Sentient Logic ??


Thread starter #1
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
163
Likes
87
Good day everybody.

In this section i would like to question the Logic of Aliens and why they are not making official contact.

It is believed that due to fiction that technologically evolved beings will not make contact with us because we are to far behind.

Today i wish to address this as I see it. Note a lot of smelly old socks was smoked and a lot more thumb-sucking happened before and after the time.

Here as I see it. In general we have a people that will hurt others because they can. We have people that will be criminal to the point that is beyond our current understanding.

But for most of us humans... We CARE. We LOVE. We REASON and We SHARE.

Our feelings does control our actions and it is at this stage I had to ask myself. Do otherworldly beings FEEL, LOVE, REASON and SHARE? Or will they leave others to suffer live in pain and fear. Leave them at the mercy of evil, sickness and torture?

Will these beings reach out and be kind? Will they destroy us at first sight?

Spiritually, Mentally and Emotionally there is a war between GOOD and evil. For most of us it is a choice not to condemn others to a life of pain. But sadly sometimes it is beyond our control.

But in general we would like the world t be free, peaceful wonderful and almost magical. We are NOT what the movies tell us. I believe their is good in all of us.

Why is this not true for our outer worldly friends? Why must they hide? What is it that they do that is so horrible that we may not know about it?

I say no. There is no need for them to hide from us. Unless there motives are bad.

If they are GOOD and have only GOOD intentions why are they hiding? Why not share with us their technology and wisdom?

Can it be that these 'space aliens' are not what we believe them to be? Are they even from space? Can it be that we are alone and these 'things' was born from a old evil?

i leave you to think about it and ask yourself. If we where the outer-worldly aliens and we found other life. Would we let them suffer be hurt? Or will we share with them to better their lives and situations?

Anyhow i leave you to ponder this


take care


thank you for reading :)
 

Snake Plissken

I believe..
Premium
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
1,366
Likes
1,250
No, we are not in general good.

We fight, we kill, we convert, we impose, we invade, we steal, we hate, we jealously covert our neighbours technology..

You would have to be mad to land here and integrate. We would be like poison to any ‘good’ entities out there.
 
Thread starter #4
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
163
Likes
87
Good and bad isn't relative.

For something to be relative it needs to be estimated by comparison and not absolute or complete. When you are a bad person doing bad things like taking a life, steeling and all the rest those are absolute and complete. The action became factual. The property is stolen. A life was taken. A bad event happen. Therefore both good and bad are absolutes that governs our morality.

See a lot of people think just because good or bad is a choice it somehow is relative it isn't. Every choice you make becomes a absolute. Therefore they are indeed mutually exclusive.

When a bad person decide to help the police in capturing another bad person. That person made a choice to do a good thing that became an absolute. Thus every action can be seen as a absolute. A car pulling away is a absolute. A car stopping is a absolute. A bullet hitting a body is absolute. The mindset processed the action.

If you are a policeman defending a innocent person by shooting at a armed criminal. The policeman isn't evil his actions isn't bad. Why? Because his intention is an absolute "defending a innocent life"

i can go on and on but i think you get the picture
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,067
Likes
1,792
Robbing a bank to pay for your mother's life saving operation.

Killing one person to save one thousand people.

Volcanic eruptions killing thousands that result in highly fertile soil feeding millions.

Harte
 
Thread starter #6
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
163
Likes
87
Robbing a bank to pay for your mother's life saving operation.

Killing one person to save one thousand people.

Volcanic eruptions killing thousands that result in highly fertile soil feeding millions.

Harte
each one mentioned it as absolute and not a relative. The conditions of each are also absolute.

Murder = loss of life. Loss of millions of lives due to a disaster = Loss of life. The condition = intent.

Take a life in order to save thousands of lives = intent. Again an absolute not a relative.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,067
Likes
1,792
You'd say then that everyone would agree that killing one person to save a thousand is a good thing?

What if the one person was an innocent, and the thousand were also innocents?

Looking extremely relative, to people that understand the term.

Harte
 
Thread starter #8
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
163
Likes
87
You'd say then that everyone would agree that killing one person to save a thousand is a good thing?

What if the one person was an innocent, and the thousand were also innocents?

Looking extremely relative, to people that understand the term.

Harte
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that the choice is an absolute and not a relative. i do not condone murder and loss of life should be avoided at any and all cost. Why must murder be the only choice? Why not incapacitate?

The situations you provided was by design to force me into your way of thinking. Well there is no defending it. Both choices good and or bad is a choice it is not a concept, it is not a relative it is an absolute.

It is not about understanding the term. You want to make us believe that perspective somehow became relative. The object of relativity is how the subjects process an event. Something nice happening to you for 60 seconds will feel shorter to you then something bad happening to you for 60 seconds will feel longer to you.

Sounds wonderful but in practice however it fails as perspective isn't a absolute but a action is. It is not about understanding it is about FACT. Thinking about starting your car and buying a KFC isn't a absolute. Actually starting your car and driving to KFC buying yourself some food makes it a absolute. Why because it became a action.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,067
Likes
1,792
I put no words into your mouth. I asked you a question that apparently you didn't want to consider the answer to. That, by the way, is quite revealing.
I am only forcing to see that good and bad are relative. I did this by providing examples. The examples I provided are the same ones offered in any first-year ethics course, it's not some weird idea of mine that I'm trying to "force" on anyone.

What's good to one person can be utterly evil to another person.
That's what "relative" means.

Harte
 
Thread starter #10
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
163
Likes
87
I put no words into your mouth. I asked you a question that apparently you didn't want to consider the answer to. That, by the way, is quite revealing.
I am only forcing to see that good and bad are relative. I did this by providing examples. The examples I provided are the same ones offered in any first-year ethics course, it's not some weird idea of mine that I'm trying to "force" on anyone.

What's good to one person can be utterly evil to another person.
That's what "relative" means.

Harte
I know this game. This is where every response i give gets shot down and the words "revealing and reflective" is used. This is to make the other person extremely conscious about what they write next. i have been writing for thousands of forums as i find it awesome to read what others write. But to be pacified is never fun. But your response i think was also interesting.

Good and bad is not relative. If it was it can be argued that every criminal should be free because based on their perspective they where justified. An action isn't relative it is an action. As far as actions go it is pretty simple and self explanatory. When a car crashes into a wall forces spend energy. You are left with a crashed car. Thus the fact that the car has crashed into a wall is now a absolute.

When a criminal goes into a home and take the victims belongings then wishful thinking does not change the fact that the belongings are taken. Why the criminal took the belongings may effect his case in court but it doesn't change the fact that a physical happening occurred.

What i find interesting is you have yet to give a counter argument as to why good and bad is a perspective. My argument is, it is not a perspective it is not relative because when something enters into the physical world it becomes fact.

You see motive becomes irrelevant when it comes to a the actual action. Motive is relevant as to why the action took place but it does not change the fact. It may support the fact or even go against the fact but it cannot change the fact.

good and bad isn't just a emotional construct on human perspective. When a individual is wronged emotionally and or physically it is because that person experienced the situation on a physical level. Not only did the individual experienced it, the body experienced it on a Biochemical level.

Now you wish to tell me that it is perspective and relative. Well sorry no... It is not. It is physical. Even in cannibal cultures people got upset when it was people that they care about become a victim. They still do to this day. Please do the research yourself. You will find that in cannibal cultures people do fight to protect themselves and the people they care about. It is well documented.

Happy 2018...

cheers :)