Right and Wrong?

[Kunga]

I don't know...and speculation is not knowing.

I actually think to not know, is to know.

[Dan Rowden]

Or in your case to not know is to not know. Asking if there is empirical evidence that the universe is infinite indicates a good deal of not knowing.

[Kunga]

Or in your case to not know is to not know. Asking if there is empirical evidence that the universe is infinite indicates a good deal of not knowing.

Yes...and to not know is to know...lol

[Kunga]

If I don't exist...who is there to know anything ?

[Dan Rowden]

Who said you don't exist?

[Dan Rowden]

It's funny, whenever I "choose" a shirt when the choices exists I do so via one of two dynamics: 1) I choose a shirt for a known reason; 2) I grab one randomly without any consideration for any fact other than it's a shirt. The idea that there must necessarily be some egotistical basis for such a selection is simply wrong. The observation that there will be such a basis for people still operating in a mode significantly driven by ego is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" one.

[Kunga]

Who said you don't exist?

Is that a trick question ? lol


Everything is interdependant.
This illusion we call ourself is not a separate entity existing .....there is really no "I" or individual self.
I do not exist inherently.....I am a product of many connecting factors .

If everything is interdependant & we are all connected....
WHO is existing ?

Some people call it mind.
I really don't know.
I am not Enlightened.

[Dan Rowden]

Who said you don't exist?

Is that a trick question ? lol

No, it followed from your own.

Everything is interdependant.

Yeah.

This illusion we call ourself is not a separate entity existing .....there is really no "I" or individual self.

Yes there is, and it's not an illusion.

I do not exist inherently.....I am a product of many connecting factors .

That's better.

If everything is interdependant & we are all connected....WHO is existing ?

That would be the appearance we have labelled "Kunga".

Some people call it mind.

Some people are very generous. :)

[Kunga]

Whew !

[Orenholt]

It's funny, whenever I "choose" a shirt when the choices exists I do so via one of two dynamics: 1) I choose a shirt for a known reason; 2) I grab one randomly without any consideration for any fact other than it's a shirt. The idea that there must necessarily be some egotistical basis for such a selection is simply wrong. The observation that there will be such a basis for people still operating in a mode significantly driven by ego is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" one.

Why is it wrong that there must be an element of ego to it?
Either you're "choosing" based on an expected out come because of reason X or you're "choosing" based on the fact that you don't think it will significantly effect you.

The reason we CAN flip a coin to decide which shirt to wear is because we think it's of little or no consequence.
The reason we cannot (or shouldn't) flip a coin to decide whether to kill someone or not is because we don't want to leave something with such serious consequences up to "chance".

[Dan Rowden]

It's funny, whenever I "choose" a shirt when the choices exists I do so via one of two dynamics: 1) I choose a shirt for a known reason; 2) I grab one randomly without any consideration for any fact other than it's a shirt. The idea that there must necessarily be some egotistical basis for such a selection is simply wrong. The observation that there will be such a basis for people still operating in a mode significantly driven by ego is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" one.

Why is it wrong that there must be an element of ego to it?

Because there doesn't have to be. I just gave an example of it.

Either you're "choosing" based on an expected out come because of reason X or you're "choosing" based on the fact that you don't think it will significantly effect you.

I'm sorry, where's the necessary ego element of either of those?

The reason we CAN flip a coin to decide which shirt to wear is because we think it's of little or no consequence.

Flipping a coin to choose would be a silly thing, and probably egotistical (flipping the coin immediately makes it a choice of consequence), but differentiation doesn't necessarily entail ego and it's bizarre to assert it does. My shirt choice entails my hand grabbing whatever one I grab first.

The reason we cannot (or shouldn't) flip a coin to decide whether to kill someone or not is because we don't want to leave something with such serious consequences up to "chance".

Choosing to kill someone or not doesn't necessary entail ego any more than choosing a shirt does. The choice in the killing case will be made based on what is most efficacious to one's values and purpose - or perhaps some other practical consideration like spending the rest of one's life in jail. Ego isn't necessary or necessarily causal to any of this.

[Orenholt]

I'm sorry, where's the necessary ego element of either of those?

There's an element of ego because the ego is what cares about the outcomes because the outcomes effect how much happiness the ego gets.

Flipping a coin to choose would be a silly thing, and probably egotistical (flipping the coin immediately makes it a choice of consequence), but differentiation doesn't necessarily entail ego and it's bizarre to assert it does. My shirt choice entails my hand grabbing whatever one I grab first.

Yes, all choices are of consequence but if the ego cannot perceive a consequence it will think that the choice is irrelevant to its happiness.

Choosing to kill someone or not doesn't necessary entail ego any more than choosing a shirt does. The choice in the killing case will be made based on what is most efficacious to one's values and purpose - or perhaps some other practical consideration like spending the rest of one's life in jail. Ego isn't necessary or necessarily causal to any of this.

Values are subjective to the ego itself.
The ego probably would dislike being in jail and make the person feel hesitant about killing.

[Dan Rowden]

Before I respond to all that, let me ask: are you trying to argue ego is foundational to consciousness itself?

[Orenholt]

Before I respond to all that, let me ask: are you trying to argue ego is foundational to consciousness itself?

Pretty much.
In theory you could have no emotional reaction/desire for anything whatsoever but I don't think that you would survive for long.
Some things like blinking and breathing are automatic but things like eating require a conscious decision and effort to do.

