Thread: The Way to End Suffering

The only way 'out' is to understand the real meaning of peace, love, and real freedom, all of which are not truly found in duality or opposites, and which are essentially unbound from paradoxes and conditions. When one unconditionally loves another, and is not necessarily in love with them (romantically), that may be called non-dualistic. Because that love does not require hate in order to exist; contrary to popular belief. It is self-fulfilling

Waaaayyyyyy harder than it sounds. People are jerks. You aren't going to like everyone. This is a simple fact. The only way you could get everyone to love everyone else would be if you engineered a race of identical emotionless love-drones. No, thank you.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Waaaayyyyyy harder than it sounds. People are jerks. You aren't going to like everyone. This is a simple fact. The only way you could get everyone to love everyone else would be if you engineered a race of identical emotionless love-drones. No, thank you.

I know you're just making a side comment, but consider what you just said. You just said to make everyone love each other we would have to be emotionless love-drones. Which makes no sense, because being emotionless means we don't experience love o_O. So uh...obviously....loving everyone has nothing to do with being emotionless, or being a robot, or making everyone the same. (nature requires diversity for there to be harmony)

This is kind of like people saying they don't want to go to heaven because perfect is boring. Well if its boring, then it isn't perfect, then it isn't heaven! What's the problem then? (probably your head)

The problem isn't love, or peace, or perfect, but our FALSE concepts of these concepts. Take unconditional love. What does unconditional love mean? Does it mean you have to like everyone even if they are jerks? No. Unconditional love has nothing to do with liking someone, like isn't love.

Unconditional love means that you love that individual to the point where you desire for them to be free and happy. And a lot of times that means, free from their own egos. Take the lonely jerk. Unconditional love means being honest with this individual "stop acting like a jerk and you wouldn't be lonely." Saying white lies just so you don't hurt someones feelings isn't unconditional love. Unconditional love is the love that cuts through lies, and false concepts. Including false concepts of who we think we are.

That's why really's argument was to UNDERSTAND the REAL MEANING of these concepts. Society doesn't.

I mean its kinda like saying to have peace we first have to end war. Eh....well you see ending a war implies some sort of not-so-nice action, like the bombing of Hiroshima. Ending a war implies that someone loses. And losers can grow bitter and angry. WWI becomes WWII. There's no guarantee that when you end a war, that tomorrow a new war won't start.

We can only have peace when this thing called war, ceases to exist. Take Mother Teresa, she refused to go to anti-war party. Instead, she would much rather go to a peace party. Consider how the two are different! Peace comes when we stop giving our attention, focus, energy and power to war, even if it is to end it. If anything, the last ten years of American involvement in the middle east is a good example of what happens when you think you can force peace by ending war. (you get more war =b)

Another example would be cancer, we can think of cancer as a civil war in the body.

Trying to destroy the cancer resulted in chemotherapy, which weakens the body's natural defense systems. By weakening the rest of the body, many complications can occur that having to do with the actual cancer.

On the flip side, new research shows that probably the best way to defeat cancer is to starve it, denying it the energy it needs to grow. To drive this point even more, you can deprive cancer by simply eating certain health foods. In other words, there are two ways to defeat cancer. You can spend your time and energy on being healthy, or you can spend your time and energy on actively destroying cancer with chemotherapy. One focuses all its energy on the cancer, the other doesn't even need you to acknowledge its there!

Peace and war work exactly the same

How can we possibly end war by focusing our efforts on peace, and not anti-war? You don't end it, you starve it. Imagine if every nation decided to take all the money that goes into military defense and pour it into education and infrastructure. There's no money left for war! And with the right amount of education and infrastructure, we do away with ignorance and poverty. Both of which are food for war.

Originally Posted by juroara

I know you're just making a side comment, but consider what you just said. You just said to make everyone love each other we would have to be emotionless love-drones. Which makes no sense, because being emotionless means we don't experience love o_O. So uh...obviously....loving everyone has nothing to do with being emotionless, or being a robot, or making everyone the same. (nature requires diversity for there to be harmony)

Problems arise from differences. As long as there are differences, there will be problems. It is human nature to try and justify that one is superior to others by whatever means necessary. Racism and bigotry has been ongoing since the dawn of man, and persist to this day. They aren't things that just go away. Essentially, you would have to create people who are absolutely, undeniably, equal in every way. Even then, there would be this contest for superiority. You'd have to start removing the very things that make us human.

This is kind of like people saying they don't want to go to heaven because perfect is boring. Well if its boring, then it isn't perfect, then it isn't heaven! What's the problem then? (probably your head)

Perfect IS boring. What a trial, living for an eternity. It makes me tired just thinking about it, no matter how fantastic it is.

The problem isn't love, or peace, or perfect, but our FALSE concepts of these concepts. Take unconditional love. What does unconditional love mean? Does it mean you have to like everyone even if they are jerks? No. Unconditional love has nothing to do with liking someone, like isn't love.

If I don't like someone, I can't exactly make the leap to unconditional love. Quite frankly, I don't care if they get nailed by the 6:45 downtown bus next Tuesday. It won't effect my life in the least. And I won't exactly be wishing them well. "You know, I really can't stand you, but I sincerely hope you find a life of happiness." Yeah, right.

Unconditional love means that you love that individual to the point where you desire for them to be free and happy. And a lot of times that means, free from their own egos. Take the lonely jerk. Unconditional love means being honest with this individual "stop acting like a jerk and you wouldn't be lonely." Saying white lies just so you don't hurt someones feelings isn't unconditional love. Unconditional love is the love that cuts through lies, and false concepts. Including false concepts of who we think we are.

Let me get this straight. You expect every human on the planet to someday do this for every other human being? And you expect that it would cure suffering?

I mean its kinda like saying to have peace we first have to end war. Eh....well you see ending a war implies some sort of not-so-nice action, like the bombing of Hiroshima. Ending a war implies that someone loses. And losers can grow bitter and angry. WWI becomes WWII. There's no guarantee that when you end a war, that tomorrow a new war won't start.

Japan is a largely successful trade partner of the United States, and contrary to growing bitter, the younger generations are becoming ever more tolerant.

We can only have peace when this thing called war, ceases to exist. Take Mother Teresa, she refused to go to anti-war party. Instead, she would much rather go to a peace party. Consider how the two are different! Peace comes when we stop giving our attention, focus, energy and power to war, even if it is to end it. If anything, the last ten years of American involvement in the middle east is a good example of what happens when you think you can force peace by ending war. (you get more war =b)

Of course, without war, what does peace become? Besides that, you imply we can go a significant period of time without war. Our history is made of war. That isn't going to change in your lifetime, my lifetime, or any time in the foreseeable future.

Another example would be cancer, we can think of cancer as a civil war in the body.

Or an indifferent genetic mutation that ultimately survives and reproduces by invariably killing its host.

Trying to destroy the cancer resulted in chemotherapy, which weakens the body's natural defense systems. By weakening the rest of the body, many complications can occur that having to do with the actual cancer.

Of course. Which is why we are actively seeking new cures all the time. And despite all these complications, chemotherapy is the most effective, commercially available treatment we have. And people line up for it. Because killing the cancer and risking the complications is better than dying.

On the flip side, new research shows that probably the best way to defeat cancer is to starve it, denying it the energy it needs to grow. To drive this point even more, you can deprive cancer by simply eating certain health foods. In other words, there are two ways to defeat cancer. You can spend your time and energy on being healthy, or you can spend your time and energy on actively destroying cancer with chemotherapy. One focuses all its energy on the cancer, the other doesn't even need you to acknowledge its there!

Wow, just...wow. And you actually believe this? I don't know about you, but I'm putting my confidence in modern medicine over a "eat your fruits and veggies" mantra to get rid of the highly destructive entity that is slowly annihilating my body. There's a reason cancer is taken so seriously. It isn't as simple as staying healthy. Doing so may make the situation less bad, but it won't eliminate the cancer and save your life.

Stem cells, I think, are more the way to go. Embryonic ones that can be turned into effective cancer fighting cells. This I see potential for. Or, really, any of the other dozens or hundreds of cancer research projects that are proving promising.

How can we possibly end war by focusing our efforts on peace, and not anti-war? You don't end it, you starve it. Imagine if every nation decided to take all the money that goes into military defense and pour it into education and infrastructure. There's no money left for war! And with the right amount of education and infrastructure, we do away with ignorance and poverty. Both of which are food for war.

If only it were that easy. Just recently, Obama worked with Russia to agree on a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear arms that each country holds. We went from being able to destroy some absurd number of planets to a slightly less absurd number. Even just doing that was incredibly difficult to coordinate. Good luck getting every country in the world to agree to eliminating self defense provisions entirely. And that does pose the problem of what to do when some insane megalomaniac (think Kim Jong Il) takes control of a country, or some large hate group (think Taliban) decide to start waging war. We're sitting ducks. No amount of education is going to eliminate that threat. Go back to my first point: so long as we are human, there will be conflicts. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"The concept of evil is inextricably linked to human nature." How about that? This is utterly pointless and it makes no difference to the argument.

