mad evil scientist pathology
Offline This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions, to reject subjectivity, resulting in people becoming like a Hollywood caricature of the emotionless mad evil scientist. Many atheists are affected by this pathology.
This pathology has the following symptoms:
1 - rejection and or suppression of all knowledge about free will
2 - treating the existence of love and hate as a matter of fact
3 - defining choosing as to mean calculating an optimum, where the result is forced
- 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.
The internet is full of such people who say to adore science, they adore facts, and then they don't even accept the obvious fact that freedom is real.... Whatsmore they go out of their way to replace all knowledge in terms of freedom, with knowledge in terms of force. So they will say like that people are forced by some psychological / genetic / environmental mechanism, to replace knowledge about people choosing in freedom.
It is quite an absurd spectacle to see people professing an emphatic love of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand surpressing / throwing out a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses on a practical basis in daily life, with very little consideration.
- 2 The same people will then say that love and hate are some electro-chemical "whatever" in the brain. And as "ought" and "ought not" follows pretty much automatically from what is identified as loving or hateful, these people will either explicitly or implicitly propose to know as matter of fact what "ought" and "ought not" (naturalistic fallacy). Most times this takes the shape of some form of social darwinism, where in talking about the meaning of life, either they say selfishness is right on account of natural selection theory, or they say selfishness is wrong on account of natural selection theory.
- 3 Part of the rejection of the logic of freedom is to redefine all the words associated to free will to give them a logic of force. So this means to redefine choosing as calculating an optimum, as like a chess computing calculates an optimal move, or a thermostat turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is forced in doing what it is, yet they call this choosing.
There is no room for any spontaneous expression of emotion in this way of thinking, altough ofcourse they have redefined the meaning of the words "spontaneous", "expression", "emotion", "subjectivity", "freedom" etc. to say that there really is room for it. It is very telling in their personality that they are coldhearted and calculating.
The correct way to deal with freedom is to categorize between dual substances of "what chooses" and "what is chosen", and then call the first category the spiritual domain, the second the material domain. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions. You have to measure to identify what is in the material domain, resulting in facts.
For example; beauty is a love of the way something looks. Love belongs in the category of things that choose, therefore beauty is categorically a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
Subjectivity is only validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (duh!) So to deny the spiritual domain altogether because it can't be objectively measured, is to irrationally mix up subjectivity and objectivity, and then completely reject all subjectivity.
- Login to post comments
Your making a mess out of it by trying to create a reality of "mad evil scientist pathology" that you can not even prove exists.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
To syamsu: Are you going to respond to my previous post or not?
i did respond already yes.
No, you did not.
Try some quick editing.
The fault in your "logic" has been pointed out numerous times. To ignore this, you have hidden behind your "bs" and "intellectual thuggery" security blanket.
You use words like "researching" and "pathology" to create a false sense of authority for yourself.
I could play the amateur psychologist, as you like to do, and call this "poor little creationist victim pathology", but I don't think imitating your "logic" would do anyone much good.
Enough of your childish nonsense. You will address what people wrote (not what you turned it into) and you will answer their questions.
Part of this guys problem is he spent too much time in philosophy. Another part is that he certainly didn't spend any time studying psychiatry or psychology.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
We appear to have been typing in invisible ink or something.
Okay, I'll dumb this down as much as possible :
You believe in demons.
You believe in eternal sadistic torment for people who reject your religion.
You are here lecturing us on logic.
Now, do tell, how does this all fit together ?
Are you really, honestly, seriously expecting us to believe, that you are incapable of spotting the problem with your own "logic" here ?
If that's the case, you're really going to have to speak up and confirm that, because, no offense, but I really can't bring myself to believe that anyone can be that dense.
You WILL address what people wrote.
Somehow, I just don't think he is capable of doing that for some reason.
Perhaps this is just part of my "thuggery" and "BS"
However, if he can prove me wrong, I wish he would hurry up and do so by all means.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Read what he wrote, please. Thank you.
he argued like a crooked lawyer for atheism, and there was no care for knowledge about free will in it
No, I have said that determining whether or not to believe a subjective claim requires evidence. Why? Because people can be dishonest. So when someone makes a subjective claim, such as "I love puppies" you can look at their actions around puppies to determine if the claim is true or false.
Yes.
