Evil
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Sunday, October 29, 2006 14:39
VIEWED: 8182
PAGE 11 of 14
So oxytocin levels respond to fairness and trust in addition to cooperation, and therefor system that fosters oxytocin production is "good", while a system that reduces it is "evil"?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So oxytocin levels respond to fairness and trust in addition to cooperation, and therefor system that fosters oxytocin production is "good", while a system that reduces it is "evil"?"
Pretty much. Again, the reason is b/c AFAIK there are no rational universal definitions for good and evil. They are biologically-based values we assign to events.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
you win by sheer post volume.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:what sort of reply is that?
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,
you win by sheer post volume.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bacteria manage with mutations and fast generation cycles"
Jesus Christ, is that your answer to everything you limp-wristed ass sniffer? Make sure you post something about bacterium in that dumb-ass Dixie Chick thread....Well, you should......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When you said that you thought Hitler was "evil", what did you mean?
He reduced my oxytocin level?
Actually, I do want to talk to Rue about that later. As to Hitler. Well, first I was always told Hitler was evil. It's pretty much part of my education. In fact, Hitler, and the Nazi philosophy in general, were used as examples of what is evil. Most any Baby Boomer would have had a similar experience.
As I started reading about and researching WWII, I found that history (Even considering "history is written by the winners") pretty much confirmed what I had been told. Aryan superiority, death camps, massive reprisals against civilians. Things that were morally repugnant to me on such a scale that I had to admit that describing Hitler as "evil" fit the bill for me.
As time goes on people learn and change. Some of my views on what is moral and what isn't have changed. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion of Hitler, so he's still evil to me.
But it's pretty easy to decide that Hitler's evil - a slam dunk. Even so, I bet people have a lot of differing opinions on the primary reason to consider him evil.
Maybe "Evil is what I think it is" isn't so far off. Try "Evil is what I think is exceedingly morally wrong." Of course, "exceedingly morally wrong" is also different for each person.
Quote:
But that doesn't keep us from exploring the idea, does it?
Not at all. That's what folks have been doing all through this thread. Maybe I'll take a read and try to condense some of the discussion into a few general observations. If you do that too, maybe we'll have something new to argue about
."Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So oxytocin levels respond to fairness and trust in addition to cooperation, and therefor system that fosters oxytocin production is "good", while a system that reduces it is "evil"?" - SignyM
Pretty much. Again, the reason is b/c AFAIK there are no rational universal definitions for good and evil. They are biologically-based values we assign to events. - Rue
Would it be more accurate to say, "oxytocin levels respond to an individual's perception of fairness and trust in addition to cooperation..."? Otherwise, there would have to be a method for the oxytocin producing glands(?) to identify fairness, trust, etc. directly. I don't see how this could occur.
In this case aren't we're back to "Evil is what I percieve it to be, based on my experience, personality, etc., and this perception of good and evil stimulates or reduces my production of oxytocin."?
It's easy to see how the release of oxytocin as a reward mechanism could support species survival. "I feel better when I'm hunting with Ogg, because I trust him to not panic and get us all killed if the big cat attacks. When Gaak goes with us, I don't feel so good, because I've seen him panic before. Let's take Ogg and leave Gaak to tend the fire." But your body's oxytocin producing gland(?) can't make the evaluation of Ogg's trustworthyness, or Gaak's lack by itself. It must depend on your perceptions of Ogg and Gaak's past actions to cue or suspend oxytocin production.
Of course, your opinion of Ogg may be based on the hunting stories he tells, and they may be just stories, and he actually will bug out at the first sign of danger.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
You posted a lot to respond to, and I don't have a lot of time. I don't think you have a strong handle on the situation, you're not completely in the dark, you have a point or two, but you still don't have the bull by the horns.
Quote:
Belkin, 3Com, Linksys etc aren't copying Cisco
Linksys is a Cisco brand. I was refering to things like D-Link. If you look at the market as a whole, not the end user line, which is small compared to the b2b line, Cisco dominates, and its competitors are basically reverse engineering and copying the product. I'm not guessing about this. It's the same thing that AMD, Cyrix and all used to do with Intel. Intel, after all, invented the field. The founder of intel invented the microchip. It's not like they're some outside force that took it over.
But in time, AMD has evolved into a serious competitor with its own ideas. This will eventually happen with D-Link et al. It's part of how capitalism works, but it needs to evolve to that point. There should not be a specific limit on the size of a corporation, only rules to prevent it from unfairly dominating its market, or squashing competition, monopolizing.
Do you take the same position on nation states? By the same logic, the US, China and the EU should not be allowed to exist, because they represent an unfair balance of power when matched against Iraq or North Korea.
Quote:
Trade existed before capitalism, trade is not a capitalist invention. And frankly you show me an economist that says they truly understand economics and I'll show you a liar.
These are neither meaningful statements nor strong arguments, they are self defeating.
Capitalism is obvioiusly a refinement of trade, as is Communism, its opposition. Evolution decided the winner already. I think this matter is settled. Now free market capitalism will face off against a communist-capitalist hybrid.
Quote:Quote:
I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it.
