demonic hypothetical

[aquatus1]

Tell you what: Let me add a little something to your thought experiment.

Assume: We have a box that reliably detects evil.

Assume: Demons do not exist.

Scenario: You are walking outside, in the middle of a major city, with nothing but people around you, going about their day. Your detector is mostly in the Good zone, however, throughout the day, the needle fluctuates towards Evil, and once even pegged all the way to the other side.

What could you (tentatively, of course) conclude from this experiment?

[SpiritWriter]

I agree with the oil company part..

[Ultima Weapon]

Here it is: 95% of the entire human population knows that demons exist; science made public a frequency that could reliably detect demonic presence and sometimes even outline their forms. The question of their existence was answered to the satisfaction of all except for the five percent who insist the sun revolves around the earth.

Considering that science has proven that literally everything came from nothing yet people still deny God, my personal guess is that nothing will happen and we'll all still be in denial.

[markprice]

Considering that science has proven that literally everything came from nothing yet people still deny God, my personal guess is that nothing will happen and we'll all still be in denial.

The Jews believe that as well and God was a part of the process. Basically God drew Himself back, creating a void for creation to exist in. There had to be nothing to create something, right?

[markprice]

Tell you what: Let me add a little something to your thought experiment.

Assume: We have a box that reliably detects evil.

Assume: Demons do not exist.

Scenario: You are walking outside, in the middle of a major city, with nothing but people around you, going about their day. Your detector is mostly in the Good zone, however, throughout the day, the needle fluctuates towards Evil, and once even pegged all the way to the other side.

What could you (tentatively, of course) conclude from this experiment?

That evil passed by. Mostly it would be used to validate suspected evil situations before further action was taken.

Don't see the relevance.

The relevance is that art helps you see something. It doesn't get anymore relevant than that. The catch is that it is that there has to be an actual experience behind it or the art is just empty.

[aquatus1]

That evil passed by. Mostly it would be used to validate suspected evil situations before further action was taken.

I recommend a good course in deductive reasoning.

The relevance is that art helps you see something. It doesn't get anymore relevant than that. The catch is that it is that there has to be an actual experience behind it or the art is just empty.

You are just making this up as you go along, aren't you.

[markprice]

I recommend a good course in deductive reasoning.

You are just making this up as you go along, aren't you.

Sure, Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,^[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements(premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.^[2]

^{Now you might try to follow multiple trains of thought until they dovetail into knowledge, or not.}

[aquatus1]

Sure, Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,^[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements(premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.^[2]

More generally, it involves thinking on your own, as opposed to copy and pasting an argument. But yes, you would do well to take one of these courses. It will help the structure of your argument.

^{Now you might try to follow multiple trains of thought until they dovetail into knowledge, or not.}

You are aware that this is a discussion forum, correct? Discussion involves actually talking about a subject for a given length of time, with a certain amount of consistency.

[markprice]

More generally, it involves thinking on your own, as opposed to copy and pasting an argument. But yes, you would do well to take one of these courses. It will help the structure of your argument.

You are aware that this is a discussion forum, correct? Discussion involves actually talking about a subject for a given length of time, with a certain amount of consistency.

What now? You want me to take a course because reductionism getting you nowhere.

[Frank Merton]

It would be nice if we had a sense organ for evil or sin.

[tapirmusic]

If this frequency was discovered and demons were found to be around us then:

Democrats / Labor / Liberals would consider them a new minority group in need of protection.

The demons wold be given free reign to continue to destroy humans lives.

And any disparaging remarks made toward demons would become hate-speech and would be punishable by monetary fines.

[White Crane Feather]

Considering that science has proven that literally everything came from nothing yet people still deny God, my personal guess is that nothing will happen and we'll all still be in denial.

Ugggg..... science has done no such thing.

[aquatus1]

What now? You want me to take a course because reductionism getting you nowhere.

Reductionism?

I'm just trying to get you to stop changing the parameters every time you reply. You aren't even close to "stable", let alone "reductionist".

[aquatus1]

If this frequency was discovered and demons were found to be around us then:

Democrats / Labor / Liberals would consider them a new minority group in need of protection.

The demons wold be given free reign to continue to destroy humans lives.

And any disparaging remarks made toward demons would become hate-speech and would be punishable by monetary fines.

That's...not necessarily incorrect.

