Good and Bad-What is the difference?

With regard to your statement below:

…....And if you are referring to Consciousness as being special I am of the opinion of Daniel Dennett...it is not...…..

Stay on the hamsters wheel then. Your choice...you have free will to do so in UNAWARENESS.

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?

Pay close attention why Dennett is so concerned with not dropping the illusion of free will and why he defends a spin off on soft determinism to keep society functioning...

The boundary! The modern version of the problem Kant brought up:

Just go to wiki and show up your UNAWARENESS achievement there and end up.

If philosophical theories are correct then there should be correlations with other scientific disciplines and vice versa.

All sciences are interconnected.

Eccentric/Hypocritical/Unreasonable and Unaware mainstream science needs to be AWARE of this.

SOUND philosophy will concur with SOUND science.
SOUND science will concur with SOUND philosophy.

You are taking a grudge with a topic which is well know for 300 years now...congratz you are just as clueless as the vast majority around!

There is the possibility that free will is an illusion.There is also the possibility that free will is not an illusion….These are just logic output possibilities Albuquerque… nothing more nothing less….Don’t read any more into it than that….Don’t make things up that you can’t definitively prove.

If you are going have an ASSUMPTION then your ASSUMPTION needs to allow for the opposite ASSUMPTION….unless that is you practice “eccentric” science.

You are conflating/confusing/mingling Epistemology with Ontology.
As far as I know the Universal Wave Function is ONE not two. And while we locally can't compute how it will evolve and have to deal with attempts at predicting the future, as we are confronted with epistemic dilemmas through our own lack of knowledge the future of the Universal wave function is one not many. Worse even if Everett's many Worlds hypothesis was true the evolution of the Universal wave function in these parallel worlds wouldn't have anything to do with your own choice as a starting point.

This one is a bit old but brings both topics together the Free Will debate and the idea of Good and Bad as mechanisms used for the will to punish or go for retribution when we suffer.

I’m not confusing anything.

Your starting point ASSUMPTION of only Good is Bad and Bad is Good is where you are going wrong.

You are practicing unreasonable science my friend.

You will never fully understand science unless you accept that good and bad are different as another possibility.

Your choice.

You do have free will after all.

What part I don't believe in Good or Bad did you miss eh?
These are metaphors for apt or inapt, adequate or inadequate, functional or broken in social and cultural context. I am not saying it is relative either since in spite of cultural differences we are one species and mammals and we share the basics with a lot of other mammals, so there is space for some Universals...game theory explains quite clearly when a win win situation leads to cooperation or when competition is a better solution. Both have a place in reality.
Finally one remark something which is broken for a specific function might still be useful for another with less specific needs. So even the idea or apt or inapt functional or dysfunctional should be contextualized.

Why should we argue with an idiot without any AWARENESS and even perhaps short circuit in the brain? How silly we are…haha

“Sciences are all interconnected”.
Yes. Those “prisoner of consciousness” have been trying to realize it in the past 300 years. But they can’t because they are UNAWARE and just confused by their own consciousness. They were touchy and feely in their own consciousness, not in nature.

Now we are trying to realize it in the “deeper level” of PRESENCE and SELF.
We should avoid arguing endlessly with “prisoner of consciousness”. It’s useless at all. After the cross roads are two different roads extending in two different directions. Which road to go is up to one’s own choice.
We must try to avoid unnecessary disturbance from some guys with obscure purpose. They are not trying to do normal research at all.
We have to concentrate on the normal research and promote the development of science in the new era of PRESENCE and SELF. This is our mission.

You are the most presumptuous dumbest **** up I've seen around in years...
You don't know maths.
You don't know basic Physics.
You don't have a grasp on any language.
You don't relate concepts.
You're metaphors suck and your pot shot ideas are irrational.
Your sense of humour is as bad as is traditionally known from your tribe...
Retardation and presumption don't match...at a public debate you would probably be removed by cops...you are less then a shadow...when you speak you vomit. You can't be granted the tittle of a clown because such honour would offend clowns and their primary sense of humour. Your brain is probably dissolved in acid...a perfect example of pure entropy and chaos!

The bit you missed is that it could be ASSUMED that good and bad are different….the logic possibility outputs state this.

Reasonable science ASSUMES this possibility right from the offset just as it ASSUMES the opposite.

Why don’t you want to ASSUME these opposite ASSUMPTIONS when logic is still giving you the opportunity to retain your belief systems?

Until one can definitively prove that good and bad are the same is it not wise to consider the opposite assumption as well, at the same time?

Both assumptions can be factored into equations.

It sounds like perfect common sense to me.

As "Bad" and "Good" are corotated with agency and free will I don't use the terminology...is ancient and frankly a shortcut to avoid deep analysis.

I am of the opinion that crossing in front of a red light and being smashed by a car is inadequate behaviour, it isn't bad nor good just inadequate for your own sake as an individual. Whether the emergent terminology of "good" and "bad" have use it is clear they do specially in tribal warfare and stress relief. I don't take it any further then that.

As I often say Donald Duck is a true cartoon...
You see this is not about what is true and what is false but rather about in what domain of truth things fit!