Really this sounds to me like the Socialist that say "Socialism only fails because the Capitalists don't like it" or "The ruling classes crush any Socialist nation because they're afraid of losing power!". Capitalism, like Socialism, 'fails' on it's own merits.
Not what I'm saying at all. Capitalism had rules, these guys broke those rules, ergo capitalism needs a better enforcement policy.
Quote:
Al Qaeda give money to buy weapons or friends, soldiers, allies etc. That's not charity, even by your own definition of charity.
This is not what I'm talking about. Sure this happens, and sure, it's not charity. Al Qaeda is a charitable organization, it feeds people, funds hospitals, education, all sorts of stuff. Al Qaeda is ideologically motivated to benefit its people and islam. It's not *just* a terrorist organization. Read some of the arab press, I'm sure you can find this. The line is much grayer than we have been led to believe. Bush refers to these "so called charities which are covers for funding terrorism" but that's not really an accurate characterization either. Al Qaeda is a charity, it's also a terrorist network. It might be an evolution of human order, I'm not ruling that possibility out either.
I'm getting to the point where I got over my initial anger at the terrorists, as I try to do, and see it objectively from the outside. It's not good or evil, it just is. It's a system which is in competition with our nation-state system. Evolution will pick a winner, it's not a right or a wrong, it just is.
Quote:
When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world and still outperforms private only healthcare nations hands down.
Everyone I know from your country tells me that your own private health care system kicks NHS's ass.
In America, the looney fringe of witch doctors et al kicks the ass of mainstream medicine about 9
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah I get that, but I didn't appreciate the "you win cause you wrote a lot" approach. "I haven't got much time I'll get back to you if and when I can" would have gone down easier.
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
You posted a lot to respond to, and I don't have a lot of time.
Quote:Yes you're right, Cisco bought Linksys in 2003, but it was founded 1988 and operated independently until then.
Linksys is a Cisco brand.
Point is they're still not copying, they're all working to produce the same product on the same standard doing the same thing the same way. Of course they're going to be the same.
Quote:I have a degree in Computer Science and I work with computers, I am not guessing either.
I'm not guessing about this.
Quote:When they get too big they start to decide these rules. The situation you say we should have is indeed the one we do have, and the result is that many areas are dominated by monopolies and competition is already being squashed by the big players. You've already been proven wrong.
There should not be a specific limit on the size of a corporation, only rules to prevent it from unfairly dominating its market, or squashing competition, monopolizing.
Quote:I was unaware that the Roman Empire didn't trade, nor did the Greek City states. That the neolithic cultures of Europe didn't trade, which obviously they couldn't of done since my statement that Capitalism didn't invent trade as you alluded too is obviously incorrect.
These are neither meaningful statements nor strong arguments, they are self defeating.
As for the Economist thing, I stand by it, actually I'll modify it, if Economics is merely what comes out of Economics textbooks then Economists understand it, but it has nothing to do with reality, or Economists don't understand Economics.
Quote:Except Capitalism didn't win. America isn't and wasn't completely Capitalist, in fact the closest thing to true Capitalism died out in 19th when people realised allowing business to do whatever it pleased without regulation was a really bad idea, unless you liked lead in your sugar of course.
Capitalism is obvioiusly a refinement of trade, as is Communism, its opposition. Evolution decided the winner already. I think this matter is settled. Now free market capitalism will face off against a communist-capitalist hybrid.
'Evolution' has already decided the outcome of Capitalism vs SOCIALIST-Capitalist hybrid.
I also grow weary of continually having to explain that Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing, I am at a loss to explain why you still don't get it.
Quote:Capitalism doesn't have rules, that's one of the basics points of Capitalism. Free Market, deregulation, remember?
Not what I'm saying at all. Capitalism had rules, these guys broke those rules, ergo capitalism needs a better enforcement policy.
It's fairly hard too break or enforce rules that don't exist. It's inherent to Capitalism, it's not the shadowy Socialist Trotsky Uber conspiracy, it's Capitalist doing what they do, the Capitalist thing. What you're doing is scapegoating in order to protect your ideology.
Quote:Then they really don't know what they are talking about. Firstly our private Health care is for remedial health care only, which is a merely a part of the service given by the NHS, which supplies remedial, preventative and emergency care. You see only remedial care is worth vast sums of cash. Good luck with your Bupa hospital if you have a car accident.
Everyone I know from your country tells me that your own private health care system kicks NHS's ass.
The service offered by private health care here is no better than the NHS, it is just quicker and the private hospitals have carpets and potted plants in the reception, which makes people who look only at the carpet and the plants think they're getting better service. It is quicker because it has no where near the number of patients, because it costs so much more and most people can't affor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Would it be more accurate to say, "oxytocin levels respond to an individual's perception of fairness and trust in addition to cooperation..."?'
Strangely, when oxytocin levels are artificially increased (injection) they cause feelings of trust. That feeling caused by oxytocin is the reward. It's the subtle perceptions going on in the mind that do the evaluation. And while some people can fake a persona or tell a good story that generates short-term trust, experience over time will prove it out, or not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME