The Ability and Nonability of Judging

Post Reply New Topic

I wanted to share my model of sub and super systems with you, to explain the ability and nonability of judging.
I would be happy if you would share your opinions about this with me.

In a scientiffically created system like society for example, which is subordinate to humans, who created it, where right and wrong, yes and no, true and false are defined there are "irrational" thoughts and wrong behaviour based on the reason, that the superordinate system of human consciousness and the next superordinate systems like for example the full dimensional universe include aspects which are not determined in the much smaller system of society and therefore can lead to conclusions which are not a part of the system, conlcusions which the system alone would never bring. In the superordinate system, in the human consciousness independently true or false and the other parameters cannot be defined, as long as there is no defined cause, reason and target. Evolution (and also it's product of the human brains) is a system, which is sub and superordinate at the same time. It is subordinate as a thought humans set it into a system that gives humanity a target(reproduction) which is independent from time, still only exists in the humans minds. And it is superordinate as a system that was out of a matter of fortune created in the course of spacetime and gives humanity a scientific cause for being the way they are. Considered in the sub-system of evolution humans and animals can make mistakes/act wrongly, against the target of the highest possible reproduction. Considered from the super-system of evolution, everything which is done in the sub-systems is rational and correct because it is based on the laws of the super-system. In this case I include the rest of the laws of nature and super-systems into the evolution, otherwise it wouldn't work out, since the evolution does only work with all of the external influences.

An easy example from physics would be quantum mechanics. In the system of the four dimensional universe there happen undetermined things with particles. In the system of the full dimensional universe like in the string theory those proceedings are totally logical and determined.

Other examples for human sub-systems are language, law, religion, emotions and of course philosophy. The super-systems humans are of course never bound to their sub systems but always the necessary products of the total of their super-systems. Everything a human does is right and can not be considered wrong without a sub-system to define.
Punishment and reward is always the arbitrary usage of a sub-system to justify somthing without a true reason.
Murder, donations, giving birth, genocide, torture, kissing, eating healthy food, radioactive contamination, suicide, being raped, raping, cannibalism, necrophilia, writing a symphony, attacking American embassies all over the world, going to a French restaurant, being straight, being gay, molesting children, reading Shakespear, offending minorities, letting thousands of fusion bombs explode all around the globe, going to a football game with your friends, feeding your dog, setting a virus free to make everybody on this planet a bloodthirsty zombie, all those things are neither bad nor good as long as you don't wear the brainwash glasses of subsystems to project holographs of definitions before your view.

Excluded true love of course... ^^

What do you think about my model? Please excuse my bad English.

Could you translate your hypothetical to plain English and give examples?

ruveyn

which kinds of examples do you mean? wasn't this enough yet for being understood?

And what do you mean with plain English? I'm sorry but it is not my mothers language, I only learned it in school.

Concrete examples of sub and super systems (as you mean the terms). Also what is the central point or purpose of your speculation. What is it about?

ruveyn

This is neither a hypothesis nor a speculation, this is a model to clarify the levels (systems) of being able to decide between correct or incorrect. It was more or less the answer to a previous thread here if everything a human being does is necessarily rational.

I definitely explained everything you are asking now in my writing already but however you wish.
So once again: The highest level (system) is the universe, considering modern theories of more than only four dimensions, which means the system, that defines all laws of nature, defines the whole spacetime.
This level includes everything that exists, also the other levels. All of the other systems are based on this system.
The next important level is the human consciousness.
Everything a human being thinks or does is the logical conclusion of the spacetime at this place and time therefore always correct.
The definition of what's wrong or what's right only exists in subsystems. For the human beings it is things like philosophy (ethics etc.), religion, law and society. Only inside those subsystems wrong and right is defined, nobody is bound to those. The law says something is wrong, society says something is wrong, religion says something is right but in the higher system this can never be proved and therefore it has no meaning.
This is something everybody knows but hardly anybody seems to live out.
It is absolutely simple, I only wished to "illustrate" this thought so people who never really understood this could easily see it.
I just consider it beautiful to be free from any wrong rules. It shall be another perspective than just the short sentence: "Nothing matters, I can do what I want", since this wouldn't reach anybody.

So since there is no right nor wrong except in 'subsystems' you can just walk off a cliff and walk over thin air and not get killed by falling if you invent a subsystem that says you can?

No. This is not what my model says. You understood this totally wrong.
Much more, aggregate phases, gravity and impulses like in your examples are part of the super-system Universe.
But the definition of what living means and what dead means are only defined in subsystems.
So if it is defined, that death means, that these special kinds of chemical processes like they are given in a living human don't proceed anymore, then in this subsystem you can make the conclusion, that this person is dead.
The supersystem contains raw "data" (in the supersystem universe this data contains the smallest particles, (which include their vectors, energy, speed and the laws of nature they anyway imply), the subsystem contains informations to define summarized data of the supersystem, no matter in which relation they stand. Those informations are random, the definitions are not given in the supersystem itself. In spite of that, they are, like everything of course, the logical consequence of all of their supersystems.