After all, given the assumptions that "Evil!" exists, and demons are...what, carriers, embodiment, practitioners, fanboys?...Well, anyhow, demons exist. Given that, and given that the only Evil we are aware of has been committed by people, we are somewhat forced to treat Evil as some sort of disease or condition that causes people to act Evil.

But the problem there is that you have entire cultures or groups, numbering anywhere from three to thousands, who are often referred to as Evil. Can you consider an entire culture to be "infected"? And even if you could, where would that get you? Are you going to quarantine an entire culture? Or are you going to follow the historical route and burn the infection out?

So, if can't treat Evil as a disease or condition, can you treat it as a behaviour? Well, we have a problem there too. The human brain, it has been discovered, is far more influenced by instinctual habits than people like to think it is. And, as in all social groups, two of the strongest behaviours is pack conformity and pack hierarchy. In other words, we want the people around us to think similarly to us, and we want to know who's the boss. The urge to surround yourself with similar people is so strong that your mind will literally, on the spot, edit your previous opinions on something and change it, sometimes radically, to match the opinions of the group you want in on. Everyone wants to be the rebel, the non-conformist, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the people are in the "But everyone else was doing it!" crowd, just like they are in the "I was just following orders!" crowd. (and if you flatter yourself to think that you are not, keep in mind that neither did any of the subjects in either of these study cases).

So, we can't really refer to Evil as a condition, or as a behaviour (there is, after all, nothing evil about getting along with your friends or listening to the boss at work). What's left? If you have an entire society which is viewed as evil, and is being systematically purged by those who see themselves as Good, what happens when that Evil society comes to your third-party society doorstep and asks for refuge?

Well, if you are a society that doesn't view that society as Evil, you offer them refuge. Heck, even if you are one of the very, very rare members of the Good society that refuses to follow orders, you might assist them a little. Does that make you Good, and the third society Good? Or are you both Evil now too?

What if the detector says that you are Evil?

We don't need to get Reductionist to get to this point. This is little more than simple logic and basic knowledge of some rather well-known psychological phenomena. However, to proceed from this point, this point where the real conflict begins to emerge its head (that's Evil for you; always trying to hide and blame someone else!), we really do need a more concrete definition of what "Evil" actually is.

Or you can let the detector tell you you are evil, and just quietly accept your fate.

If, however, you do choose to defy the detector, and the third-party society does choose to allow you refuge, yeah, chances are you will be considered a minority, you have already proven that you need protection, you would be protected by the same Hate Speech laws protecting other minorities, and while you will probably have to scale back a lot of your behaviour, you will still be allowed to destroy human lives by commiting such Evil acts as letting little girls go to school, or not blaming them for tempting men to gang-rape them by wearing skirts on a bus.

Edited April 12, 2013 by aquatus1

[Beany]

If humankind suddenly could detect demons, it stands to reason that demons existed before the detection methods. Therefore the world wouldn't change much other than people suddenly getting creeped out more frequently. Inventors will start coming up with anti-demon technology that will or will not work. You'll get the demon-detect phone app and the iDemon by apple. Goths will want their own demon pet. More on-the-fence religious people will tip over to the believing side.

I really don't think much would change in any drastic way.

People know there is evil in the world already, unless they're totally ignorant of genocides, wars, most history, murder, rape, etc. And most of them don't pay it any mind.

Anti-demon technology? I say feed them brussel sprouts, that should make them leave.

[Rlyeh]

I hear the BFG9000 is quite effective against demons (and everything else)

Edited April 12, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Frank Merton]

Keep a few wart hogs around the house.

[markprice]

Reductionism?

I'm just trying to get you to stop changing the parameters every time you reply. You aren't even close to "stable", let alone "reductionist".

Reductionism was referring to you. The stark reality of the OP has not changed. There are no parameters; where are you getting these "rules", and how are they useful when trying get opinions for an open question?

[markprice]

That's...not necessarily incorrect.

After all, given the assumptions that "Evil!" exists, and demons are...what, carriers, embodiment, practitioners, fanboys?...Well, anyhow, demons exist. Given that, and given that the only Evil we are aware of has been committed by people, we are somewhat forced to treat Evil as some sort of disease or condition that causes people to act Evil.