It has bearing on if you are representing a legitimate scientific theory or not. That is pretty much my only interest at this point. Admit that you are not speaking based of a "well established" scientific theory and I pretty much go away.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

All you are doing is knit-picking irrelevant facts. People can't "decide to quit calling shit evil" if they don't realize how and why they are doing it, or even that it's a bad thing to do. That's the problem with unconscious processes, you have no idea that they exist in you, let alone how they manifest themselves in your life. Do you think people stop and think "hmmmm, I wonder if these terrorists really are evil? Am I thinking rationally right now? Why do I feel so much anger and hatred towards them?" Get real.

"Stupid animal life" isn't stupid in that I'm pointing my finger and laughing at how stupid the other animals are. What matters is consciousness, so a stupid animal life is one which is blissfully unaware of the nature of it's existence and driven almost entirely by instinct. That's something which isn't possible for humans.

Do I really need to point out the blatant double standards in those two paragraphs? Off topic possibly but shit like that has always pissed me off. And for the record, intelligent people do question if things are evil and wonder if they're thinking rationally.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Completely and totally irrelevant. I explicitly stated on more than one occasion that evil is nothing more than a subjective interpretation, or a perception as you say. I don't know how I could make myself more clear on that. What you can't deny, is that there is a physical construct within our brains which makes us suceptible to behaving in ways which can be interpreted as evil, or attributing evil qualities to other individuals. That is all I have ever said in terms of "it's existence" or "it's inextricable link." I use the word evil for the sake of clarity, as does Becker. This is like me interpreting a story about the tooth fairy and you construing it to mean I actually think the tooth fairy exists. What matters is what it symbollically represents to the human mind. As Otto Rank says, humans have the ability to make the unreal real. Unreal concepts manifest themselves in real ways, that is the relevant point here.

A word like evil does not add clarity but only confusion. As for the tooth fairy thing, if someone were to claim that the tooth fairy is inextricably linked to human consciousness or accuse people of denying its existence, then I would probably (justifiably) accuse them of believing in it. Also, your point about the human brain is bogus. I actually can perfectly well deny it because a culture has to have a concept of "evil" before I can ascribe it to a phenomenon. Which physical construct within the brain was that again?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Ernest Becker first and foremost. I know that isn't a theory, but he bases his work off of a number of theories.

So again, you are not working off of a legitimate, "well established" theory, correct? All you have to do is admit that you were using the line "well established scientific theory" to exercise power over someone because it sounded good without having any idea what it means for a scientific theory to be well established and I'll go away.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You would take him more seriously than Becker, but you don't know who Becker is. Awesome. Kirkpatrick's argument is that natural selection would "select for an organism which didn't display this crippling emotion." Well, who says it's crippling? In the beginning of Becker's book, Escape from Evil, he makes several arguments for how this emotion would benefit the small societies from which it evolved. Discriminating against "them" helps to bond "us." So even if this emotion could be deemed "crippling," it has other advantages which could perpetuate it's existence.

I would take him more seriously because he's a scientist that understands evolution and so is qualified to talk about things like human nature and the like. "Benefit the small societies from which it evolved" is group selectionism which does not lead to a proper theory of natural selection: appealing to it is the sort of mistake that amateurs that are in over their head often make. It sounds like Becker was one. How would it ensure that the gene that caused the behavior moved into the next generation? That's the question that needs to be answered. Whether it's good for the group ore not is completely irrelevant. Also, TMT claims that the existential fear of death is crippling: that's why we needed to develop the postulated terror management apparatus. This is the WHOLE POINT of TMT. Oddly enough you later go on to speak down to me by accusing me of a) only having read the wikipedia article, b) probably not having even read that. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT TMT IS?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Where would you get the idea to test ingroup/outgroup mentality and mortality salience if not from terror management theory or it's sources? That is terror managment theory, so I am wondering what separate theory you could cook up from that.

No, you should read DuB's post (and the articles linked therein). TMT postulates the existence of and a specific mechanism for the regulation of existential death related terror, one consequence of which is an increase in ingroup favoritism in response to mortality salience. It is only this last part that can be measured. Kirkpatrick and Navarrete propose another theory to explain this phenomenon that does not depend on this terror management apparatus. They also do quite a nice job of taking TMT apart one piece at a time. It constitutes an introduction to modern evolutionary thought that even a psychologist could understand (Couldn't resist. There are smart psychologists that don't need such a gentle introduction. DV has a few of them as members, DuB and O'nus being the obvious two). Seriously though, TMT is pretty much dead after that article. The only reason it's going to get any research funding after that is because most of the people that make that sort of decision don't recognize that evolutionary biologists and not psychologists have the final say on what can and can't constitute human nature and so will fail to see just how dead of a theory TMT actually is.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Which means it's not dualistic bull, right?

You misunderstood. The theory of TMT is that the underlaying cause of the things you listed is existential angst. The more I look into it, the more it strikes me as bullshit but I didn't call TMT itself dualistic bull. Juroara called your whole good and evil trip dualistic bull and I have to agree with that. That's not TMT though as TMT doesn't address good and evil.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You're right, you are beginning to sound arrogant, and I can't see how you could possibly justify it.

I'm sorry but this is just a bunch of liberal arts bullshit that I'm questioning and one scientific theory that was pretty much reduced to a joke by the paper by Kirkpatrick so it looks like my initial instinct was pretty good.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Just as in any paper you write, you need sources. Nobody cares about your opinion unless it is well-informed. So I am doing the best I can with my current understanding to argue these points.

It's a fallacy perpetrated by our education system that idiots can't get books and papers published. I once had a debate with a "cognitive scientist" that argued that group selectionism is the way to go. This is a man that had "decades" of "research" experience and had published countless papers. Yet he was a complete idiot. Citations are pretty much useless unless they refer to actual research experiments or arguments which you don't care to include. Saying "My professor (didn't) said" is neither of these.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What liberal arts fluff, and what mechanism? And why is it more valid than terror management theory? Why bother if you are going to be vague and unitelligible?

The liberal arts fluff is all this nonsense about a paralyzing fear of death and good and evil and existential angst. Read the paper for the alternative mechanism:

Because the benefits of social inclusion are particu-
larly important in times of need (Baumeister & Leary,
1995), natural selection can be expected to have shaped
human psychological systems such that, when con-
fronted with situations that are best addressed using so-
cial support, individuals should exhibit a strongly
pro-normative orientation in order to enhance the
maintenance and formation of alliances. We argue that
the contemplation of death elicits increased endorse-
ment of the normative beliefs of the ingroup primarily
because the likely common causes of death in ancestral
environments (dire illness, disease, severe bodily
harm, and starvation) were conditions in which suc-
cessfully acquiring increased social support (and per-
haps, avoiding outgroup members) would have had
significant fitness consequences.

I mentioned that it conforms to modern evolutionary theory, which A PRIORI makes it superior. That was pretty not vague and pretty intelligible. Or do you just want to ignore conflicting points by accusing them of being unintelligible? That's not very scientific. All this 'nitpicking' that I'm doing is the sort of thing that a "well established" scientific theory should be able to handle easily. It's only annoying when, instead of giving clear answers, you have to demean the other person and posture harder.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That isn't a valid analogy. It is only through technology that that pattern has ended, so technically, in terms of our biology, it hasn't ended. So unless you are proposing some sort of mind control, the analogy doesn't work. I was only raising the question because Awakening seems so sure that human suffering can come to an end at some point in time, and I want to know his line of reasoning.

The fact that it is through technology that that pattern ended makes it a good analogy. Why wouldn't mind control be a valid alternative. I'm not saying that I'd want it but it demonstrates that, in theory, it's perfectly possible to solve this 'problem' without waiting for genetic evolution to take place. Genetic engineering is another alternative. It's also possible (indeed likely) that all of this nonsense about good and evil is really just a bunch of bullshit and that it's a simple cultural phenomenon: change the culture and you change the behavior. The only thing that's been demonstrated is increase in ingroup favoritism in response to mortality salience! All this liberal arts fluff that you're trying to extrapolate from it in unsupported.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Problems arise from differences.

The bees and flowers are biologically very different, but they don't have problems with each other. Their differences allowed them to create harmony. "Problems arise from differences" is only your belief, not reality

Perfect IS boring.

Again, that's only your concept of perfect. And if perfect is boring then how can it be perfect?

Consider a different kind of perfect. Harmony that is continuously evolving, CHANGING, and becoming more of itself. Much like a musical masterpiece. Except imagine that masterpiece never ended, and was also transforming into a new song. Every new moment there is some new melody to hear and experience. Perfect isn't boring.

If I don't like someone, I can't exactly make the leap to unconditional love.

Technically, I'm not asking you to. Unconditional love isn't easy. No one said it was. People spend a good portion of their life mastering unconditional love. Anyone can, but it doesn't happen over night. It does however start with yourself.

Japan is a largely successful trade partner of the United States, and contrary to growing bitter, the younger generations are becoming ever more tolerant.

Obviously Japan and the US have good relations with each other. But can you really say that this is the result of Hiroshima? What if history happened differently? What if Japan failed economically after the bomb, and never recovered? Do you see where I'm getting at? The bomb itself didn't create the peace we have today.