Also true. And fortunately so. Could you imagine trying to have a relationship with a person who was constantly deciding whether to hit you and that decision was made completely randomly? 50% of the time that you saw them you would get hit. Fortunately, most people base their next decision on previous decisions. So when someone loves you and decides not to hit you they are more likely to make the decision not to hit you in the future. They still have the same two options every time they see you, but the probability of them doing one is much higher than the other. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. People can change their behavior, but that is rare.
I never talked about spirit. If it exists it is by definition material. I do not make the claim that we have identified every material thing in existence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
If I reject subjectivity how could I argue like a lawyer? Subjectivity is how lawyers on both sides of an argument can present radically different stories of what happened. Lawyers operate in a manner that is extremely unlike a chess computer. I think it is time you pay up on that bet.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
you can only identify what chooses, by choosing what it is. occam
caring for the knowledge about free will, is this true or false?
yes or no?
I'm talking about post #135. If you've already responded to it, could you please show me where? Because I can't find it, and no one else seems to be able to either...
That has nothing whatsoever to do with Ockham's Razor.
An OBJECTIVE definition of Ockham's Razor
:Occam's razor or Ockham's razor (ŏk'əmz) A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interprete to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should be first attempted in terms of what is already known.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
That makes no sense. Do I believe in free will? Yes, I do. If that isn't the question you want answered I need you to rephrase it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You're getting your morals, metaphysics and epistemology all mixed up.
If you want to discuss this strictly philosophically, I can offer you a one on one where we can attempt to make light of your argument. I'm a little confused about what you're attempting to prove. You are presenting concurrent, and partly exclusive arguments.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Scenario A : There are 5 people tied to a track that are going to be run over by a train, the only way to save them is to switch the track and allow the train to run over 1 person on another track. Is it moral to switch the track ? Why ? What do you base this on ?
Scenario B. There are 5 people tied to a track, that are going to be run over by a train, the only way to save them, is to shove a heavy fellow in front of the train. Is it moral to shove the heavy man ? Why ? What do you base this on ?
Scenario C. You have 5 people in a hospital. All 5 need vital organs. One healthy person walks into the hospital. Do you kill this person, and take their organs to save the 5 ? Is it moral to do so ? Why ? What do you base this on ?
Scenario D. Your in a line of five people and a bear is charging right at you. If you jump out of the way, the bear gets the people behind you. Is it moral to jump out of the way ? Why ? What do you base this off of ?
Scenario E. Your in a line of five people and a bear is charging right at you. If you push one of the people behind you in front of you, the bear kills them and you live. Is it moral to shove someone else at the bear ? Why ? What do you base this off of ?
In ALL 5 scenarios, you have the potential to kill 1 person and save others. Do each one of these read differently to you ?
Why ?
Since you act like your so much smarter than all of the rest of us, please explain the difference in freedom/force, spiritual/material and how this would affect YOUR decision making.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
What you do is say the words "free will", and then you have socialized understanding when to use words like choosing, but you don't grasp the logic of it.
Where is your care for knowledge? What does not make sense? It is a simple procedure involving just 2 decisions, yet you are stumped. It cannot be made any clearer, there is something wrong with your current understanding of free will which creates cognitive dissonance.
I accuse you of being deeply emotionally tied to a definition of choosing in terms of sorting out the BEST result. That is why you don't understand. I accuse you of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and it tasted good to you, you KNOW the best. And no way are you going to let go of your knowledge of the best. Even if it means the hypocrisy of pretending to care for knowledge, as in science, while in reality you surpress a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses in daily life. In reality your view of the universe is ridiculously inaccurate for failing to note the freedom in the systems. etc.
It all doesn't figure that you can't answer such a simple question.
Your ramblings make less sense than a drunk pothead on an acid trip.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
????
You accused us of being cold and emotionless just a second ago. Make up your mind, or make up a new pathology.
You have yet to demonstrate where anyone on here ignores or supresses "a whole class of knowledge used in daily life" You have also failed to point out how your method of decision making is any different than ours. You keep talking about a "freedom" in choices over "force" and you have failed to demonstrate any sort of empirical evidence that proves that.
As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I have no idea where that is supposed to fit into these incoherent and quite insane ramblings.
You also can not explain these "accusations" of being emotionally tied.
IOW. You fail on every assertion. You have produced ZILCH to back up these ridiculous claims.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Is all bizarre nonsense and intellectual thuggery that you write.
