A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

i’d like to know what generates the feeling of space that is the mind, because I suspect it is the closest thing to a tardis known to man.

it’s a world in there, and the sensory input and internal big screen, all that activity makes it seem bigger than it is (physically), in fact it seems to vary in size.

it shrinks when I fall asleep, or fades some.

if there’s a simple commonly experienced example to argue from that the mind exists (some people doubt it exists, or reject the term) it’s that sensation of on internal world, that feels or appears like space.

mollwollfumble said:

A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

Looking for simple right or wrong answers from complex issues will get you nowhere.

mollwollfumble said:

A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

I guess the answer to you question depends on attitude:

A) The glass is half full
Vs
B) The glass is half empty

All of the above.

>>>i’d like to know what generates the feeling of space that is the mind, because I suspect it is the closest thing to a tardis known to man.

Electrochemicals within the brain.

mollwollfumble said:

A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

yes

wait

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>i’d like to know what generates the feeling of space that is the mind, because I suspect it is the closest thing to a tardis known to man.

Electrochemicals within the brain.

of course there are reductive explanations, the magic though doesn’t seem like reduction.

mollwollfumble said:

A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

Not so keen on answers so far. I tend towards B A A A B.

There are qualitative measures of some of these already, what i’m looking for is a way to turn abstract qualitative measures into concrete ones.

For government corruption, this is a world map of government corruption, from wikipedia.

The following is a map of injustice, but only as it relates to discrimination against women.

Insanity is more than just mental illness. It also includes delusions. Mental illness has been evaluated around the world.

For robustness of nature, it seems to me that the field of “island biogeography” is well placed to do an evaluation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_biogeography

That just leaves goodness. I know a criterion that could be used in a survey to measure that.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

A) The world is basically sane with small patches of insanity
Vs
B) The world is basically insane with small patches of sanity

A) The world is basically just with small patches of injustice
Vs
B) The world is basically unjust with small patches of justice

A) Humans are basically good, with small amounts of badness
Vs
B) Humans are basically bad, with small amounts of goodness

A) Nature is basically robust with small patches of fragility
Vs
B) Nature is basically fragile with small patches of robustness

A) Government is basically honest, with small amounts of corruption
Vs
B) Government is basically corrupt, with small amounts of honesty

Any others in a similar vein?

Different people hold alternative views on these. Is there a scientific way to determine who is right?

Not so keen on answers so far. I tend towards B A A A B.

There are qualitative measures of some of these already, what i’m looking for is a way to turn abstract qualitative measures into concrete ones.

For government corruption, this is a world map of government corruption, from wikipedia.

The following is a map of injustice, but only as it relates to discrimination against women.

Insanity is more than just mental illness. It also includes delusions. Mental illness has been evaluated around the world.

For robustness of nature, it seems to me that the field of “island biogeography” is well placed to do an evaluation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_biogeography

That just leaves goodness. I know a criterion that could be used in a survey to measure that.

You are considering things at such vastly different scales, it is difficult to see any relationship.