Of course, without war, what does peace become? Besides that, you imply we can go a significant period of time without war. Our history is made of war. That isn't going to change in your lifetime, my lifetime, or any time in the foreseeable future.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Be mindful not to take either as the absolute. I see our history as being compromised of social evolution. War is tension that happens when evolution is held back. At some point in our future, mankind will have to give up war, because of how advanced we are in the sciences, any war would mean earth annihilation. This isn't impossible to imagine. Consider the internet and how the internet will continue to effect us 100+ plus years later. Who can still see themselves as belonging only to a single nation? We've yet to see the result of a single generation born with the internet - give them time.

You keep insisting that for there to be peace there can't be diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At one point in microbe history the environment became so toxic, there were mass extinctions on a scale greater than ours. The waste product of the remaining microbes were making the environment toxic even to themselves! If nothing changed, life would have gone extinct. But evolution took the microbes to the next level, complex cooperative communities we call organisms. At the same time, these organisms developed a relationship between each other, an evolutionary strategy to insure that the environment wouldn't become toxic again. The result is the balance and harmony between plants and animals.

While most people know that life would die without our green plants, most people don't realize that plants would die if you remove all the animals! This is no coincidence. While not all nature is harmonious, biologists now believe harmony is the most popular system in nature. And this harmony, requires diversity.

The idea that diversity gets in the way of harmony or peace is one of the greatest lies we've carried. Life AND harmony requires diversity.

Wow, just...wow. And you actually believe this? I don't know about you, but I'm putting my confidence in modern medicine over a "eat your fruits and veggies" mantra to get rid of the highly destructive entity that is slowly annihilating my body. There's a reason cancer is taken so seriously. It isn't as simple as staying healthy. Doing so may make the situation less bad, but it won't eliminate the cancer and save your life.

I know that there is a hospital right now saving cancer patients with raw fruits and vegetables alone. This doesn't mean they don't take cancer seriously. They take their treatment of the patients very seriously. The diet is precise, measured, and must be followed, day and night.

There is a science to diet and how it affects every system in our body. The research started 50 years ago, and I don't know why it's been kept in the dark. The immune system is capable of defeating cancer. The immune systems ability to defeat cancer depends on how many toxins are in the body. The more toxins in the body, the harder it is to defeat cancer. This is one reason why they say if you have a tooth infection you can get viruses and diseases else where in your body. Why? Because your immune system is already working over time on that tooth infection, and every time you swallow the infection becomes a part of your diet!

Certain fruits are known for ridding the body of toxins. The patient drinks a regime of fruit juices. Once the body is rid of toxins, the immune system is free to focus all of its attention on the cancer. Before the immune system couldn't. Vegetables juices provide the nutrients needed to replenish the body, nutrients needed to keep vital organs healthy as the body wages war. At the same time, new research shows that certain foods deprive cancer of what it needs to grow. These foods are included in the diet, helping to slowly shrink the cancer AND provide the body nutrients it needs.

Our body is holistic. When one organ is sick, the whole body eventually becomes sick. This is why cancer is so deadly. But, it is also why diet works against cancer. Because diet has the ability to heal the entire body. Our bodies are amazing. Modern medicine doesn't allow us to realize it.

Remember that we are a part of nature. We exist in balance with nature, as any other creature (except when we willfully take ourselves out of that balance). Is it too hard to imagine that nature has already provided with us everything to combat our diseases? Why not? Doesn't cancer naturally exist within nature? Hasn't nature shown us it's all about balance?

If only it were that easy. Just recently, Obama worked with Russia to agree on a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear arms that each country holds. We went from being able to destroy some absurd number of planets to a slightly less absurd number. Even just doing that was incredibly difficult to coordinate. Good luck getting every country in the world to agree to eliminating self defense provisions entirely. And that does pose the problem of what to do when some insane megalomaniac (think Kim Jong Il) takes control of a country, or some large hate group (think Taliban) decide to start waging war. We're sitting ducks. No amount of education is going to eliminate that threat. Go back to my first point: so long as we are human, there will be conflicts. Q.E.D.

It was only an example that everything requires energy - including war. War can't exist without the energy we put into it. If we invest our energy in growth, war has no energy to exist.

When I meant education, I really mean education. Kim Jung Il is a threat because that country LACKS EDUCATION. All terrorist nations have to first brain wash their children. (north korea teaches hatred of america)

Real education should aim to teach the truth. Not hatred.

Consider a different kind of perfect. Harmony that is continuously evolving, CHANGING, and becoming more of itself. Much like a musical masterpiece. Except imagine that masterpiece never ended, and was also transforming into a new song. Every new moment there is some new melody to hear and experience. Perfect isn't boring.

If perfection can become more perfect, how is it perfection?

Obviously Japan and the US have good relations with each other. But can you really say that this is the result of Hiroshima? What if history happened differently? What if Japan failed economically after the bomb, and never recovered? Do you see where I'm getting at? The bomb itself didn't create the peace we have today.

It would have taken a lot longer to rebuild except that we helped them to re-engineer their society.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Be mindful not to take either as the absolute. I see our history as being compromised of social evolution. War is tension that happens when evolution is held back. At some point in our future, mankind will have to give up war, because of how advanced we are in the sciences, any war would mean earth annihilation. This isn't impossible to imagine. Consider the internet and how the internet will continue to effect us 100+ plus years later. Who can still see themselves as belonging only to a single nation? We've yet to see the result of a single generation born with the internet - give them time.

Agreed that many of these old concepts are outdated- political border based citizenship being just one of them.

You keep insisting that for there to be peace there can't be diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is possible, probably. Maybe only theoretically, though. I doubt it will ever happen practically.

At one point in microbe history the environment became so toxic, there were mass extinctions on a scale greater than ours. The waste product of the remaining microbes were making the environment toxic even to themselves! If nothing changed, life would have gone extinct. But evolution took the microbes to the next level, complex cooperative communities we call organisms. At the same time, these organisms developed a relationship between each other, an evolutionary strategy to insure that the environment wouldn't become toxic again. The result is the balance and harmony between plants and animals.

And should life as we know it face another drastic change that wipes out most advanced forms of life, oh, well. It'll probably just adapt again. No biggie.

While most people know that life would die without our green plants, most people don't realize that plants would die if you remove all the animals! This is no coincidence. While not all nature is harmonious, biologists now believe harmony is the most popular system in nature. And this harmony, requires diversity.

Only because the ecosystem has evolved to take advantage of animals. Plants were here first, and they would remain after animals were gone. They would just adapt after many of them went extinct.

The idea that diversity gets in the way of harmony or peace is one of the greatest lies we've carried. Life AND harmony requires diversity.

In all probability, there was at one point in time only one type of lifeform. It did just fine.

I know that there is a hospital right now saving cancer patients with raw fruits and vegetables alone. This doesn't mean they don't take cancer seriously. They take their treatment of the patients very seriously. The diet is precise, measured, and must be followed, day and night.

I have seen evidence that certain diets prevent the risk of cancer but not that they can cure cancer. Can I see the data, please?

Remember that we are a part of nature. We exist in balance with nature, as any other creature (except when we willfully take ourselves out of that balance). Is it too hard to imagine that nature has already provided with us everything to combat our diseases? Why not? Doesn't cancer naturally exist within nature? Hasn't nature shown us it's all about balance?

The 'state of nature' proposed by nietchze is ridiculous. Ethics evolved as a social funtion that make society and cities possible. Living outside of what is considered nature is mankinds natural state.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Perfect IS boring. What a trial, living for an eternity. It makes me tired just thinking about it, no matter how fantastic it is.

Many conceptions of heaven are not truly eternal life, though. A large number are simply state's of being outside of time. This is closer to what I believe in, personally.

If I don't like someone, I can't exactly make the leap to unconditional love. Quite frankly, I don't care if they get nailed by the 6:45 downtown bus next Tuesday. It won't effect my life in the least. And I won't exactly be wishing them well. "You know, I really can't stand you, but I sincerely hope you find a life of happiness." Yeah, right.

Liking people enough where you have a general sort of good will doesn't seem that hard, though. ACtively wishing everyone a great life is one thing, but preferring that someone elses life improves, (even if you don't like them,) is very manageable.

Of course, without war, what does peace become? Besides that, you imply we can go a significant period of time without war. Our history is made of war. That isn't going to change in your lifetime, my lifetime, or any time in the foreseeable future.

There would be different kinds of conflict if there was no war. And we woulf be better off for it. There can be moral wars between both parties, a society where wars are fought economically and through competing creative minds, not with guns and blood.

Juroara that rant on war and peace made my day

Originally Posted by juroara

The bees and flowers are biologically very different, but they don't have problems with each other. Their differences allowed them to create harmony. "Problems arise from differences" is only your belief, not reality

This is called symbiosis, and differs largely from the example with humans in that it concerns two wholly different, non-sentient species. The existence of bees benefits flowers and vice versa. My argument is that due to human nature, differences are a source of conflict and strife. What's more, bees and flowers have no reason to war with one another. Humans do. We want money, power, land, resources, fame, and more. Our wants drive us to our own destruction, as do our differences.