[Orenholt]

Let's go back to this first:

I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.

How is it you understand this....by reading words of someone ?
How do you know this person knows ? Is he a astro physicist that has studied the Universe ?
Why should you base your understanding on the understanding of someone else ?
Is there empirical evidence that the Universe is even infinite ?
How can they possibly know that ?

Kunga, I hope you don't mind if I elaborate on my answer.
What most people think of as "the universe" is just a bubble of space and time.
The REAL universe is what encompasses ALL the bubbles of space and time.

[oxytocinNA]

For those wanting to argue:
I have participated in way too many threads, of this subject. I am unwilling to get into the same time wasting faulty arguments. So if you carefully break it down, you might see what I am referring to.

I'm going to respond just because of this statement.

Let's take a look at the passage as a whole. First of all, we can see that it's found in chapter 4, over halfway through the book, so for any statements drawn upon and examined this far into the book, it should be noted that the context built up to that point is left out, and can hinder proper examination.

The question of whether or not it is "wrong" to punish criminals, given that causality is ultimately responsible for his actions, is meaningless. After all, the punisher himself is also a part of the larger realm of causality and equally not responsible for his actions. How can he do "wrong" in metering out punishment? This point was nicely illustrated by the great sage of Ancient Greece, Diogenes:

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes. "Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

Trying to ascertain right and wrong in these kinds of matters is futile. Right and wrong are subjective judgments. They chop and change depending on a person's fundamental values. A far more intelligent approach would be to simply accept the obvious truth that the issue of punishment is determined by practical concerns only. Since a measure of order and social harmony is needed for the maintenance of civilized life, deterrents are needed for those who wish to behave in a mindless destructive fashion. If these deterrents were to be removed, the rule of the jungle would quickly take over and the very worst elements of the human race would soon be ruling society. This isn't good for anyone.

-Source

Before the passage quoted, David goes into length about the role of emotionalism as the judging factor in punishing criminals. That's why "wrong" is placed in quotations in the first sentence. The rest of the quote, without the nitpicking, speaks for itself and makes perfect sense to me.

OK fair enough - I should not have posted with being willing to elaborate more - but I was simply trying to help in a minimal way.

Dealing with properly broken down data (variables). Categorizing as either objective or subjective, is critical to proper organization (reflecting proper abstraction of - and practical adherence to reality).

Sorry for being a stick in the mud (there is just too much that has to be brought into this ....), but you can only participate so much (spending so much time), before you start dropping out. Sorry

[Dan Rowden]

Before I respond to all that, let me ask: are you trying to argue ego is foundational to consciousness itself?

Pretty much.
In theory you could have no emotional reaction/desire for anything whatsoever but I don't think that you would survive for long.
Some things like blinking and breathing are automatic but things like eating require a conscious decision and effort to do.

So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No animals, not humans or chimps, ever make choices. Unless you would say that it is still choosing even if you don't have a choice.

[Orenholt]

So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?

Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?

Read this post I made to Leyla:

The only difference between the animal/infant consciousness and the human consciousness is the human capacity for knowledge of expected outcomes.
A lion might eat the last of an endangered species because it doesn't know that it is the last, nor does it understand how it would be bad to kill off a species of prey animal. It only thinks in the short term about "I'm hungry and I must kill to eat".
A human (or at least an intelligent one) on the other hand wouldn't kill off all cows because we have the capacity to understand that it would be bad to eat all of our food animals without having more to breed and replenish the herd.

The lion still has an ego and WANTS to eat and has emotional reactions to things, it just doesn't understand long term planning.

Choice is illusory for both humans and animals.

[Dan Rowden]

So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?

Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?

Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.

[Orenholt]

Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.

If infants and dogs have no egos and ego is the source of all suffering, does that mean that infants and dogs cannot suffer?

I want to double check that we have the same interpretation of what the ego is because I think an animal can have a primitive one and you think that an animal cannot have one at all so clearly we must be talking about 2 different things so let's try to get on the same page here before we continue.

[Leyla Shen]

If infants and dogs have no egos and ego is the source of all suffering, does that mean that infants and dogs cannot suffer?

Certainly not in the way an individual does reading a question like this.

It means they don't experience egoistic suffering.

What would your pet dog, cat or bird do if you asked it that question?

[Leyla Shen]

PS: Egoistic suffering is generally defined and understood to be the product of: primordial drives ("desire" works, too) plus prohibition of those drives (morality).

[Orenholt]

Certainly not in the way an individual does reading a question like this.

It means they don't experience egoistic suffering.

What would your pet dog, cat or bird do if you asked it that question?

Har har. I mean do they suffer from "want". And clearly they do.
An infant will cry because it is not getting attention.
That is not a physical pain response, it is a psychological pain response to "wanting" attention.

[Tenver-]

Morality is a subjective value and evaluation. It is that idea of how a consciousness affects another consciousness. Since all individual consciousnessses (which is the only form there is and probably only can be) is restricted from any absolute truth or single, final truth, all valuation and evaluation depends on the consciousness in question and it's subjective perception and assessment of itself and others (other conscious beings specifically).

I'm not sure if there is any conclusion to it. The ideal morality is fiction of the mind, perhaps possible, at least we try and most people claim we have made progress over the centuries and millennia. Any circumstance is uncertain, but in the face of this we must act and decide on possibilities.