We are aware of evil committed through demonic forces, and people. It's a bit worse than a "disease", but it does afflict people as well as cause evil acts.

But the problem there is that you have entire cultures or groups, numbering anywhere from three to thousands, who are often referred to as Evil. Can you consider an entire culture to be "infected"? And even if you could, where would that get you? Are you going to quarantine an entire culture? Or are you going to follow the historical route and burn the infection out?

Blanket statements like axis of evil, condemning three or more countries, would need to be backed up with new scientific evidence. Perhaps the "evil" countries would outlaw the technology and so become sanctuaries for evil. Then you would have countries that clearly chose evil and ignorance. They would be a problem eventually.

So, if can't treat Evil as a disease or condition, can you treat it as a behaviour? Well, we have a problem there too...

It's both. The condition causes the behavior.

So, we can't really refer to Evil as a condition, or as a behaviour (there is, after all, nothing evil about getting along with your friends or listening to the boss at work). What's left? If you have an entire society which is viewed as evil, and is being systematically purged by those who see themselves as Good, what happens when that Evil society comes to your third-party society doorstep and asks for refuge?

This is wrong. The technology would cut right through: "but they are evil and we must destroy them" rhetoric because we could deal directly with the evil behind its manifestation. That's the tricky part and they would start doing good as a form of obfuscation. Then like the Muslim Brotherhood sheltering their Nazi friends long ago, they will eventually cross another line...

Well, if you are a society that doesn't view that society as Evil, you offer them refuge. Heck, even if you are one of the very, very rare members of the Good society that refuses to follow orders, you might assist them a little. Does that make you Good, and the third society Good? Or are you both Evil now too?

What if the detector says that you are Evil?

You are saying people can BE evil, not just ACT evil. That would probably be another topic.

We don't need to get Reductionist to get to this point. This is little more than simple logic and basic knowledge of some rather well-known psychological phenomena. However, to proceed from this point, this point where the real conflict begins to emerge its head (that's Evil for you; always trying to hide and blame someone else!), we really do need a more concrete definition of what "Evil" actually is.

That's pure reductionism right there. We know evil is the source of the demonic realm. That's a wide open and effective definition that cannot be reduced, only expanded as I did earlier.

Or you can let the detector tell you you are evil, and just quietly accept your fate.

No. People would have to choose evil to be evil.

If, however, you do choose to defy the detector, and the third-party society does choose to allow you refuge, yeah, chances are you will be considered a minority, you have already proven that you need protection, you would be protected by the same Hate Speech laws protecting other minorities, and while you will probably have to scale back a lot of your behaviour, you will still be allowed to destroy human lives by commiting such Evil acts as letting little girls go to school, or not blaming them for tempting men to gang-rape them by wearing skirts on a bus.

If you reduce it to opinion which the hypothesis ruled out.

[aquatus1]

Mark, just FYI, because it does make it kind of a pain to answer your posts when you don't do it:

The "Quote" command works like this: [*quote] Yadda yadda yadda [/*quote]

In the above, please ignore the asterisk (it is only there to keep the command from activating). Without the asterisk, what you get is this:

Yadda yadda yadda

When you click on the "Quote" button on the text box (or use the "Quote" function in the Reply), it automatically puts a quote/endquote at the beginning and the end. If you want to answer parts seperately, all you have to do is put an endquote ([/*quote], again, ignore the asterisk) at the end of the portion you wish to seperate. Anything within a quote/endquote will go in it's own text box.

Don't forget that you will have an endquote at the end of the post that you need to either erase or use. You won't be able to post until you get a matching number of quotes/endquotes. Incidentally, the other commands work similarly.

[aquatus1]

Reductionism was referring to you.

Ah, well, in that case, it was just wrong. My mistake.

The stark reality of the OP has not changed.

I'm not saying the theoretical reality of the OP has changed. I'm saying that it is so vague that any time someone comes up with some sort of statement, suddenly we get another parameter.

There are no parameters; where are you getting these "rules", and how are they useful when trying get opinions for an open question?

Immensily useful. Without parameters, what differentiates a good anwer from a bad one? A relevant one from an irrelevant one? There is no such thing as an "open question" when the subject being discussed is being defined on the fly (or not defined at all).

We are aware of evil committed through demonic forces, and people. It's a bit worse than a "disease", but it does afflict people as well as cause evil acts.