Again, that's only your concept of perfect. And if perfect is boring then how can it be perfect?

Consider a different kind of perfect. Harmony that is continuously evolving, CHANGING, and becoming more of itself. Much like a musical masterpiece. Except imagine that masterpiece never ended, and was also transforming into a new song. Every new moment there is some new melody to hear and experience. Perfect isn't boring.

For me, perfection is the absence of existing. I can think of no greater perfection than that which does not exist. In other words, the silent embrace of death, provided nothing awaits beyond these mortal coils.

Technically, I'm not asking you to. Unconditional love isn't easy. No one said it was. People spend a good portion of their life mastering unconditional love. Anyone can, but it doesn't happen over night. It does however start with yourself.

Ah, but I like being the irritating prick that I am. It's just so much fun.

Obviously Japan and the US have good relations with each other. But can you really say that this is the result of Hiroshima? What if history happened differently? What if Japan failed economically after the bomb, and never recovered? Do you see where I'm getting at? The bomb itself didn't create the peace we have today.

I never said it did. Believe it or not, I really do hate that we stooped to bombing the innocent civilians of Japan with such a devastating weapon. My point was that ending a war =/= beginning a new one.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Be mindful not to take either as the absolute. I see our history as being compromised of social evolution. War is tension that happens when evolution is held back. At some point in our future, mankind will have to give up war, because of how advanced we are in the sciences, any war would mean earth annihilation. This isn't impossible to imagine. Consider the internet and how the internet will continue to effect us 100+ plus years later. Who can still see themselves as belonging only to a single nation? We've yet to see the result of a single generation born with the internet - give them time.

We've had the power to annihilate multiple earths for many years now. We've also had war. Just because technology advances does not mean we have to give up war. Even when faced with our own destruction, I seriously doubt our ability to get together and not wipe ourselves out.

You keep insisting that for there to be peace there can't be diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At one point in microbe history the environment became so toxic, there were mass extinctions on a scale greater than ours. The waste product of the remaining microbes were making the environment toxic even to themselves! If nothing changed, life would have gone extinct. But evolution took the microbes to the next level, complex cooperative communities we call organisms. At the same time, these organisms developed a relationship between each other, an evolutionary strategy to insure that the environment wouldn't become toxic again. The result is the balance and harmony between plants and animals.

See symbiosis. Your argument is invalid. Our conflict is a matter of a civil war on our own species. Such "wars" are also evident in the animal kingdom, and even the plant kingdom. Wolves hunt in packs and maintain territories away from other packs, chimps have battles, and some insects will attack members of other colonies of the same species. Strangling figs are trees closely related to regular figs, but survive by latching on to a host plant and choking the life from it. Nature isn't all cooperation. It has its battles, just as we do.

The idea that diversity gets in the way of harmony or peace is one of the greatest lies we've carried. Life AND harmony requires diversity.

Of course it requires it. Just know that so long as it exists - so long as we exist - there will always be suffering.

I know that there is a hospital right now saving cancer patients with raw fruits and vegetables alone. This doesn't mean they don't take cancer seriously. They take their treatment of the patients very seriously. The diet is precise, measured, and must be followed, day and night.

There is a science to diet and how it affects every system in our body. The research started 50 years ago, and I don't know why it's been kept in the dark. The immune system is capable of defeating cancer. The immune systems ability to defeat cancer depends on how many toxins are in the body. The more toxins in the body, the harder it is to defeat cancer. This is one reason why they say if you have a tooth infection you can get viruses and diseases else where in your body. Why? Because your immune system is already working over time on that tooth infection, and every time you swallow the infection becomes a part of your diet!

Certain fruits are known for ridding the body of toxins. The patient drinks a regime of fruit juices. Once the body is rid of toxins, the immune system is free to focus all of its attention on the cancer. Before the immune system couldn't. Vegetables juices provide the nutrients needed to replenish the body, nutrients needed to keep vital organs healthy as the body wages war. At the same time, new research shows that certain foods deprive cancer of what it needs to grow. These foods are included in the diet, helping to slowly shrink the cancer AND provide the body nutrients it needs.

There is a problem, here. If this diet were the silver bullet cure to cancer, it would be in place all over the world by now. It helps, sure, but not in every case and certainly not well enough to deter the myriad of research experiments burning through shit-tons of grant money to find a realistic and widely implementable cure.

Our body is holistic. When one organ is sick, the whole body eventually becomes sick. This is why cancer is so deadly. But, it is also why diet works against cancer. Because diet has the ability to heal the entire body. Our bodies are amazing. Modern medicine doesn't allow us to realize it.

Our bodies are amazing, sure, but modern medicine is designed to fix what the body has a hard time fixing on its own. Consider this. Thanks to recent medical advances, you get to live twice as long as your great great uncles and aunts. That's because - as awesome as the human body is - it isn't invincible. Life expectancy is the highest now than it's ever been before in history. Sure, we may have some more toxins floating around than we used to, but modern medicine seems to be more than capable of compensating for it.

Remember that we are a part of nature. We exist in balance with nature, as any other creature (except when we willfully take ourselves out of that balance). Is it too hard to imagine that nature has already provided with us everything to combat our diseases? Why not? Doesn't cancer naturally exist within nature? Hasn't nature shown us it's all about balance?

No. Smallpox. The Bubonic Plague. Black Death. Polio. Anthrax. Ebola. Meningitis. Q.E.D.

Real education should aim to teach the truth. Not hatred.

There goes religion. ...okay, I'm on board. Let's do this.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Waaaayyyyyy harder than it sounds. People are jerks. You aren't going to like everyone. This is a simple fact. The only way you could get everyone to love everyone else would be if you engineered a race of identical emotionless love-drones. No, thank you.

Not true at all. Arduous =/= impossible.

Also, don't forget about Jesus, Buddha, enlightened teachers, saints, etc. I'm sure you at least know about the first two. They were/are living proof.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Problems arise from differences.

On a deeper level, problems arise because of the way something is contextualized or held in mind. If problems are projected onto the world and ourselves (and so on), as it inherently happens already, then those problems do not actually exist in the world but only in the mind. So suffering arises in the mind and not in some external mishap by bad luck. This is obvious just because of the fact that many people can be put under the same local circumstances and yet some will perceive more or less problems, and it follows that some will experience more or less discomfort than others. The point is that the circumstances of one's mind is very independent.

Perfect IS boring. What a trial, living for an eternity. It makes me tired just thinking about it, no matter how fantastic it is.

Like Juroara said, if it was boring then it wouldn't be perfect. 'Perfect' is just a word. As such it is far too easy for people to misunderstand its real meaning here. Nobody is asking for your own personal definition, because that has no bearing in the matter.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It has bearing on if you are representing a legitimate scientific theory or not. That is pretty much my only interest at this point. Admit that you are not speaking based of a "well established" scientific theory and I pretty much go away.

Nobody has ever claimed that evil is something real and tangible. You are misrepresenting my position by saying otherwise. Terror Management Theory is well established in more than one way, and though there have been notable criticisms, the jury is far from out (as I will show you later.) I really think a stringent science man such as yourself should show more discipline and take an unbiased approach. You are clearly caught up in trying to prove me wrong.

Do I really need to point out the blatant double standards in those two paragraphs? Off topic possibly but shit like that has always pissed me off. And for the record, intelligent people do question if things are evil and wonder if they're thinking rationally.

Yes, I'm afraid you are going to have to point this out to me. For the sake of this discussion, lets pretend that I can't read your mind, so please just spell it out for me. Just treat me like a fucking moron.....wait, you are already doing that.

Intelligent people question their motives? That's debatable. The only intelligent people who might make a practice of observing their own behavior would be people well educated in psychology, even then it is hard to stay disciplined unless you are really motivated.

What percentage of the world's population would you consider intelligent? What about the hoards of uneducated people living in third world coutries?

A word like evil does not add clarity but only confusion. As for the tooth fairy thing, if someone were to claim that the tooth fairy is inextricably linked to human consciousness or accuse people of denying its existence, then I would probably (justifiably) accuse them of believing in it. Also, your point about the human brain is bogus. I actually can perfectly well deny it because a culture has to have a concept of "evil" before I can ascribe it to a phenomenon. Which physical construct within the brain was that again?

The meaning of evil and how it is perceived is perfectly clear. I think you are the only one who is confused.

Which physical construct of the brain is responsible? Is that a serious question or another useless distraction? I can't point to one area of the brain and say "evil lives here." There is obviously a very complex set of interactions taking place, something which would certainly involve more than one construct and more than one area of the brain. Neuroscience has made great strides as of late, but it isn't that good yet. A psychological theory doesn't need to pinpoint the exact location within our brains responsible for the behavior to be valid. It only needs to prove that people will act a certain way given certain circumstances, to put it simply. That is what most social psychology theories entail.

You can't deny evil any more than you can deny the Holocaust. As I said earlier, unreal concepts manifest themselves in real ways (you seem to ignore all of my good points.) The tendency of humans to perpetrate violent or disriminatory acts which, to a human being, would be interpreted as evil, logically have to derive themselves from a construct(s) in our brains. To deny the existence of evil is to deny this simple fact. A brief overview of human history will reveal a very definite pattern of violence, this is an irrefutable fact. This is why an interdisciplinary approach is so important, it can only add credence to the theory.

