Jezer's forum posts

#1 Posted by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

One of my failed projects. I almost never even recall my dreams. Only time I lucid dreamed was when my carry-on luggage(with all my clothes) was forcibly checked at the gate and then lost by the airline. Had that "is this real life?" feeling for a couple days, so I had vivid dreams.

And managed to lucid dream by not opening my eyes after waking up from a dream(dont know how you purposely do this) and then rubbing my fingers slightly------which sped me up into my next dream. (Then I lost lucidity and now I dont even remember the rest of the dream)

Which is a legit technique.

#2 Posted by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't understand how you can have this thread without pictures of the bachelors....

#3 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvel_boy2241 said:

@jezer said:

All those things sound like they're different aspects/reasons for the same initial thing I pointed to.

"But he stayed after he knew that by staying in the house he would cause others to die." is different from his "valuing his one life over 4 others"? Sounds more like the reason/implications of him being willing to stay despite the fact it would cause others to die.

Maybe so. i was just trying to stress the fact that while entering the house was understandable, staying in the house, after he knew the costs, was evil. But I do see your argument. That would mean there are two things he did then. Valuing his 1 life over 4 others, and then not acting accordingly even though he knew he was the only person that could have stopped the situation.

Okay, continuing.

So, the premise of your argument, as has been established, is that he is evil for

1. Valuing his life over 4 others

And

2. After inadvertently putting these people's lives in danger, not surrendering himself when he "knew" it would cause the death of others.

If these are your basis, than he is only evil if he necessarily had these thought processes. That is your assumption - that he considered the scenario in that manner. If he was autistic and could not reason in such a way, I'd guess that you wouldn't see his actions as evil.

However, did he necessarily have control of his reasoning abilities to rationalize it out in such a "selfish" manner? Do you know that Amygdala--the part of your brain most associated with emotions like fear--shortcuts your higher cognitive functions to send a signal to your motor cortex that makes you respond? In such situations of extreme fear, you are literally reacting before you have a chance to process out the information and reason it out.

"

The amygdala screens sensory data for emotional content. The amygdala is the structure that recognizes dangerous situations and initiates the fear response. Highly threatening objects -- a car pulling in front of motorcyclist, for example – elicit a fear response from the amygdala, which bypasses the sensory cortex and higher cognitive functions and sends signals that initiate a motor response (Ratey 2001, LeDoux 2002, 1996).

In other words, when the amygdala identifies a threat it sends signals through a “shortcut” directly to the motor cortex. Although the same signals continue to propagate through a more complex cognitive path, they move more quickly through the “shortcut”. (See Figure 1.) This is the fear response that occurs so quickly we sometimes do not realize what has happened until it is over....

During this time visual attention shifts from object to object classifying each one in terms of most serious threat. The object that seems be the most threatening is focused upon, to the exclusion of everything else. The field of vision actually narrows until the only thing in the visual field is the threat object (Rogers, Alderman, & Landers, 2003; Staal 2004)."

http://www.vicnapier.com/Risk/teaching_the_amygdala.htm

Essentially, there is no way to know if in that situation, both when he initially ran into the house AND when he heard the threat to the family from the Purgers outside, that he was able to reason morally or intelligently. In addition, the tunnel vision factor sheds doubt on how consciously aware he was of other people.

Neuroscientist have coined the term "amygdala hijack" in order to describe this process,

"Where did my IQ Go? Any strong emotion, anxiety, anger, joy, or betrayal trips off the amygdala and impairs the prefrontal cortex’s working memory. The power of emotions overwhelms rationality. That is why when we are emotionally upset or stressed we can’t think straight. Matthew Lieberman, a neuroscientist has found an inverse relationship between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s executive function where rational thought and judgment sit. When the amygdala is active with blood and oxygen, there is less activation in the prefrontal cortex. Our thinking power is disrupted and there are deficits in our problem solving, because the blood and oxygen are in the amygdala versus the prefrontal cortex."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/51483/handling-the-hijack.pdf

Your intelligence, your mind, your IQ is all necessary for moral judgments. That is why animals that are less intelligent than us, less developed, do not have the ability to make moral judgments. And for survival, in stressful and emotional situations, we regress to a state of being that allows to react quickly and instinctually like animals.

