I get depressed .....

I get depressed ..... Jan 6, 2018 10:18:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 10:18:32 GMT

Jan 5, 2018 2:53:54 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

Jan 5, 2018 2:41:42 GMT @miccee said:

Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on.

It's entirely obvious that "intrinsically positive", whatever it's supposed to mean, is your attempt to get somebody to say something that you try to work. "Positive" is subjective in all cases so your entire presentation was/is nonsensical even before meanderings into other peoples' conjectures and thought experiments about wwad.

Life is good == human value. You're the one who goes on and on about nonexistent being wronged (objectively!), and once you go there, then we can also project backwards from the existent based on actual evidence of wants, whether you like it or not that it highlights the utter ludicrousness of your "arguments". Nobody but you keep trying to push that "the nonexistent" are anything of any kind.

Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce

So now it's my fault that goz had a ridiculous and nonsensical answer to a statement that I made? I'm not attempting to get anyone to say anything illogical; I'm attempting to make people realise the illogic of the rationalisations that they use. And positive is indeed subjective, and it takes people to exist in the first place to subjectively value life or feel that being alive and having the choice to continue living is better than not existing. There are no such things as non-existent people, and therefore such can never be in a worse position due to not having the choice to live, as there is no mind to subjectively grasp the concept that multiple choices are superior.

Life is good is only a human value and it is only good for those who have the capability of subjectively valuing. It's something that cannot be lost or missed by not bringing someone into existence, because a non-existent person, by definition, does not exist to miss out on the good. I haven't stated anything about the non-existent being wronged. Bringing someone into a miserable life is an imposition that is inflicted on an actual person (someone can only be wronged if they exist, and by giving birth to the person you create a consciousness that can be wronged against); whereas your argument implies that there are 'non-existent people' who are missing out on the joys of life. I'm not claiming that my argument benefits any non-existent people, merely that it prevents a condition of imposition and vulnerability to harm being created where it needn't have been.