So again, you are not working off of a legitimate, "well established" theory, correct? All you have to do is admit that you were using the line "well established scientific theory" to exercise power over someone because it sounded good without having any idea what it means for a scientific theory to be well established and I'll go away.

You have cited a single 11 page article as the sole means of denouncing this theory, without apparently knowing that propents of TMT have since published responses to this paper. (I feel very validated by this response because it raises some of the same concerns I had while reading the critique by Kirkpatrick.)

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP05476519.pdf

The critique you keep referencing appears to be nothing more than a logical analysis without much of an empirical basis.

In addition to this, TMT theorists are apparently continuing to revise their theory:

"In addition, human creativity, growth, and genuine acceptance of death cannot be explained easily by TMT. For this reason TMT theorists have recently proposed a theory of growth that should complement TMT. The individual is striving not only to protect oneself against the terror associated with death awareness but, in addition, to develop and expand. Between the two motivations, to grow and to protect, there is a dynamic balance. Growth is also likely to engender awareness of one's limitations and, therefore, to make one more susceptible to death terror. On the other hand, the same growth, via creation of meaning, provides the means to deal with the terror."

http://www.deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/...nt-Theory.html

Also, I looked up a list of publishings dealing with TMT since the Kirkpatrick paper was published in 2006. There have literally been dozens upon dozens of psychology papers published in the past four years from outside of the circle of "creators" which either draw on information from TMT or base their entire study on the theory. Apparently the Kirkpatrick paper didn't have much of an effect.

I would take him more seriously because he's a scientist that understands evolution and so is qualified to talk about things like human nature and the like. "Benefit the small societies from which it evolved" is group selectionism which does not lead to a proper theory of natural selection: appealing to it is the sort of mistake that amateurs that are in over their head often make. It sounds like Becker was one.

Becker won the pulitzer prize for one of the books I keep referencing. Do they hand out pulitzer prizes to amateurs who propose unfounded theories? Ernest Becker is an extremely well respected scientist who is praised for his high standards for empirical evidence. You are really just digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post you make like this, taking such a definite and derogatory stance. You didn't know any of this existed a few days ago and now you're pretending to be an expert? It's pretty obvious that your understanding doesn't extend very far beyond a few google searches.

Also, TMT claims that the existential fear of death is crippling: that's why we needed to develop the postulated terror management apparatus. This is the WHOLE POINT of TMT. Oddly enough you later go on to speak down to me by accusing me of a) only having read the wikipedia article, b) probably not having even read that. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT TMT IS?

The dynamic as a whole is not crippling, so the analysis that this could not evolve seems to me to not be based on anything other than a professional opinion. Kirkpatrick himself refers to severl "by products" as the cause of this dynamic. Could a brain which evolved a great deal due to sexual forces develop negative "side effects?" Just like a peacocks tail could get it killed? Such traits would seem maladaptive from a survival perspective, as Kirpatrick says, yet they somehow evolved. One thing I know about evolution is that it doesn't predict the future, it couldn't therefore anticipate the rise of civilization as the result of heightened levels of consciousness. It increases our brain size and increases our awareness with no regard for the future, meaning no regard for how these traits may fare in a civilized context.

No, you should read DuB's post (and the articles linked therein). TMT postulates the existence of and a specific mechanism for the regulation of existential death related terror, one consequence of which is an increase in ingroup favoritism in response to mortality salience. It is only this last part that can be measured. Kirkpatrick and Navarrete propose another theory to explain this phenomenon that does not depend on this terror management apparatus. They also do quite a nice job of taking TMT apart one piece at a time. It constitutes an introduction to modern evolutionary thought that even a psychologist could understand (Couldn't resist. There are smart psychologists that don't need such a gentle introduction. DV has a few of them as members, DuB and O'nus being the obvious two). Seriously though, TMT is pretty much dead after that article. The only reason it's going to get any research funding after that is because most of the people that make that sort of decision don't recognize that evolutionary biologists and not psychologists have the final say on what can and can't constitute human nature and so will fail to see just how dead of a theory TMT actually is.

I did read Dub's post, did you? It seemed to me to be pretty neutral. The only article which provided a definite alternative was the Kirkpatrick paper, and I think I pretty well addressed that earlier. As for the uncertainty management theory, it seems to be more of an augmentation of terror management theory than a distinct alternative. They actually lend a lot of credence to TMT throughout the paper and call it an "important" theory.

"Seriously though, TMT is pretty much dead after that article."

I would really like to know how you could possibly think you have a right to make such a judgment.

You misunderstood. The theory of TMT is that the underlaying cause of the things you listed is existential angst. The more I look into it, the more it strikes me as bullshit but I didn't call TMT itself dualistic bull. Juroara called your whole good and evil trip dualistic bull and I have to agree with that. That's not TMT though as TMT doesn't address good and evil.

Do you wanna know what the most infuriating aspect of this conversation is? It's that your main argument (other than the ever so descriptive "it's bullshit" argument) is that this is all "dualistic bull," but you don't seem to realize that not a single alternative theory describes the nature of good and evil as anything other than dualistic. Even Kirkpatricks assessment leaves a dualistic relationship between good and evil. And yes, TMT does support this dualistic view, whether you realize it or not.

In fact, I was watching a video the other day of Philip Zimbardo (the guy who did the Stanford Prison experiment) speaking at TED about "why normal people do evil things." Can you guess what the very first words to come out of his mouth were? Loosely quoted, he said "There will always be good and evil in the world. That is just an irrefutable fact of human nature. Evil is the yin to good's yang." Can you think of a more perfectly dualistic example than yin and yang?

I'm sorry but this is just a bunch of liberal arts bullshit that I'm questioning and one scientific theory that was pretty much reduced to a joke by the paper by Kirkpatrick so it looks like my initial instinct was pretty good.

I think you just need to get over yourself. I'm honestly trying to have a serious discussion but it is hard when you keep touting your ego.

It's a fallacy perpetrated by our education system that idiots can't get books and papers published. I once had a debate with a "cognitive scientist" that argued that group selectionism is the way to go. This is a man that had "decades" of "research" experience and had published countless papers. Yet he was a complete idiot. Citations are pretty much useless unless they refer to actual research experiments or arguments which you don't care to include. Saying "My professor (didn't) said" is neither of these.

This guy isn't an idiot, he is the chair of the psychology department and he specializes in the field of research we are discussing. He is a reliable source, so I think you can stop bitching now.

The liberal arts fluff is all this nonsense about a paralyzing fear of death and good and evil and existential angst. Read the paper for the alternative mechanism:

I mentioned that it conforms to modern evolutionary theory, which A PRIORI makes it superior. That was pretty not vague and pretty intelligible. Or do you just want to ignore conflicting points by accusing them of being unintelligible? That's not very scientific. All this 'nitpicking' that I'm doing is the sort of thing that a "well established" scientific theory should be able to handle easily. It's only annoying when, instead of giving clear answers, you have to demean the other person and posture harder.

Hasn't anybody told you not to put all your eggs in one basket? Do you have anything other than Kirkpatrick? I think we have established that the findings of that paper are not conclusive. Calling this "liberal arts fluff" is just a cop out in my opinion. You don't have enough prior knowledge of this "liberal arts fluff" to seriously address it, so you have to devise a way to take it all down with one fell swoop, essentially dodging the whole issue.

The fact that it is through technology that that pattern ended makes it a good analogy. Why wouldn't mind control be a valid alternative. I'm not saying that I'd want it but it demonstrates that, in theory, it's perfectly possible to solve this 'problem' without waiting for genetic evolution to take place. Genetic engineering is another alternative. It's also possible (indeed likely) that all of this nonsense about good and evil is really just a bunch of bullshit and that it's a simple cultural phenomenon: change the culture and you change the behavior. The only thing that's been demonstrated is increase in ingroup favoritism in response to mortality salience! All this liberal arts fluff that you're trying to extrapolate from it in unsupported.

There are a couple of things I find to be disturbingly off the mark in this paragraph.

1.) What use is speculating about future technology to a theory of psychology? You could theoretically cut and past that argument into any psychological study and it would be equally valid. "Who cares how people discriminate against minorities, in the future we will just implant mind control devices in everyone's mind to stop them from discriminating. Brilliant!" It doesn't tell us anything about what we are trying to learn. Im not disagreeing with your conclusion that it is a "valid possibility," Im just showing it to be a "weak-ass argument." It is such an obvious cop out.

2.) I find this statement to be especially perplexing: "It's also possible (indeed likely) that all of this nonsense about good and evil is really just a bunch of bullshit and that it's a simple cultural phenomenon: change the culture and you change the behavior." If we are searching this thread for the statement which would best qualify as bullshit, bar none this takes the cake. Change culture? How exactly do we change culture? Culture can't be anything other than a reflection of human nature. It is clear that social evil can only exist in a structured context, a.k.a. society or civilization (which is the reason for my "stupid animal" statement.) This isn't a situation which can be "changed," however. Any amount of structure will inevitably facilitate social violence, which I have already stated on more than one occasion.

Originally Posted by really

Not true at all. Arduous =/= impossible.

Also, don't forget about Jesus, Buddha, enlightened teachers, saints, etc. I'm sure you at least know about the first two. They were/are living proof.

They are also the exception to the rule.

On a deeper level, problems arise because of the way something is contextualized or held in mind. If problems are projected onto the world and ourselves (and so on), as it inherently happens already, then those problems do not actually exist in the world but only in the mind. So suffering arises in the mind and not in some external mishap by bad luck. This is obvious just because of the fact that many people can be put under the same local circumstances and yet some will perceive more or less problems, and it follows that some will experience more or less discomfort than others. The point is that the circumstances of one's mind is very independent.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Problems arise from differences because of how the human brain works. What we are dealing with is a matter of human nature. Differences are a trigger. Something that helps the brain justify its position. And despite all the differences, there are principles at work here that are nearly universal. If you need any evidence, just take a look at football Sunday. Amazing how a simple sport with arbitrary divisions can so inflame the masses, wouldn't you say?

Like Juroara said, if it was boring then it wouldn't be perfect. 'Perfect' is just a word. As such it is far too easy for people to misunderstand its real meaning here. Nobody is asking for your own personal definition, because that has no bearing in the matter.

Perfection is something unobtainable in this lifetime. There will always be strife, and there will always be suffering. Perfection is an ideal, a dream, that we can never reach so long as we remain tied to this mortal realm, and, as I argue, any realm.

Very busy at the moment, but I want to respond to two things.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Becker won the pulitzer prize for one of the books I keep referencing. Do they hand out pulitzer prizes to amateurs who propose unfounded theories? Ernest Becker is an extremely well respected scientist who is praised for his high standards for empirical evidence. You are really just digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post you make like this, taking such a definite and derogatory stance. You didn't know any of this existed a few days ago and now you're pretending to be an expert? It's pretty obvious that your understanding doesn't extend very far beyond a few google searches.

Apparently (and I already knew this BTW), they do give Pulitzer prizes to amateurs or Becker wouldn't have gotten one for appealing to group selectionism. Also, the Pulitzer prize is most emphatically not a scientific prize so I fail to see how it's even relevant.

Any thoughts on a theory that bases an evolutionary argument on the good of the group? You completely ignored that aspect of my post and instead chose to (yet again) make an appeal to authority. Also, evolutionary theory (which, at the end of the day is all we are really discussing here) is not something that I am new to by any means.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I did read Dub's post, did you? It seemed to me to be pretty neutral. The only article which provided a definite alternative was the Kirkpatrick paper, and I think I pretty well addressed that earlier. As for the uncertainty management theory, it seems to be more of an augmentation of terror management theory than a distinct alternative. They actually lend a lot of credence to TMT throughout the paper and call it an "important" theory.

I just want to clear up that I don't think DuB was in any way endorsing my perspective or taking my side. I was referring (though not explicitly, I thought it would be clear from context) to his very clear statement of the delineation between a theory and it's experimental predictions. The quote that you were responding to was in response to you conflating the two by claiming that another theory could not possibly produce the same predictions as TMT without being TMT, thus validating TMT as an explanatory framework above and beyond all others. That's why I thought that DuB's post was relevant.


I'll read the article you linked when I have the time and respond then.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Apparently (and I already knew this BTW), they do give Pulitzer prizes to amateurs or Becker wouldn't have gotten one for appealing to group selectionism. Also, the Pulitzer prize is most emphatically not a scientific prize so I fail to see how it's even relevant.

The more you call Becker an amateur, the less seriously I take you. And the pulitzer prize is relevant because they wouldn't give the prize to a work which wasn't credible or well accepted among it's respective community members. I also think group selection is more valid than you make it out to be.

Any thoughts on a theory that bases an evolutionary argument on the good of the group? You completely ignored that aspect of my post and instead chose to (yet again) make an appeal to authority. Also, evolutionary theory (which, at the end of the day is all we are really discussing here) is not something that I am new to by any means.

Do you not realize that Kirkpatrick's assessment also argues for the good of the group? He used ants as an example of how individuals sacrifice themselves for the good of the group, such as individuals who don't reproduce and serve no other purpose than to work. A human being needs to be able to function in a group to survive, so ideally a human brain would evolve to function well in groups, right? It seems from an evolutionary perspective, individuals are not very important in the larger scheme of things. That being said, Im not entirely sure that TMT is "based on the good of the group," but it could certainly play a role.

I just want to clear up that I don't think DuB was in any way endorsing my perspective or taking my side. I was referring (though not explicitly, I thought it would be clear from context) to his very clear statement of the delineation between a theory and it's experimental predictions. The quote that you were responding to was in response to you conflating the two by claiming that another theory could not possibly produce the same predictions as TMT without being TMT, thus validating TMT as an explanatory framework above and beyond all others. That's why I thought that DuB's post was relevant.

If TMT is right, then it would subsume all other theories which could produce the same predictions since it describes some very basic instincts of human nature. That is one of it's "controversial aspects" according to Kirkpatrick.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There is no viable solution that I can see. This is not an oversimplification, it is based on a wealth of empirical evidence and the entire history of human society. There is no evidence that this behavior could ever simply end. What basis do you have for even raising that question? Why, after thousands and thousands of years of violent conflict, would this pattern suddenly end? Nothing short of genetic evolution over thousands of years could change our nature to a noticeable degree, and that is assuming that we would even evolve in that direction (something which is virtually impossible to predict.) What basis do you have for any of these claims? Surely power plays a large part, but we have to get down to the very foundation of evil if we want to really understand it. Dominance is a superficial concept just like good and evil, which means it isn't at the root of human nature. There is a construct which drives the desire for dominance just as there is a construct which drives the will to do good, which subsequently creates it's counterpart, evil.

I think it is interesting that when you talk about Hitler and Nero, you take on the "us" and "them" attitude that I referenced earlier. What difference does it make if our genes were put in their place? Are we not all human? Do we not all possess the same capacity for good and evil? It is well known that genes influence personality development, but there isn't any evidence that people are born corrupted. Meaning neither Hitler nor Nero were doomed to become evil men from birth. It is a complex interaction between the environment and our biology which accounts for personality development. (Or maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying those individuals were inherently more evil than the average human?)




I don't understand your point. Im not trying to offer a solution to the problem here.

Sorry for the delay responding, I felt the urge to do a "war" debate, so I needed time to cool down, lol.

I will try to sum my point.

I'm sure Nero and Hitler did get some genetic tendencies to do what they did. If my memory don't fails me, the prefrontal cortex, which influences one's restraint, is developed more in some people than others. But by no means I think it's a major issue, since the brain isn't a rock.

Taking the example of WWs:
(note: I know the main lines, yet I know very little about it)

The dices of the Second War were thrown since the the WW1. The Treaty of Versailles was just too much. The German's autocracy and military got away, while the German common people took all the blame. I understand that France was utterly enraged by the destruction of industries and deaths caused by German Empire, but the military was to blame, mainly. It is said that, because of the penalties to Germany, the common German needed to carry money in wheelbarrows , just to buy food, but hey, who is to say that people have voice on a autocracy? This action was like throwing alcohol in a place full of sparks. I think the madness of second war could be prevented if the Treaty pinpointed the blames.

Now, almost a century later, we see human rights abuse and we do nothing. Some Jews are doing the same thing the Romans and Hitler's Holocaust did to all of them. Why should them have right to annex Palestine (it still exists?) to Israel? Even if they have hatred from the past, it is insane what they are doing to innocent people. Every war have rapes. Every war children dies. What gave to some of them the goddamn right to take something "stolen" from them by two thousands years ago? If they were this attached to their sacred land, they wouldn't take it back by force only by now. Even in Second World War, Russians lost more than 20 million people against the 6 million of Jews, if someone's to be angry, are the Russians. This is a beginning* of a war from my point of view.

In sum, since we know how a war starts and don't how it ends, it is better act and prevent by now than regret later...

Originally Posted by Mario92

They are also the exception to the rule.

[...]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Problems arise from differences because of how the human brain works. What we are dealing with is a matter of human nature. Differences are a trigger. Something that helps the brain justify its position. And despite all the differences, there are principles at work here that are nearly universal. If you need any evidence, just take a look at football Sunday. Amazing how a simple sport with arbitrary divisions can so inflame the masses, wouldn't you say?

[...]

Perfection is something unobtainable in this lifetime. There will always be strife, and there will always be suffering. Perfection is an ideal, a dream, that we can never reach so long as we remain tied to this mortal realm, and, as I argue, any realm.

You need to back yourself up more; a lot of what you said is unjustified or empty. I can't really see where you're coming from in relation to my response or what your argument is actually made of.

Originally Posted by really

You need to back yourself up more; a lot of what you said is unjustified or empty. I can't really see where you're coming from in relation to my response or what your argument is actually made of.

1. If the rule was that everyone on earth acts like Jesus or Buddha, the world would be a much brighter place. If even a small percent of people acted thus, the world would still be much better. People like Jesus or Buddha or whoever are the exception to the rule.