Do you deny that this guy was extremely afraid and extremely stressed when he got in the house? I'd guess no. Do you know when exactly he calmed down from his fear, even after getting inside the house, to the point that he could think rationally? I'd guess no.

So, how can you judge his action as evil when you do not know if his body had allowed him the control to judge "good or evil"? Someone remarked that he later saved members of the family, so clearly he was capable of good/moral acts later on. Maybe he just needed to calm down, so his rational mind could actually run?

Not only is there uncertainty about whether he was even capable of reasoning the "selfish" way you assumed he did, but if he was capable, there is no way for you to actually know what thought process he had. Did he think to himself "I dont care about the children, my life is worth more"? Maybe. Could he have also thought to himself "damn, I just realized I put this family in danger. Well now that they're on the Purgers radar, maybe I could be of some help to them - there's more safety in numbers"? Possibly.

Essentially, since you've admitted that his intentions and conscious rationale matter, then you've established that since you had no window view into his actual thought process - whether it was morally good, morally bad/selfish, or non-existent- judging him as evil would be judging him based on knowledge you don't have + an assumption you're making based on his actions. There is a lot of uncertainty you aren't taking into consideration in your assumptions, and that is why your judgment(from unverified premises) is not justified.

#4 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvel_boy2241 said:

@jezer said:

There are other things? What are the other evil things that he did?

I already said the other thing which was valuing his one life over 4 others. But then then there's the fact that he knew he was the only one that could save the children. If you were the only one that could stop multiple deaths, you would need a good reason other than "It's not human nature."

These things added together make this guy uber-evil. Even if he is following human nature/animal instinct. Evil is evil.

All those things sound like they're different aspects/reasons for the same initial thing I pointed to.

"But he stayed after he knew that by staying in the house he would cause others to die." is different from his "valuing his one life over 4 others"? Sounds more like the reason/implications of him being willing to stay despite the fact it would cause others to die.

I don't know why you're categorizing them as different evil acts.... though I guess it doesn't matter ultimately. (This does give me a picture of how you argue though. You use language rather loosely)

#5 Posted by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: Woops I responded to the wrong one lol. Disregard it if you want.

When you say that the hobo is evil for running into the house, when it puts the family in danger, are you saying this based on the act of him endangering the family? Or, does that take into consideration his intentions?

I don't think running into the house was evil. But he stayed after he knew that by staying in the house he would cause others to die. Along with a few other things he did, that is evil.

I ask this, because some philosophers argue morals based on actions and consequences, and some based on intentions.

I understand this concept. You see, his intentions are irrelevant to a degree. He didn't mean to put the family in danger but he did anyway. At that point the moral thing to do would be to make amends by leaving. Once he knew that he had caused the trouble, he should have left.

To be clear, are you specifically saying he's evil for thinking that his life is worth more than the lives of the family he endangered? Or are you saying the act is evil in and of itself, separate from his intentions?

Yes. He is evil for thinking his life is more valuable than an entire families. Logically he knows he is innocent. He also knows the family is innocent. The equation would go like this: 1 innocent life > 4 innocent lives. You see how that defies logic? Being selfish to such a blatant degree is evil.

There are other things? What are the other evil things that he did?

Though, I guess it doesn't ultimately matter since you've been focusing on the one you just verified.

#6 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

(immoral vs moral):Eh, False Dilemma logical fallacy. Not hot does not equal cold. Not good does not equal evil. Most animals are without a moral code = most people would not say they're evil. Tornadoes lack a moral code, most people would not say they're evil. Atoms. Etc etc.

(human nature vs animal instinct): Principle behind Ultimatum Game thought experiment is not demonstrated in all animals, though certain primates respond to unequal pay http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6955/abs/nature01963.html but its mostly primates closely related to us. Because there exists traits that we both share from common ancestors, or arrive at through the same environment. Animal instinct = survival and reproduction

Human Nature = Specific behaviors that are exhibited by humans as a species

I tried to refute you in as little words possible. >>>>>Focus on my latest post instead......

EDIT: Made this post before you responded to my latest one, after you'd only responded to my previous one.

