be 'us' necessarily follows the information provided by the senses. That 'us' cannot precede the senses, and thus, one is to establish the origin of sensing on the level of the senses (the senses become primary in the search for the origin of consciousness, which is to be considered a mere manifestation).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 2:58 pmWhat is sensed is whatever light/sound/etc impinges on us from the external universe. Is this what you refer to, or are we talking at cross-purposes?psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 2:50 pm Valuing necessarily must take place before a physical 'sense' process can be put into motion, otherwise, what is sensed must have been known beforehand.
The senses - again: when it is established that the senses precede 'us' - necessarily require a 'qualitative distinct-ability' which is valuing.
It is established that the origin of valuing cannot reside within the scope of an individual because it cannot be value by the simple logical truth that the origin of value cannot be value itself.
Conclusion: the origin of life and consciousness must lay outside the scope of the individual and by the nature of value it necessarily is 'good per se' of which it can be said that there is no opposite.
If you do not agree, can you please explain what part of the above logic is invalid?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
Senses are attributes of 'us', aren't they? They do not "precede" us in any way I can see. What am I missing?psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 3:53 pm It was already established that what one can consider to be 'us' necessarily follows the information provided by the senses. That 'us' cannot precede the senses...
I would gladly do so, but I am finding it exceptionally difficult to discern your 'logic'.psyreporter wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 3:53 pm If you do not agree, can you please explain what part of the above logic is invalid?
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
How can it be possible to consider an 'us' BEFORE information had been present that that 'us' could use to be relevant within the context of physical reality?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 9:14 amSenses are attributes of 'us', aren't they? They do not "precede" us in any way I can see. What am I missing?
Senses are primary BEFORE consciousness (an 'us') can manifest itself.
To explain the origin of consciousness is to explain the origin of sensing.
Do you not agree with the above?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
I think I'm beginning to understand. You think that sensation sort of activates consciousness, which is maybe dormant in the lack of incoming events (sensations)?psyreporter wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 10:20 amHow can it be possible to consider an 'us' BEFORE information had been present that that 'us' could use to be relevant within the context of physical reality?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 9:14 amSenses are attributes of 'us', aren't they? They do not "precede" us in any way I can see. What am I missing?
Senses are primary BEFORE consciousness (an 'us') can manifest itself.
To explain the origin of consciousness is to explain the origin of sensing.
Do you not agree with the above?
I think the origin of sensation is the real world, but I think the origin of consciousness lies within our minds. No?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
All input and analysis, whether external or internal, has to come before the consciousness of it a few hundred milliseconds later.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 10:20 am Senses are primary BEFORE consciousness (an 'us') can manifest itself.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
Consciousness cannot be dormant before sensing. Consciousness is a manifestation that follows sensing. Sensing is therefor the origin of consciousness.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 8:48 am I think I'm beginning to understand. You think that sensation sort of activates consciousness, which is maybe dormant in the lack of incoming events (sensations)?
I think the origin of sensation is the real world, but I think the origin of consciousness lies within our minds. No?
The provided logic makes it evident that the origin of sensing must lay outside the scope of the individual which implies that:
- the origin of life must be external from both the human and physical reality.
- empirical science cannot provide an explanation.
From the perspective of the individual, life and consciousness requires an external (physically neutral) origin.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 8:48 am I think I'm beginning to understand. You think that sensation sort of activates consciousness, which is maybe dormant in the lack of incoming events (sensations)?
I think the origin of sensation is the real world, but I think the origin of consciousness lies within our minds. No?
"Makes it evident"? I can't see that. What I see is an assertion. You say you have offered "logic" in justification, but I can't see it.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm The provided logic makes it evident that the origin of sensing must lay outside the scope of the individual...
At least I can see the assertions you are making now, but I dispute your suggestion that you have offered justification for your views. You suggest that consciousness is created by sensation, and the process of perception that follows it. I think it is well understood and accepted that sensation and perception are pre-conscious, but your ideas go beyond that. Your view seems to say that I am totally passive, able only to react to the world as I perceive its behaviour.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm Consciousness cannot be dormant before sensing. Consciousness is a manifestation that follows sensing. Sensing is therefore the origin of consciousness.
This is an interesting view, but not one I find able to accept, when it seems my consciousness and conscious mind have continuous existence. How would we tell if it didn't? If you were right in your suppositions, how can we detect this?
Why must the origin of life be external from both the human and physical reality? It seems to me that life exists within "physical reality"; is that not so?psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm
- the origin of life must be external from both the human and physical reality.
- empirical science cannot provide an explanation.
You say "requires", but again I ask why? And why is the origin of consciousness tied so directly to the origin of life itself? And what does "physically neutral" mean, please?psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm From the perspective of the individual, life and consciousness requires an external (physically neutral) origin.
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
Proposition 1.1:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 5th, 2021, 8:43 am"Makes it evident"? I can't see that. What I see is an assertion. You say you have offered "logic" in justification, but I can't see it.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm The provided logic makes it evident that the origin of sensing must lay outside the scope of the individual...
Consciousness can only manifest itself on the basis of information provided by the senses. Therefor, to explain the origin of consciousness is to explain the origin of sensing.
Do you agree?