2. Football, a trivial division between people, can bring about many sentiments quite similar to racism, etc. I personally know one bar that refuses to service members or fans of the opposing football team.

3. So long as we are human, we will never achieve perfection. We will always think of something else to crave in our lifetime.

Is that simple enough for you?

Still haven't finished the paper but I gotta respond to this stuff.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

. I also think group selection is more valid than you make it out to be.

The problem with group selection is that it provides no mechanism for a gene to get into the next generation. Suppose that gene X causes behavior A which provides benefit B to members of the group at cost C to the bearer of the gene. Then the other members of the group (lacking gene X) receive benefit B without paying cost C while the bearers of X receive the same benefit but pay the cost C. So an organism that doesn't have X but simply lives in the same community as one that does is granted a higher fitness by X and will be selected for. So the existence of X means that Not X is selected for. Genes that only provide for the good of the group are selected against. Even if we assume that some how X magically comes to prominence in the population, then Not X will still be selected for over X and so X will decline in the population: There is always, from the first instance of its occurrence, a negative selection pressure acting on it.

Let's suppose now that the benefit B is greater for the organism bearing X than for other members of the community. Then we are not talking about group selection as X provides a clear, differential benefit for those that bear it and (other things being equal) will have positive selection pressures affecting it and will spread through the population.

The final class of cases is where the gene X provides a differential benefit to organisms in the group at cost C to its bearer. The way that this can actually work is if it provides a greater benefit to organisms that are likely to also be bearers. This is generally known as Kin Selection and has been backed up by empirical evidence (though not yet in ants, there's a possibility that something else is going on there). The equation that describes it is
C < rB where C is the cost, B is the benefit (cost and benefit in terms of reproductive opportunities for the relevant organisms) and r is the coefficient of relation which measures how likely it is that both organisms have X. So for siblings, it would be 1/2, for cousins, 1/8. The joke in evolutionary biology circles is that it's stupid to die for your brother. You should die for two brothers or eight cousins.

This is sometimes taken as being a form of group selection (and is likely what any serious biologist that refers to group selectionism as anything other than a dead theory is referring to) but that's fairly ridiculous as it reduces it to the benefit of a single gene, not a group. Apparently, E.O.Wilson (I think) has demonstrated that group selection is possible but only for very small groups (where the forces of genetic drift are strong enough to carry the gene to prominence against the above demonstrated negative selection pressure) and there is a very high rate of extinction among the groups. This does not seem to fit any real situation, though if it was Wilson, he probably did have ants in mind when he was doing the work.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Do you not realize that Kirkpatrick's assessment also argues for the good of the group? He used ants as an example of how individuals sacrifice themselves for the good of the group, such as individuals who don't reproduce and serve no other purpose than to work.

See above.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

A human being needs to be able to function in a group to survive, so ideally a human brain would evolve to function well in groups, right?

Functioning well in a group does not mean functioning for the good of the group in such a manner that the benefit to the group outweighs the expected reward of doing so. This could actually be seen as functioning poorly in a group as you will always get taken advantage of by others that do no reciprocate.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It seems from an evolutionary perspective, individuals are not very important in the larger scheme of things.

You are absolutely correct, although they are far more important than the group. The important thing is the genes. The biologists that disagree with that will argue that the individual is the most important aspect of evolution. This is the famous Stephan Jay Gould vs. Practically Everybody Else (e.g. Trivers, Lewinton, Hamilton, Smith) debate. I come down fairly firmly on the view that the gene is the basic unit of selection but admit that people arguing that the individual is the basic unit of selection are not insane (though I've not seen them make any good points - some say the two are equivalent but that the gene's eye view lets one think about things more clearly). On the other hand, anybody arguing group selection is for real (aside from my comments above) is pretty much either too stupid to grasp the fundamental problems with it or too old to know any better.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That being said, Im not entirely sure that TMT is "based on the good of the group," but it could certainly play a role.

I should certainly hope it's not. You said that Becker was making those claims. Note that Becker is not cited as a founder of TMT but that the founders of TMT claim to have been influenced by him. Reliance on group selection would be one major impediment to being taken seriously as a scientific theory although I can certainly understand how the group of liberal arts wankers that are no doubt in charge of the Pulitzer wouldn't even notice it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If TMT is right, then it would subsume all other theories which could produce the same predictions since it describes some very basic instincts of human nature. That is one of it's "controversial aspects" according to Kirkpatrick.

They didn't say that and that's not possible. It is always possible that there is a different theory that agrees with all of the experimentally confirmed predictions of any given theory but that makes different predictions for areas that haven't been tested yet. You don't need to know anything about TMT or evolution to know that: It's basic philosophy of science.

PhilosopherStoned & Caprisun, what does this all have to do with suffering, again?

Originally Posted by Mario92

1. If the rule was that everyone on earth acts like Jesus or Buddha, the world would be a much brighter place. If even a small percent of people acted thus, the world would still be much better. People like Jesus or Buddha or whoever are the exception to the rule.

2. Football, a trivial division between people, can bring about many sentiments quite similar to racism, etc. I personally know one bar that refuses to service members or fans of the opposing football team.

3. So long as we are human, we will never achieve perfection. We will always think of something else to crave in our lifetime.

Is that simple enough for you?

Honestly, it's not much better, but I'll do my best.

I think what you're saying has been addressed in my earlier post:

Originally Posted by really

When can suffering actually be ended, if not in organized societies (as you put)? Suffering can be ended. The end of suffering, or the state of no suffering, is sometimes known as Enlightenment or Liberation, among many other names. See Juroara's post. It is a paradigm jump into the non-dualistic. It is not about finding a world of no suffering in the world, or creating world peace, etc.

Without the paradigm jump, you're cornered back into the endless loop of 'human nature' being stuck inside itself; the world of the ego and society; the world of endless division and belief systems. It is reducible to a game of who's right and wrong; who's better or worse; good or bad; perpetrator and victim. In that context, suffering is inescapable.

A paradigm jump is required for the very limitation of human perception. Without it, yes, there is no way to know perfection (not a matter of achieving it), love or peace as predominant world-view or inner transformation. It is found through a spiritual pathway, for one prime example; when it is not a matter of being trapped in the world of our own ego's creation, nor re-emphasizing its boundaries.

You need to explain '1.' again, and correct me if I'm wrong in what I was addressing.

Originally Posted by really

A paradigm jump is required for the very limitation of human perception. Without it, yes, there is no way to know perfection (not a matter of achieving it), love or peace as predominant world-view or inner transformation. It is found through a spiritual pathway, for one prime example; when it is not a matter of being trapped in the world of our own ego's creation, nor re-emphasizing its boundaries.

Unfortunately, living in the world of our ego's creation is the default human action. It takes a good deal of effort to exceed that. Many people of the world are unable, unwilling, or unaware to exert that effort. The way to end all suffering really only works if everyone does this, which won't happen.

You need to explain '1.' again, and correct me if I'm wrong in what I was addressing.

You cited Jesus and Buddha as two examples of how a person could achieve unconditional love. I maintain that, while great men, they are the exception to the rule. Not everyone can do what they did...not by a long shot. My point was that a few enlightened individuals does not end all suffering. So yes, while they did it, it doesn't mean everyone else can or does. They are exceptional, they are the exception.

Originally Posted by really

PhilosopherStoned & Caprisun, what does this all have to do with suffering, again?

Caprisun claims to be speaking on behalf of a "well established" scientific theory when claiming that it is impossible to eliminate suffering because "evil is part of human nature." I claim that this "theory" is a bunch of thinly veiled liberal arts wankery that is openly based on overt liberal arts wankery and happens to have gotten a few predictions correct through pure dumb luck.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Unfortunately, living in the world of our ego's creation is the default human action. It takes a good deal of effort to exceed that. Many people of the world are unable, unwilling, or unaware to exert that effort. The way to end all suffering really only works if everyone does this, which won't happen.

That is why I stated that this isn't about world peace or finding peace in the external world. It's completely unrealistic. Suffering happens on a global scale because humankind essentially exists globally, but at the end of the day it's our own problem; it's about our own suffering. Whoever wants to free themselves of their own suffering has to find the willingness transform their own condition. To change the world because of how it is perceived is out of the question, as is aiming to 'make' everybody in the world happy.

You cited Jesus and Buddha as two examples of how a person could achieve unconditional love. I maintain that, while great men, they are the exception to the rule. Not everyone can do what they did...not by a long shot. My point was that a few enlightened individuals does not end all suffering. So yes, while they did it, it doesn't mean everyone else can or does. They are exceptional, they are the exception.

They did not rid all human suffering forever, no, I didn't say that. However, they were great beings - human beings - who have demonstrated that it is possible to know such an inner peace and love, and have formed a way to understand it and 'find' it. Such beings have ended suffering within themselves and have shared it with others; transforming the world. Few beings reach as high as the great Avatars, but they are much more advanced in consciousness than that of unconditional love. In other words, to reach a state of unconditional love for one another is not the same as being a great spiritual leader and preacher, while it may be an ideal inclination later in life. Saying that they are an exception isn't really an argument, but an excuse.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Caprisun claims to be speaking on behalf of a "well established" scientific theory when claiming that it is impossible to eliminate suffering because "evil is part of human nature." I claim that this "theory" is a bunch of thinly veiled liberal arts wankery that is openly based on overt liberal arts wankery and happens to have gotten a few predictions correct through pure dumb luck.