A very easy example for many subsystems and supersystems is a computer as I just found.
The highest supersystem is of course again the universe. But ignoring this now:
The supersystem to consider now is the binary code, the raw "data".
System softwares summarize rows of binary code and define them.
In the lowest subsystem of the computer itself the binary code is defined in colours and voices.
Those systems are all created by humans and therefore have the tendency to economically conform to the subsystems of those who created them (society, culture, philosophy (which contains everybodies personal motifs for life), etc) and therefore all make sense to those kinds of humans, without those human subsystems they just exist and have a cause but no reason and no target.

Hopefully somebody here would be able to understand all this...

Can you explain what you are getting at to your grandmother in 25 words or less?

If you can, share it with us.

ruveyn

Sir, you'd better not be so defensive against young aspiring minds if you don't understand the simplest philosophical issues, even if it makes you angry and feeds your minority complex. Don't blame me for it, it is nobodies fault, it is the way you were born.
And if science is the problem, science has always been a very important aspect of philosophy, especially physics.
A modern philosopher and reader of such texts has to be educated in those subjects to the best possible degree to understand them, otherwise, how could there be any progress today in relation to the philosophers of the last centuries?
So if you are not sophisticated in those, please refrain from my words, otherwise you could never understand.

In fewer words, it seems you are saying that moraility is a human construct and the larger goal of life (of which human life is only a recent fraction) is simply to continue via reproduction. I agree. Or at least, I agree if that is what you are saying. If you are saying something entirely different then my agreement is withdrawn.



ok




Morality, and everything else that humans self-impose in order to live together is a human construct. Agreed.




And here is where we disagree. The punishment and reward is not arbitrary. It happens within the very tight parameters of both explicit laws and unspoken social rules. It also happens for a reason, and that reason is to provide a framework that makes it possible for people to live with each other. The more closely packed people are together, the more of these laws and social rules there will be.



Again we disagree. These things are bad or good within the framework of living in the world and living with other people. Just because rape (for example) doesn't break the laws of physics doesn't make it value-neutral(going up a couple levels in your super-systems). It breaks the social contract that makes it possible for people to live with each other and thus breaks explicit laws in every human society. That it is a concept created by humans and doesn't apply to animals forcing sex on each other doesn't turn it into an example of brainwashing. It is an example of what humans have agreed is a necessary rule to make it possible for us to live in groups.

To pick another example from your list, feeding your dog isn't good because it helps canine evolution (going up a level in your super-systems). It is good because it upholds the social contract humans made with dogs many thousands of years ago when our ancestors domesticated the wolves that hung around campsites waiting for scraps. In this contract, humans give dogs food and shelter in exchange for companionship and defense. We have agreed to feed them and not eat them. They have agreed to accept us as a pack leader. That it is good to feed your dog and bad to starve him isn't arbitrary and it isn't brainwashing.

I'm not going to go through your whole list. I just picked one example of bad and one example of good to show how these aren't arbitrary or brainwashing even though they are human constructs. They are how we live with each other, live in the world, and live with other animals.




True love isn't excluded. It's a construct that helps us live with each other.



I think that your model is standard sociology. It says that humans self-impose rules. This is in opposition to religion which says that the rules are imposed by a deity or deities. There are always a few people around who think that since these rules are self-imposed, it is perfectly ok to not follow them and anyone who does is a fool. I hope you are not one of these people and are just dabbling in it as a thought exercise.

Even the striving for surviving is only given in a subsystem. It can not be judged, that life is good, death is bad.
There is a cause for humans to exist, and that evolution happened, and humans strive for surviving.
But there is neither a reason nor a target. Therefore everything that is constructive for surviving can only be considered good in a subsystem that defines surviving as the target.
The thing about love was just a joke to appease my fiancee.

Even though value judgements are only valid inside their subsystem, that is enough to call them valid. A value judgement doesn't have to be so literally universal to be valid. Life is good and death is bad for each of us within the little subsystem of our own lives. In the larger subsystem of life on earth, life and death are both good, since life isn't possible without death. But the biological fact that all of us must eventually die in order for life in general to continue doesn't mean that we should all be suicidal or that it's ok to kill people because they will die eventually anyway. Each subsystem has its' own values and those values are valid for making judgements even though the values only apply within that subsystem.

The stars don't care whether there is life on earth or not. The stars are in a different subsystem where life on earth is not relevent and earth values don't apply. But that doesn't mean it's ok and value-neutral to destroy all life on earth.

You seem to be arguing that since no value system applies everywhere in the cosmos, no value judgement is valid. I am arguing that value judgements are perfectly valid within the subsystem where they apply.

Inside the subsystems they are valid.
But even if all of the living organisms on earth strive for reproduction because their chemical conditions don't allow it to be different, this doesn't make it less replaceable.
Only if you could out of any reason prove, that there is a higher sense of existence. And even if a god would have created us, our sense of existence would also only be given in gods subsystems but not in his supersystems- he wouldn't have a sense of existence himself therefore we don't have it either. Only if another god...∞