You can only identify what chooses, by choosing what it is.
That you go ballistic in considering this precept of Ockham is because there is something wrong with you, not because there is anything wrong with Ockham's logic.
Oh. Is that what it is ? If that does not refute all of my questions then I just don't know what will.
You can only identify what chooses by choosing what is ? Well, what do you think everyone else does ? What makes your choices so "free" and everyone else's "forced?".
I have yet to see where you have demonstrated that Ockham has one single thing to do with this.
Ockham's razor simply is about, when one is dealing with various/multiple hypotheses, the one that has the fewest assumptions is the one that you would choose.
Something that you seem incapable of applying, due to the fact that you keep persisting in this claim that Atheists practice this "pathology", even though you have been presented with ample evidence to refute this, time and time and time again.
Do you even know what Ockham's razor is ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
And how do you choose what it is?
By the way, are you ever going to respond to post #135?
Bizarre nonsense ?
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I would like to know what it is.
Intellectual thuggery ?
You mean like signing up on a board without an introduction, that is primarily used by Atheists and just popping up with a bunch of assertions that all Atheists suffer from a "mad, evil scientist pathology" that you do not want to back up ?You mean like persisting that this pathology is 100% true and then claiming that everyone else is stupid/insane/bully if they argue with your position? You mean that type of "intellectual thuggery?"
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I did respond, I am not going to point you to the answer. You are too lazy.
Why do you ask the question how to choose? You simply choose. Choose between saying "hate" or "love" for instance.
When you choose "hate" then it is your opinion that hate made the original decision turn out the way it did.
Then you have succesfully acknowledged emotions, the spiritual domain, and you are no longer a mad evil scientist caricature who objectifies everything.
I make an argument, and some accusation comes with that. But you all use accusation and tactics instead of argument.
You must meaningfully talk about the logic of choosing in identifying what it is that chooses. Does this principle describe correctly how common practical knowledge about free will works, or not? Show a duty of care for knowledge about free will, regardless of how it turns out.
And making remarks about side-issues is a tactic of leading away from the main thing, and making yourself look good that you care about evidence, and that I don't. It appears you don't care anything about the evidence concerning the main issue.
Like making the assertion that everyone suffers from a "evil mad scientist pathology?"
You have yet to demontrate any counter claim about subjective/objective choosing and free will and how your choices differ from everyone elses.
Well whose fault is it that evidence keeps getting brought up in the thread ?
I already told you, if you think I am full of shit. Totally refute me. It's really not that hard.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Sure it is hard to evidence everything. But I already referred to determinist beliefs of Hitler and Stalin, and eugenics in China. That should be evidence enough of denial of freedom being related to mad evil scientist pathology.
I already demonstrated 2 different definitions of free will in use, 1 calculating an optimum / sorting out the best result, and 2 in the moment realizing an alternative future.
And all atheists in this discussion use definition 1, which is evidenced by that they don't treat the agency of a choice as a categorically subjective issue. Ofcourse there was one atheist who said that with definition 2 the agency isn't a subjective issue, but that was only supported by say so and insult.
You find me a single atheist who uses definition number 2, and who identifies agency subjectively (or who at least who has some logic about how agency is then identified)
All three very different political systems that do not have one thing to do with Athesim.
Which are pretty much one in the same thing. You chose the best option in the hope of a better outcome.
These are intertangled definitions that do not stand wholly alone.
Of course it is a subjective issue. What is the best outcome is subjective. Again, your creating a false dichotomy that doesn't exist.
Demonstrate to me how your choice over an alternative future is different than mine.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Too defensive response, and I've had it for now.
In response, you should have considered "sorting out the best results" in reference to a chesscomputer, which I've already mentioned several times. Now you are using a tactic of boring me with meaningless responses.
You keep telling people how they should have responded while dismissing what they actually said without even addressing it.
Basically, you want to have a conversation with yourself.
Unbelievable this guy. Totally un-fucking-believable.
IOW. Your just not going to answer the responses and take the fake high road.
You're a troll.
Go away.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Yeah, this felt like we had to audition for a play he wrote, and he forgot to send us the script.
Is lying a sin in Islam? Because you just told two lies in as many sentences. I can prove you're lying, by the way, as you haven't even acknowledged the existence of my question(s) about hell in Islam.
It was improv..... and he failed.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X