Thanks for the summary.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Still haven't finished the paper but I gotta respond to this stuff.



The problem with group selection is that it provides no mechanism for a gene to get into the next generation. Suppose that gene X causes behavior A which provides benefit B to members of the group at cost C to the bearer of the gene. Then the other members of the group (lacking gene X) receive benefit B without paying cost C while the bearers of X receive the same benefit but pay the cost C. So an organism that doesn't have X but simply lives in the same community as one that does is granted a higher fitness by X and will be selected for. So the existence of X means that Not X is selected for. Genes that only provide for the good of the group are selected against. Even if we assume that some how X magically comes to prominence in the population, then Not X will still be selected for over X and so X will decline in the population: There is always, from the first instance of its occurrence, a negative selection pressure acting on it.

Let's suppose now that the benefit B is greater for the organism bearing X than for other members of the community. Then we are not talking about group selection as X provides a clear, differential benefit for those that bear it and (other things being equal) will have positive selection pressures affecting it and will spread through the population.

The final class of cases is where the gene X provides a differential benefit to organisms in the group at cost C to its bearer. The way that this can actually work is if it provides a greater benefit to organisms that are likely to also be bearers. This is generally known as Kin Selection and has been backed up by empirical evidence (though not yet in ants, there's a possibility that something else is going on there). The equation that describes it is
C < rB where C is the cost, B is the benefit (cost and benefit in terms of reproductive opportunities for the relevant organisms) and r is the coefficient of relation which measures how likely it is that both organisms have X. So for siblings, it would be 1/2, for cousins, 1/8. The joke in evolutionary biology circles is that it's stupid to die for your brother. You should die for two brothers or eight cousins.

This is sometimes taken as being a form of group selection (and is likely what any serious biologist that refers to group selectionism as anything other than a dead theory is referring to) but that's fairly ridiculous as it reduces it to the benefit of a single gene, not a group. Apparently, E.O.Wilson (I think) has demonstrated that group selection is possible but only for very small groups (where the forces of genetic drift are strong enough to carry the gene to prominence against the above demonstrated negative selection pressure) and there is a very high rate of extinction among the groups. This does not seem to fit any real situation, though if it was Wilson, he probably did have ants in mind when he was doing the work.




See above.



Functioning well in a group does not mean functioning for the good of the group in such a manner that the benefit to the group outweighs the expected reward of doing so. This could actually be seen as functioning poorly in a group as you will always get taken advantage of by others that do no reciprocate.



You are absolutely correct, although they are far more important than the group. The important thing is the genes. The biologists that disagree with that will argue that the individual is the most important aspect of evolution. This is the famous Stephan Jay Gould vs. Practically Everybody Else (e.g. Trivers, Lewinton, Hamilton, Smith) debate. I come down fairly firmly on the view that the gene is the basic unit of selection but admit that people arguing that the individual is the basic unit of selection are not insane (though I've not seen them make any good points - some say the two are equivalent but that the gene's eye view lets one think about things more clearly). On the other hand, anybody arguing group selection is for real (aside from my comments above) is pretty much either too stupid to grasp the fundamental problems with it or too old to know any better.



I should certainly hope it's not. You said that Becker was making those claims. Note that Becker is not cited as a founder of TMT but that the founders of TMT claim to have been influenced by him. Reliance on group selection would be one major impediment to being taken seriously as a scientific theory although I can certainly understand how the group of liberal arts wankers that are no doubt in charge of the Pulitzer wouldn't even notice it.



They didn't say that and that's not possible. It is always possible that there is a different theory that agrees with all of the experimentally confirmed predictions of any given theory but that makes different predictions for areas that haven't been tested yet. You don't need to know anything about TMT or evolution to know that: It's basic philosophy of science.

I am going to try to answer this quickly cause I probably won't have time for a while if I don't. If it seems sloppy, it's because Im a little drunk, and Im sorry for that.

In summary, I don't need a science lesson. I know how evolution works and I have a pretty good idea of what group selection is. It needs to be stated that both you and I are laymen (I presume,) so trying to explain to me what group selection is or what you think about it will accomplish little to nothing. There are biologists out there who are more qualitified than you and I who think group selection, in one form or another, has at least a ring of truth to it. A scientists who endorses this view is certainly not "stupid," and I think it's a little ridiculous that you would call a scientist stupid just because they don't agree with you (a non-scientist.)

I also need to point out that I never said Becker is claiming that our capacity for evil or our existential anxiety evolved due to group selection. That statement came from a chapter about the rise of organized society and the origin of inequality, which could be considered the beginning of social evil. It is referring to societal evolution rather than biological evolution. Whatever contruct is responsible for evil most likely evolved, or at least began to evolve before humans organized into structured societies. So instead of trying to prove me wrong on a small technicality or misunderstanding, you need to address what TMT/Ernest Becker actually theorize. It is entirely possible that I have misrepresented their views in small ways (I understand the big picture very well, but when you get really technical I can't promise that I can always give you accurate information.)

I know you don't like it when I appeal to legitimate authority figures, but we talked about TMT in my social psychology class again yesterday. But this time my professor explicitly endorsed the theory rather than neutrally talking about it like he did last time. In fact, we are learning about a lot of the things which have been discussed in this thread such as ingroup/outgroup dynamics and discrimination. He said that it took him a while to come around to the theory because the theoretical framework was so unusual, implying that he has in fact come around but only after intense scrutiny. Then he went on to talk about all the theory has going for it and the mountains of data which are impossible to deny.

"They didn't say that and that's not possible. It is always possible that there is a different theory that agrees with all of the experimentally confirmed predictions of any given theory but that makes different predictions for areas that haven't been tested yet. You don't need to know anything about TMT or evolution to know that: It's basic philosophy of science."

What do you think the theory of everything is? Once that is discovered, it will describe everything and subsume all other theories from all other sciences. A coherent science of man will likewise subsume all other theories of psychology. Granted TMT is not a coherent science of man, it does deal with some very basic instincts of human nature, meaning they would constitute the most fundamental workings of the human mind and would therefore subsume any other theories which are related in any way. So while there may be theories which agree with predictions made by TMT, they can only offer a comparably superficial explanation.

Originally Posted by really

When can suffering actually be ended, if not in organized societies (as you put)? Suffering can be ended. The end of suffering, or the state of no suffering, is sometimes known as Enlightenment or Liberation, among many other names. See Juroara's post. It is a paradigm jump into the non-dualistic. It is not about finding a world of no suffering in the world, or creating world peace, etc.

Without the paradigm jump, you're cornered back into the endless loop of 'human nature' being stuck inside itself; the world of the ego and society; the world of endless division and belief systems. It is reducible to a game of who's right and wrong; who's better or worse; good or bad; perpetrator and victim. In that context, suffering is inescapable.

The only way 'out' is to understand the real meaning of peace, love, and real freedom, all of which are not truly found in duality or opposites, and which are essentially unbound from paradoxes and conditions. When one unconditionally loves another, and is not necessarily in love with them (romantically), that may be called non-dualistic. Because that love does not require hate in order to exist; contrary to popular belief. It is self-fulfilling.

I can agree that perhaps psychology of human nature, evolution and the unconscious provides some insight as to why humanity suffers, but it does not lead to the end of the road. It calls for a deeper analysis of one's own mind - the root of the problem.

Ramana Maharshi:

"Nearly all mankind is more or less unhappy because nearly all do not know the true Self. Real happiness abides in Self-knowledge alone. All else is fleeting. To know one's Self is to be blissful always."

"Happiness is your nature.
It is not wrong to desire it.
What is wrong is seeking it outside
when it is inside"

Sorry I missed this, I was preoccupied with other things.

On a personal level, what you are saying is very valid, but I think the OP was talking about suffering on a world wide scale (with talk of people doing bad things to other people.) The dualism of good and evil doesn't mean that if you love a woman, you have to also hate her. You can love your woman and hate your neighbor, or you can love both or hate both. What matters is that biologically the capacity for both exists in every single human being, even Jesus and even the Buddha. So a person who is willing to admit to themselves that they have a dark side and they have the potential to do evil things, has the ability to control their actions and emotions much more than a person who denies that they could ever be evil. The more a person represses this part of their nature, the more easily and uncontrollably it is elicited from the environment. So in a world were the vast majority of people adhere to the natural mindset of "we" are good and "they" are evil, world peace is not a plausible goal.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Unfortunately, living in the world of our ego's creation is the default human action. It takes a good deal of effort to exceed that. Many people of the world are unable, unwilling, or unaware to exert that effort. The way to end all suffering really only works if everyone does this, which won't happen.

You don't need to rally everyone together at the same time to end suffering. You only need to end your own suffering.

Originally Posted by juroara

You don't need to rally everyone together at the same time to end suffering. You only need to end your own suffering.

But what a shallow, short-term goal. That's no fun.