Good and Bad-What is the difference?

Are you saying that hot is cold as an absolute....that darkness is light as an absolute.....that + is - as absolute as well? Now we know that that would be a lie...they are different.

There is an absolute if good and bad are different which is a possibility.

Hot and cold, as I define them, are measurable by experiment. In fact i jave a device in my house that tells me how hot or cold something is.

Darkness or light is also measurable. I dont have a light meter, but my cellphone can make accurate measurements.

If only I had a goodometer... to measure how good something is.

Well until you have your goodometer..all logic output possibilities are valid in both philosophy and science because assumptions are not absolutes.

Which is why I asked the original question in the post.

Sure.... But thay means that goodness is a subjective emotion

Something is good if you say it's good. It is the same as being beautiful or tasty. It is just a matter of you personal preferences.

I would agree that both goodness and badness are subjective with a philosophy that only assumes that good is bad and bad is good which are definitely only two of logic output possibilities.Logic says so not me...

That philosophy is very machine like if taken to the ultimate ....a machine has no emotions I agree, it doesn’t have life in it either.

Why are you asking about this? Are you trying to achieve clarity for some reason or you just like endless, pointless debates on word meanings?

Who cares? Good, Bad, Ugly, Beautiful.... unless you quantify each word, and for each person that quantification would be different - what use is it?

And then what? Say you both agree that it's either Good or Bad. Then what? Where are you now? Nowhere further.

You can play that silly philosophical game with any set of two unmeasurable adjectives. Tastiness and awfulness are "only two of logic output possibilities." So are melodious and cacaphonous, and silly and serious.

I totally agree with you ....UNTIL one can quantify good and bad at the absolute level one should ASSUME all logic output possibilities.

2 off of which are that good and bad are different and not the same.

So why does Most Mainstream Philosophy and Science say that they are same?

Which brings me back to my original question.

Why is it a silly philosophical game? I am not trying to trick anyone here.I am asking a perfectly logical question.

It is silly because it has no meaning.

Whether something is delicious or awful tasting doesn't tell you anything of any use about the thing. These are merely subjective opinions of a given person.

You are mistaken...taking Most Mainstream Philosophy and Science’s assumptions that good and bad are the same to the ultimate results in no meaning.

You have made up your own definition of science. It has nothing to do with the science that you would learn in a science class.

I suppose you can make up any definition you want, but it is a little annoying for those of us who have actual science degrees

I don’t understand why you are annoyed or why you think it has nothing to do with science.

We are all part of science.We are totally embroiled within science.All sciences are interconnected.

We are not separate from science.

Most Modern day science IS at cross roads ......it is presently still standing by the pool wondering whether it should jump in or not to try and find the answer to the “hard problem” of consciousness.

Most modern day scientists don’t want to become part of their own experiments and this is why no real progress has been made in the area.

You can’t separate Philosophy and Science.

Philosophy has greater insights than science.

We have a situation of the “tail wagging the dog” at the moment.

LL Cool J - I'm Bad

Who says “most mainstream Philosophy and Science ONLY accept item 1”?
The Mainstream always considers that they are “authentic” (standard): good is good;
While others who try to touch the elephant in another angle are “eccentric”: bad is bad.
If you start a topic “gangster’s philosophy / logic”, perhaps it would be more attractive. Haha

(Piggy never understands why those guys who look down upon or unhappy with the academic achievement in a2k must persist on PRESENCE in this site. For what purpose?)

Hi...htam9876...good to hear from you.

Well I know what you mean...now that we have moved into a new era....most modern day science IS the “eccentric” but is UNAWARE of this, which is precisely the point I am trying to get across.

Please explain the “gangster’s philosophy/ logic” again.

I think now is a good time.

Apologies if I have put you on the spot there htam9876....I understand if you want to leave at that...but I do know what you mean and it is correct.

Science cannot move on until it accepts all 4 off logic output possibilities (ASSUMPTIONS) with equal merit.

Let's review the four logic possibilitrd again

1) Silly is Silly and Serious is Serious
2) Silly is Serious and Serious is Silly
3) Silly is Silly and Serious is Silly
4) Silly is Serious and Serious is Serious.

I think it is all silly.

You guys think that any random thought you have is science whether or not it is backed up by observable fact or experiment.

So let's agree on a term for what I consider to be real science, where any theory has to be tested by experiment before it is accepted and any claim that is untestable isn't factual.

I would call this "real science". You all might not like that term. Should we call it "academic science"?

Well...how much can a dog observe about your PC?
You never talk about a species related limit on perception...that strikes me as not very "scientific".