Proposition 1.2:
Sensing is PRIMARY and necessarily precedes conscious experience, which implies that the potential for subjective value equation cannot have preceded the senses.
Do you agree?
Proposition 1.3:
Sensing necessarily requires a ‘qualitative distinct-ability’ which is valuing.
Do you agree?
Proposition 1.4:
The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world – from the simplest pattern onward – is value.
Proposition 1.5:
The origin of valuing cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself (the origin of the qualia 'patternness' (= value) cannot be a pattern). This implies that valuing cannot find its origin on the level of the individual and thus, that the origin of sensing and consciousness as manifestation must lay outside the scope of the individual.
Do you agree?
Proposition 1.6:
Based on the preceding logic it has been established that the origin of sensing and of consciousness must lay outside the scope of the individual and because of it, that conscious experience cannot be a predetermined program or a psychological illusion.
Do you agree?
No, based on the above logic, a life form (as part of physical reality) is preceded by something for it to be 'alive', which is also evident by the simple consideration that the question 'why' the world exists is simply a question that requires an answer (thus, a life form is necessarily preceded by that something with which the 'why the world exists' question can be answered).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 5th, 2021, 8:43 amWhy must the origin of life be external from both the human and physical reality? It seems to me that life exists within "physical reality"; is that not so?
In the neutrino-biological cell theory of life, the origin of the Universe (meaning) is transferred on to the level of the individual within the scope of interaction between Neutrinos and matter (biological cells), which manifests itself as consciousness.
A short description of the theory:
https://psyreporter.com/life/
Meaning precedes physical reality.
What preceded life on a fundamental level logically lays beyond it from the perspective of an individual life form. Therefor, the origin of life is also the purpose or goal of life. Life logically will seek the origin of itself, ie. develop subjective experience and become self-conscious.
The provided logic indicates that 'meaning' is pre-conscious (pre-existence). On a fundamental level, meaning would essentially perform as 'mind' since a pattern is bound by observation/perception (a pattern can only derive significance by observation/perception). Thus, meaning would perform like mind which would explain that it manifests as consciousness by being transferred onto the level of the individual in neutrino-matter (biological cell) interaction.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 5th, 2021, 8:43 amAt least I can see the assertions you are making now, but I dispute your suggestion that you have offered justification for your views. You suggest that consciousness is created by sensation, and the process of perception that follows it. I think it is well understood and accepted that sensation and perception are pre-conscious, but your ideas go beyond that. Your view seems to say that I am totally passive, able only to react to the world as I perceive its behaviour.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 4th, 2021, 6:27 pm Consciousness cannot be dormant before sensing. Consciousness is a manifestation that follows sensing. Sensing is therefore the origin of consciousness.
This is an interesting view, but not one I find able to accept, when it seems my consciousness and conscious mind have continuous existence. How would we tell if it didn't? If you were right in your suppositions, how can we detect this?
In the Neutrino-biological cell theory of life, life would originate from the Sun.
Can it be said that consciousness is of substance without life? If not, is there at least one clue that it could be so?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 5th, 2021, 8:43 amYou say "requires", but again I ask why? And why is the origin of consciousness tied so directly to the origin of life itself? And what does "physically neutral" mean, please?
Logically and most likely, consciousness is merely a manifestation of the origin of life.
Why would you believe that it is so / could be so?
Physically neutral would imply 'outside the scope of physical reality' (i.e. not a product of causality)
Neutrinos move at the speed of light and can change their mass up to 3000x in size, by themselves, which is called flavor switching or morphing. It is why the particle is called a ‘ghost particle’ (spooky particle).
At light speed there is no time and distance.
Does light experience time?
But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... -time.html
When a Neutrino would be able to travel at light speed by being unbound by mass on a fundamental level it would need to deviate from a state of timelessness. That deviation 'out of itself' may entail the essence of 'meaning' which manifests itself in the physical world as mass and weak-force interaction in biological cells (e.g. brain neurons).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
psyreporter wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 7:00 pm The provided logic indicates that 'meaning' is pre-conscious (pre-existence).
I think meaning is asigned both consciously and non-consciously, part of that taking place during the process of perception, which is (as you say) pre-conscious. Oh, and pre-conscious is far from equivalent to pre-existence, IMO.
"Who cares, wins"
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is Good Stronger Than Evil?
I would agree with your assertion.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 17th, 2021, 1:44 pm Psyreporter, I find your perspective, and the words you use to describe it, difficult to understand. Your perspective is unique in my experience, and I am having a lot of difficulty simply understanding what you say. So I have not answered many of your questions, because I don't really understand what's being asked. Let's start with this little nugget:
I think meaning is asigned both consciously and non-consciously, part of that taking place during the process of perception, which is (as you say) pre-conscious. Oh, and pre-conscious is far from equivalent to pre-existence, IMO.psyreporter wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 7:00 pm The provided logic indicates that 'meaning' is pre-conscious (pre-existence).
The qualia patternness is bound by perception (a pattern is not possible without perception) which means that the origin of 'the Universe' (existence) logically manifests itself as consciousness.
When you indicate that the part of perception that provides the origin of meaning is pre-conscious, then I would agree, with the essence of perception - which is meaning before value/pattern - being the origin of both physical reality and consciousness, with life and consciousness being a direct manifestation of that meaning (part of perception) in a pure form.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023