But what functional difference is there between it and any other affliction, condition, Rage virus, or what have you?

Blanket statements like axis of evil, condemning three or more countries, would need to be backed up with new scientific evidence. Perhaps the "evil" countries would outlaw the technology and so become sanctuaries for evil. Then you would have countries that clearly chose evil and ignorance. They would be a problem eventually.

Historical, justifying referring to something or some people as evil has been fairly easy to justify, regardless of evidence (there is yet another psychological experiment that showed something directly related to this that I won't derail this thread more on). But again, one of the questions was "What are you going to do about the "evil" countries?

It's both. The condition causes the behavior.

So, again, there is no functional difference?

This is wrong. The technology would cut right through: "but they are evil and we must destroy them" rhetoric because we could deal directly with the evil behind its manifestation. That's the tricky part and they would start doing good as a form of obfuscation. Then like the Muslim Brotherhood sheltering their Nazi friends long ago, they will eventually cross another line...

Oooooh...I see...

We are acting under the assumption that the scientific discovery of evidence for evil will actually convince people that evil exists and should be unilaterally opposed, no questions asked.

That's actually less realistic than an evil detector, but okay.

How would we deal directly with the evil behind the...evil...Is there some sort of innoculation? And would the "Destroy the evil!" people necessarily be wrong? It may not deal with the evil behind whatever, but it is a pretty direct method of stopping the evil you can deal with.

You are saying people can BE evil, not just ACT evil. That would probably be another topic.

Yes. In fact, I am of the belief that only people can be evil, but yes, that would be another topic. But, again, back to this one, what would be the functional difference?

That's pure reductionism right there. We know evil is the source of the demonic realm. That's a wide open and effective definition that cannot be reduced, only expanded as I did earlier.

We must have different dictionaries. Reductionism is much more than simply asking the definition of the main subject of discussion in my book. But, okay, evil, whatever that is, is the source of the demonic realm (?). Demons make people act evil (some so well they should be on Broadway).

So...what has changed? Functionally? What can we do now that we couldn't do before? Without any added ability to act, how is the knowledge that demons exist any different from assuming right now that demons exist?

I'm saying that nothing will happen other than the bell curve for the religious folk getting a bit thinner.

No. People would have to choose evil to be evil.

Isn't that what they did, by helping an evil person?

What if they didn't have an evil detector? Would they still be evil helping a person they didn't know was evil?

If you reduce it to opinion which the hypothesis ruled out.

So, in the spirit of this thought puzzle, should we punish evil people simply because they evil, even if we don't have any evidence of any evil-doings? If an evil mother and child appeared on your doorstep begging for sanctuary from the people trying to kill them, would you be evil for helping them escape?

[Just Dave]

Here it is: 95% of the entire human population knows that demons exist; science made public a frequency that could reliably detect demonic presence and sometimes even outline their forms. The question of their existence was answered to the satisfaction of all except for the five percent who insist the sun revolves around the earth.

Guess i sleeped in? Demons are real? In a sense of Hellish creatures or demons as bad conscience? If second i would like a link to what you think is proof of that.. Dont you think if such creatures would exists, one would normally open a newspaper and red " The Memphisto has set fire to local house". " Zra is on rampage in NY ", " local residents of **** are being harrased by Dlock",... You dont so they arent real, for that matter i havent red a single story about demons in any newspaper or portal..

[Frank Merton]

Guess i sleeped in? Demons are real? In a sense of Hellish creatures or demons as bad conscience? If second i would like a link to what you think is proof of that.. Dont you think if such creatures would exists, one would normally open a newspaper and red " The Memphisto has set fire to local house". " Zra is on rampage in NY ", " local residents of **** are being harrased by Dlock",... You dont so they arent real, for that matter i havent red a single story about demons in any newspaper or portal..

Oh but you just don't understand: demons are far to wily to make it possible for them to be detected as such, let alone be specifically identified -- although if you approach him just right there are a few who will all an off-the-record interview.

[Just Dave]

Right i think they see demons somewhere else rather than in reality Frank...In history people thought that if one acted strange due to disesase or some other natural problem he was obssesed yet they didnt had any good knowledge of diseases and how brain/human behaviour works. One could be obssesed just because he wants to act that way.. for attention,money,fame .. god knows why ..

[Frank Merton]

Mainly money.