#7 Posted by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

Okay. I've skimmed this thread and people have gotten some-what close to what I'm going to say, but not actually articulated it or phrased it in a cohesive argument. Though, the first thing anyone should have said(if they had taken some philosophy classes) was "but what about Phillippa's Trolley Problem?" Since he's kinda arguing from a Utilitarian standpoint, and people typically use the Trolley Problem to point out the flaw in Utilitarianism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@marvel_boy2241 I'm going to let go of my previous posts(I'm sure you'll reply something to them, which I'd refute, and it'd be a circle. But its ultimately meaningless)

Let's begin:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you say that the hobo is evil for running into the house, when it puts the family in danger, are you saying this based on the act of him endangering the family? Or, does that take into consideration his intentions? I ask this, because some philosophers argue morals based on actions and consequences, and some based on intentions. To be clear, are you specifically saying he's evil for thinking that his life is worth more than the lives of the family he endangered? Or are you saying the act is evil in and of itself, separate from his intentions?

#8 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvel_boy2241 said:

@jedixman: Fair enough. Then you should be able to counter post 196.

@jezer said:

Self-preservation is evil?

Does that mean all animals are evil? Most people tend to think the opposite. Law/primate psychology/etc. would more likely argue that acts based on self-preservation from more immediate concerns of danger transcend morals/higher cognition. Your amygdala/fear takes priority over any abstract reasoning such as morality.

I think perhaps human nuture is naturally evil. It's morality that supresses it. Plenty of things are considered human nature/natural and yet they are atrocious.

Its easy of you to sit their conceptually imagine what you'd do and how you'd think, from the privilege of the confines of your own home. In the moment though, you might be surprised.

It is just as easy for you to do the same thing. We are both sitting on computers. This does not help your argument. I wont be surprised with myself at all if i were to give away my life, for the lives of others.

EDIT

Just skimmed a couple pages. Oh Lord, what have I entered?

I don't want this to get insane like the other debates did either. i understand if you don't respond.

Okay. I wasn't talking about human nature though(and didnt mention it). I was talking about animal instinct. Which is much more pertinent to this scenario.

No, my argument doesn't apply to what I'm saying. I'm asserting uncertainty, you don't know what you'd actually do until that moment happens. Its a hypothetical situation that has never happened to you. You're asserting that you would specifically do something. I never said you would necessarily do anything. But it is definitely easy for you to pre-think, abstractly, what you would do - as opposed to actually knowing what you'd do in a given moment. In addition, my assertion of your uncertainty - while it is obvious based on the fact that you haven't actually been in the situation - could be further validated by psychology research that I ran across in my Moral Psychology class.

It's not going to get insane.... I've already thought up an argument that you can't refute, when I first entered the thread. And the argument is based on actual research(which I'll be posting), which you further wouldn't be able to refute. I guess I'll skim the thread to make sure no one has already said it. The only issue is when I'm gonna type this all out, since I have so much work to do for next week....

#9 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvel_boy2241 said:

There is a scene from The Purge where the homeless guy runs into the house. The purgers knock on the door and tell the family on the inside that if they don't give them the homeless guy, then they will break in and kill everyone. By now the homeless guy runs through the house trying to hide, even after knowing what his consequences will be. In the end the homeless guy lives while the father dies. Ultimately they traded places.

Pretend you are the homeless man. Would you leave the house and spare the family all that grief or would you stay and hide?

My mom said she would stay. Called it "self preservation" which i find pure evil. I would never do something like that. If you would, explain why.

Self-preservation is evil?

Does that mean all animals are evil? Most people tend to think the opposite. Law/primate psychology/etc. would more likely argue that acts based on self-preservation from more immediate concerns of danger transcend morals/higher cognition. Your amygdala/fear takes priority over any abstract reasoning such as morality.

Its easy of you to sit their conceptually imagine what you'd do and how you'd think, from the privilege of the confines of your own home. In the moment though, you might be surprised.

EDIT

Just skimmed a couple pages. Oh Lord, what have I entered?

#10 Edited by Jezer (2855 posts) - - Show Bio

*boom*

will leave up for like 20 minutes