How do we make the distinction of what answers are right?

An extract from Semiotic
Conversation so far between Bunny and Swami. Swami's points are quoted in my posts.

Question; How do we make the distinction of what answers are right? - Sayf Udeen

Here's what I think about this:

Right and wrong are concepts which are fixed to a view of reality. For example, in our reality, if you have one apple and you get another apple, you have two apples. In another version of reality, you could have one apple, get another apple, and have 576.5 apples. Seeing as reality is our perception of reality, the concept of right and wrong is fixed to perception. If we perceive it that 1+1=2, then it is. This is what makes George Orwell's idea of doublethink so scary: because perception powers reality, and everything that comes with it (assuming you still haven't read 1984, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink ). The fact that our reality is whatever we want our reality to be, the hitting home of the fact that our reality is so fragile, is quite sobering. If we want to believe that 1+1=3, then it is possible for you to convince yourself of that. It's just very hard. We stick to our perception of reality, because it's too hard to think about all the implications of a new perception of reality, no matter how small a change. This is why religion is such a big decision in a person's life: it's such an effort to change your perception of reality.

The distinction between right and wrong, is therefore down to our perception. If I tell you that 1+1=3, you'll tell me that's wrong, because in your version of reality it isn't. A serial rapist's reality will say that rape is right, not wrong. A 1400s slave ship driver would tell you that slavery is right, not wrong. A priest will tell you that religion is right, not wrong.

This is where my view of science comes in. Science tells you both: that it's right and wrong. This however, doesn't conform to our usual method of one or the other, so often people will go with "science is right" or "science is wrong". Science has a rather accepting, persisiting manner. It accepts that it's wrong on some counts, and then tries to get the right answers in those areas, no matter if it's not possible to find the answers.

So, how do we make the distinction between right and wrong? We just do. Wether we're right or wrong in thinking that an answer is right or wrong, in the end, is down to the onlookers view of right and wrong.

-----

Reality isn't a perception, reality is a manifestation of a large group subconscious.

Whoops, I forgot to mention this in my previous post. You are right, to a extent. I still think that reality is a perception, and one of perceptions major flaws is a flaw that effects all thinking by anyone, the sheep effect. Your thoughts are adjusted to how people around you are thinking: Likewise, our perceptions are altered by what other people's perceptions are. "Insane" people have a different view of reality from the norm, that's what makes them "insane".

Science may have achieved some good, but ultimately it drains the planet of its mystery and magic, that has been here since the dawn of time.

We simply do not have the time, as an entire race, to figure out everything. There will always be mystery. Always. And let's not forget that too much mystery and magic is a bad thing. Think superstitious bullsh*t that had us burning people at the stake for fear of them being a witch.

Humans are the most destructive and ignorant force on the planet, as they tear it up, making their concrete reality, where money is the key to living

I agree, we are the most destructive force on the planet. But, that is driven by our own drives that have been with us for millions of years, that have been in every successful species for all of time. To reproduce, to eat, to seek shelter, to dominate. The only problem is, we've done numbers 1,3 and 4 much too much. The concrete world that we live in is a result of us wanting safety, security, shelter. The overpopulation that drives the expansion of our concrete world comes from the drive to reproduce. Hell, even our religions encourage having lots of kids, driving up more population as we live in a would less prone to attacks from other animals. And to dominate. Every animal, everywhere, has this urge. You see a pride of lions. You think that lion who is second to top is happy being there? No, he's going to go for number 1. And money is behind every single one of those four drives I mentioned. You need money to be able to eat. Having more money means a better environment for reproduction. Having more money means you can live in a safer, more sheltered environment. Having more money than anyone else is domination. Money plays on our most fundamental urges. Of course it's the key to living for us. We can't live without it.

Humans won't be satisfied until the planet is as hollow as their lives...

Humans will be dead long before that happens, and a new species will be evolving.

-----

People didn't burn people at the stake for being witches because of superstition, they did it because their was a misprint in a translation of the bible. It should have said do not suffer a poisoner to live, but instead it said do not suffer a witch to live.

You really think that's what drove it? Two things drove the burnings of the witch; superstitious idiot masses who still believed that imprisoning live cats in the wall of a house was good luck, and to walk under a ladder would bring bad luck, and the people in power. These guys were the clever people; they were the ones who would find someone they didn't like, and burn them for some small thing. Or, they would carry out some "test" which would usually end up killing the person anyway. And when there wasn't anyone which they didn't like to burn, they burnt some random person anyway, because it made the superstitious masses feel safer. My king is burning the witches, making it safer for me! Long live the king! See the effect these guys got in the end?

How can a turtle wish to dominate anything, they just wish to eat and sleep. I don't think pride is related to domination either.

You've been watching too much cushy footage of happy animals having a happy life, having lots of kids with the weather constantly sunny, food constantly available, and always a nice hidy hole for mr turtle to climb in. In the real world, however, turtles DO fight for dominance, of a different kind. The amount of female turtles they can mate with, to be precise. They are known to tear flippers off other turtles trying to mate with the same female.

I've never seen a rabbit or a deer trying to oppress and repress other forms of life.

That's because those rabbits and deer that you've seen are not in our position, the position of being the utterly dominant race on the planet. I can guarantee you, if deer were the dominant species, bambi would make exactly the same kind of disregarding decisions as we do.

The Pagans of the ancient world didn't wish to dominate, it was powers like Rome, and Greece, power in numbers and advanced technology.

Wrong again. People aren't solitairy animals, we stick in groups. I can almost 100% guarantee you that these pagans that you are talking about lived in tribes. And if they did, I can guarantee you that there were power struggles, tribal wars, etc. And for whatever excuse they may have said it, for whatever insult, the underlying purpose of any conflict is power. Otherwise, we'd have eternal peace.

Our species is a joke.

You aren't going to improve anything by downplaying yourself, mate. You can't make a change if you don't believe in yourself in the first place. Incase you didn't notice, your a human too, and you have a choice in this world: Try to make a change, or go with the flow. If you want people to be more considerate towards the environment, then you have to say it, because you can never, ever count on anyone else to say it for you.

This is also a bit of a generalisation, yes? I can tell you that I'm not happy at all with the short-sighted ignorance of so many people. I'm a human too. But I'm not going to spend my words insulting when I could be saying something more constructive, something helpful.