Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

demonic hypothetical


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#46    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:37 PM

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:

Quote

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.


#47    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:11 PM

View Postmarkprice, on 12 April 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Reductionism was referring to you.

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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).

View Postmarkprice, on 12 April 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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?



Quote

It's both. The condition causes the behavior.
So, again, there is no functional difference?

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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?


#48    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

View Postmarkprice, on 30 March 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

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..

RSOE EDIS - Emergency and Disaster Information Service App is available on site!

   And just Russia Today...

#49    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:09 PM

View PostTesla II, on 13 April 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

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.


#50    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:21 PM

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 ..

RSOE EDIS - Emergency and Disaster Information Service App is available on site!

   And just Russia Today...

#51    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:24 PM

Mainly money.


#52    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:46 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 13 April 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

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

We obviously need a working definition for reductionism (I'll use /quote] to make it easier for you, not me): the process of incorporating information with an increasingly narrow focus. Extreme reductionism can be dysfunctional while deductive thinking becomes primary...for example: taking a broad definition and trying to reduce that to non-existent specifics is dysfunctional. This is your inclination when you cannot grasp the given concept. Try that with these: God, Love, Hate etc. and you will get nowhere IMO. Evil must be defined in context like: the source of the demonic realm. If you want to narrow the focus you are a reductionist.

Quote

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.

Nothing "vague" about the stark reality.



Quote

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).

That's a pretty good description of the method for an open question.


Quote

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

This is a good question. None. Use the machine to determine if the cause is natural or unnatural...

Quote

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?

Just wait until they cross some unacceptable red-line.


Quote

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.

Unless you are one of the 5% that thinks the sun revolves around the moon or whatever [see OH (original hypothetical)]



Quote

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.

Now we get to the big question. The answer: exorcism with no destruction required.



Quote

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.

The point being that action could then be taken after all doubt is removed.



Quote

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?

Helping people is not evil unless you are consciously helping them do evil.

This is getting shilly - Math

#53    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:45 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 13 April 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

We obviously need a working definition for reductionism

Why?  I thought you didn't want to talk about it.  Instead of making definitions for what you don't want to talk about, try clarifying what you do want to talk about.

Quote

(I'll use /quote] to make it easier for you, not me):

Yeah, that's the thing about etiquette: it's not all about you.

Quote

the process of incorporating information with an increasingly narrow focus.

How is that a synonym for "definition"?

Quote

Extreme reductionism can be dysfunctional while deductive thinking becomes primary...

Extreme anything can be dysfunctional.  I can't even agree that this is reductionism and here you are talking about extremes.

Quote

for example: taking a broad definition and trying to reduce that to non-existent specifics is dysfunctional.

What broad definition?

"We have a demon detector, which senses demons, which are evil."
"How do we know demons are evil?"
"Because we feel it."
"What do we feel?"
"Evil."
"Then why did we need the detectors?"
"To sense demons."

Quote

This is your inclination when you cannot grasp the given concept. Try that with these: God, Love, Hate etc. and you will get nowhere IMO.

It doesn't sound like you've tried very hard.

Quote

Evil must be defined in context like: the source of the demonic realm. If you want to narrow the focus you are a reductionist.

Ahh...so you are saying that you can't think of an objective definition of "evil", is that it?

Quote

Nothing "vague" about the stark reality.

Except the reality bit.  And the starkness bit.

Quote

That's a pretty good description of the method for an open question.

...

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing.  What is the modus tollens of your open-question argument?

Quote

This is a good question. None. Use the machine to determine if the cause is natural or unnatural...

And if it is unnatural, it is automatically a demon, and automatically evil.

Notice the slippery slope yet?

Quote

Just wait until they cross some unacceptable red-line.

Okay...so, we'll just sit around and wait for the next MDK, and then we'll know exactly who the bad guy is.

Good plan.  Worked great for Poland.

Quote

Unless you are one of the 5% that thinks the sun revolves around the moon or whatever [see OH (original hypothetical)]

I didn't say that people would deny that demons exist.  I said that people would not agree that demons were automatically evil, or that they should be automatically opposed.

Quote

Now we get to the big question. The answer: exorcism with no destruction required.

I think the demon would disagree with you.  In all cases, I'm afraid exorcism wouldn't work, because demons wear anti-exorcism cover-alls.

I don't find your form of open-ended arguments particularly challenging.

Quote

The point being that action could then be taken after all doubt is removed.

These "actions" being exorcism?  So, we are adding...or rather, assuming...or...geez...So, exorcisms are also a viable option now, in this thought exercise...

I thought my cover-alls example would emphasize the pointless aspect of a lack of parameters, but, apparently not.  We can just make stuff up on the fly.

Quote

Helping people is not evil unless you are consciously helping them do evil.

All right.  Helping a demon is okay, as long as it isn't helping the demon commit an evil act.

Which, if Hollywood hasn't lied to me, is the preferred method of demons and such to make people do things, by getting them to do small, non-evil things, until suddenly everything comes together into an huge evil plot.

Maybe killing evil on the spot isn't a bad answer.

Edited by aquatus1, 14 April 2013 - 05:50 AM.


#54    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:00 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 14 April 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

Why?  I thought you didn't want to talk about it.  Instead of making definitions for what you don't want to talk about, try clarifying what you do want to talk about.

Are you just dodging or trolling now?

Quote

Except the reality bit.  And the starkness bit.

You can't really be this dense, right?

Quote

And if it is unnatural, it is automatically a demon, and automatically evil.

Notice the slippery slope yet?

No, that would be the stark reality:no doubt about it.


Quote

Okay...so, we'll just sit around and wait for the next MDK, and then we'll know exactly who the bad guy is.

Good plan.  Worked great for Poland.

So you would rather just nuke everything and all the innocent...



Quote

I didn't say that people would deny that demons exist.  I said that people would not agree that demons were automatically evil, or that they should be automatically opposed.

Sorry but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you think demons are good then you are not thinking about demons.



Quote

I think the demon would disagree with you.  In all cases, I'm afraid exorcism wouldn't work, because demons wear anti-exorcism cover-alls.

I don't find your form of open-ended arguments particularly challenging.

Of course they would and yes you must be a troll.

This is getting shilly - Math

#55    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 April 2013 - 02:51 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 14 April 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Are you just dodging or trolling now?

Useless.

Quote

You can't really be this dense, right?

Useless.

Quote

No, that would be the stark reality:no doubt about it.

Useless.

Quote

So you would rather just nuke everything and all the innocent...

Disagreement with you equates to nuclear genocide.

Quote

Sorry but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The bar hasn't been set very high.

Quote

If you think demons are good then you are not thinking about demons.

Disagreement with you equates to thinking demons are automatically good.

Quote

Of course they would and yes you must be a troll.

You wouldn't have a problem detonating a demonic version of a nuke in whatever demonic realm the demons inhabit, would you?

Well, I'm done here.  Considering that the only answers you have gotten in response to the scenario as originally presented all agree that not much would happen, and there is really nothing further that can be said with the information available, not sure where else you expect this to go.


#56    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 April 2013 - 04:15 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 15 April 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

Useless.



Useless.



Useless.



exactly.

This is getting shilly - Math




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users