Right, you are using bad there in a different context. That isn’t a moral usage of the word. You mean that in a scientific way which could be defined as loss of function, triggering on pain nerves, est. Bad morally necessitates “should” not “is”.
I cannot say I understand that statement. It appears you begged the question. A free society is one without slavery, they are mutually exclusive by definition.
Sure, and I’d say that society is wrong/immoral and the free one is the better. Because I’m self righteous.
FTR CS Lewis has some stuff on moral law I highly recommend, whether you’re Christian or not. If anyone is interested I’ll look back and see what lectures/books have it in them.
If a free society and slavery are mutually exclusive then why did slavery exist in the United States? I believe that that was wrong as it was illogical and immoral.
I can say that personally I think a Western style democracy and Western values are superior for human beings if they are to reach their full potential. But if I were to believe in their innate superiority that puts me in the same boat as men like Hitler.
AHAHAHAHAA! calling me not just a Nazi, but Hitler, nice.
But again, for you Hitler in context could be argued was right…
What full human potential means is totally subjective and personal. Non-western societies define achievement differently. It’s circular reasoning, based on western values, western values are right. For a Christian it would me to be more Christ-like. For a materialist it would be to have more stuff. For a Buddhist it would mean the cessation of suffering. For a terrorist it might mean how many infidels you can kill. These are all equally valid for you?
While it might make me like Hitler to assert absolute superiority, the fact that you don’t means you can’t unequivocally condemn Hitler as bad. It’s kind of an odd insult from your belief system.
What does all men are created equal mean? That implies a free society when obviously it was not hence me calling that society, or our society at that time, wrong.
I can unequivocally call Hitler bad as I judge him under the circumstances and conditions he placed himself in. He was a bad leader and military commander. He was evil because he did terrible things for irrational and illogical reasons.
Now the next question will be is genocide sometimes not evil or wrong. That question is beyond me. The Bible justified genocide at times so anything can be justified if you have the power to back it up but that doesn’t mean I agree with it.
It means that all men are created equal. Not of circumstance or status, but they all possess the same inalienable rights endowed by their creator (or for the atheist out there, the natural world).
But what if he did terrible things for rational, logical reasons? Say abort a child because it has Down Syndrome?
Not sure where you are getting this from, but you clearly have a different meaning of the word physics than I do.
In your hypothetical physics/science that can perfectly models human brain and it’s activity, emotion would absolutely be included. We would understand the neural pathways associated with things that cause people or things to behave the way they do. It would be the only way to model actual life.
I’ve really never heard that emotion or any thoughts in general are supernatural, but we clearly have different meanings for some words. My dog, who I highly doubt has read the Bible to believe in a higher being somehow still can be happy, sad, excited, hurt…etc. there are scientific studies about behavior in animals and plenty on humans.
Talking about something like a nerve would ultimately be an unnecessary and inexact approximation. Physics would model and predict all particles and energy in whatever system you wanted. Planetary motion, a human being, “emotions”, are all just systems of particles with inexact names as place holding approximations. Perfect science would not need the word or idea nerve to perfectly model the human brain or behavior. There is a reason the unified theory is quit literally called the “theory of everything”. There is nothing in the universe that is not predicted, modeled and known by it.
I do a lot of work in FEA (finite element analysis). FEA is a science. It is also not actual true. FEA is a simplified and dumbed down version of physics to a level we are capable of using to approximate physical systems and increase confidence, but not actually know something. Everything in science outside of analytical physics is the same deal. We use the word “emotion” in psychology to simplify the particle/energy system to a level we can discuss and work with, much the way FEA reduces a continuous beam into finite elements that can be calculated and worked with, but only because we lack the ability to calculate a continuous beam. Reality is still the continuous beam though and the FEA model doesn’t genuinely reflect reality. My aerospace friend in college used to always say, “a horse is a point mass if it makes the calculations manageable.” And that’s the math that we build airplanes with.
Exactly, so emotions are part of the natural world. The emotions and behavior would be modeled. That’s the point.
As a mechanical engineer I’m very familiar with FEA
Depends what you mean by “true”. For practical purposes, it gives a true representation of what will happen. Similar to how it is not true that my fingers typing on these keys are technically touching them, the atoms are coming close enough to interfere but never actually touch. For practical purposes it’s fair to say that I’m touching them and if somebody asked if I’m touching the keys, I can honestly say that it is true that I’m touching them. This is understood through science, no supernatural needed.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is anymore. We started with you saying emotions require supernatural. Now we’re on to FEA and the theory of everything. I stand by the fact that emotions are found and exist in the natural world.
All particles and energy would be modeled the same, as particles and energy. Emotion in that context is a superfluous term. It’s a term you might use in order to use and apply the science to achieve your particular goals, but the emotion as an item wouldn’t exist in the actual physics.
No, it is never expressly what will happen.
They exist only as useful shorthand approximations of states of a physical system. Everything is particles physically. Any term used to approximate a system of particles is accepting error. Pure perfect science wouldn’t have or use those terms. A unified theory of physics would tell you everything physical about every system and would not use terms like emotion, beauty, love, good, ets.
Grant it, unified analytic physics isn’t a given. If it does exist it hasn’t been discovered. But if it doesn’t exist fundamental beliefs of modern science are wrong.