Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:13:47 GMT
The "bad guys" are only bad because the design is flawed. Nobody sat around in an ethereal antechamber and decided that they wanted to be born into a life where they would be a psychopath, incapable of feeling empathy or compassion for other people, and struggling with murderous rages which they will eventually stop being able to control. Maybe the test here is to see how we behave if we are given a bad hand. And how people like Trump will burn in hell because he had all the privileges in the world and instead of helping other people out he spent his whole life on himself and now trying to perpetrate evil all over the world for his own selfish pleasure and gain. Or maybe there is reincarnation and bad people with bad genes had lived a previous life as a beautiful and rich person with a great life. now he is currently living a bad one. then he will live a good one again, or perhaps live as a plant or an ant. who knows ? I enjoy existence sometimes. At others, i hate it. I'm not religious, so I don't believe that life is a test. And we certainly do not have free will in the libertarian sense, so whoever set all this up would know how we would fare in their test, because the results of the test (for each of us) would be sown in the seeds of creation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:21:09 GMT
Non-consciousness cannot be turned into some form of torture, and therefore I believe that it is morally unacceptable to put someone at risk of harm for a gain which is both ephemeral and unnecessary. The positive is unnecessary, because nothing would have been lost and there would be no deprivation in the event that consciousness were not created to begin with. Whether you are a deity creating sentient life, or a parent procreating. It's an asymmetry which you haven't addressed. Because I don't believe there is an asymmetry. If you are not born then you miss out on all negativity, but then you also miss out on all positivity. You say the latter doesn't matter because you are not conscious of being deprived of anything. On that we agree. However I think also the former doesn't matter by the same token - you don't appreciate what you were spared. You can only get round that by defining positivity as anti-negativity (thereby saying that non-birth has no negative component while birth ranges from negative to neutral) - I think that's a bit of a semantic trick, relying more on a pessimistic perspective than cool logic.
As I said in our previous conversation, why does it make sense to say it's a good thing that the unicorn massacre of 1986 never happened due to unicorns not existing, but it doesn't make sense to say it's a bad thing the unicorn ball of 1993 never happened due to unicorns not existing?
Normally this asymmetry is intuitive. For example, although there are some responsibilities in society to do good (i.e. pay taxes), the one responsibility of all and that takes precedent over all others, is to do no harm. There is no obligation to donate time and money to charity, there is no obligation to be kind to others. We are just obligated by law not to go out of our way to inflict harm on each others, even if we believe that there is eventually going to be a reward which is worth the harm. That's why it would be illegal for me to use your bank details, against your knowledge, to make risky investments, even if I planned on paying you back more than I'd stolen in the event that the investments produced a windfall. Bringing someone into existence may not be directly harming them, but it does bring them into the path of unavoidable harm and probably most people will encounter serious harm at some stage in life. The reason why looking at it from the optimistic perspective doesn't work is that good and bad are irrelevant concepts in a universe without consciousness. When you bring good and harm into the world via the birth of consciousness, so do you bring into the world inequality. You create a lottery in which there are winners and losers, and who falls into which category is decided by chance rather than by any intrinsic merit. If you are a God who wants to bring sentience into the universe, who knows that some of his created beings are going to experience grievous suffering but that others are going to experience great joys, then what you are doing is you are making the former group pay for the experience of the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:22:20 GMT
I'm pretty sure most of them actually do. Exactly.. They don't feel anything. They don't exist. How the hell do you see that as an improvement over a mere mediocre existence? (I mean.. I'm not referring to a person who is in constant pain or suffering... But.. even then that's kind of debatable) I've been non-existent before... I'm not really looking forward to returning to it. Non-existence only seems worrying to you based on your perspective as a conscious life form which does exist. Once you get to non-existence, it's not going to be bad at all and you shall want for nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:24:15 GMT
We agree that life is unfair, but you've ignored the fact that non-existence is just as good as paradise... That would only be true if the sum of experience is a zero sum of pleasure and pain. But is that likely the case? I think it's more like sensory fatigue, where prolonged exposure to a particular sensation results in reduced stimulation, but obviously it still isn't a zero sum situation. I can stare at a pattern for a while and it starts to fade out, but that doesn't mean that being blind is just as good as being able to see. Being blind is an experience - an experience of the deprivation of sight. Non-existence means no deprivation and no desires. There's no hunger which needs to be satiated. When you are brought into existence, the negative has to exist before the positive can exist. For example, you need to be fed and sheltered, you have emotional needs, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:28:02 GMT
Because I don't believe there is an asymmetry. If you are not born then you miss out on all negativity, but then you also miss out on all positivity. You say the latter doesn't matter because you are not conscious of being deprived of anything. On that we agree. However I think also the former doesn't matter by the same token - you don't appreciate what you were spared. You can only get round that by defining positivity as anti-negativity (thereby saying that non-birth has no negative component while birth ranges from negative to neutral) - I think that's a bit of a semantic trick, relying more on a pessimistic perspective than cool logic.
As I said in our previous conversation, why does it make sense to say it's a good thing that the unicorn massacre of 1986 never happened due to unicorns not existing, but it doesn't make sense to say it's a bad thing the unicorn ball of 1993 never happened due to unicorns not existing?
Bringing someone into existence may not be directly harming them, but it does bring them into the path of unavoidable harm and probably most people will encounter serious harm at some stage in life. The reason why looking at it from the optimistic perspective doesn't work is that good and bad are irrelevant concepts in a universe without consciousness. When you bring good and harm into the world via the birth of consciousness, so do you bring into the world inequality. You create a lottery in which there are winners and losers, and who falls into which category is decided by chance rather than by any intrinsic merit. If you are a God who wants to bring sentience into the universe, who knows that some of his created beings are going to experience grievous suffering but that others are going to experience great joys, then what you are doing is you are making the former group pay for the experience of the latter. Are you suicidal ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 19:29:04 GMT
That would only be true if the sum of experience is a zero sum of pleasure and pain. But is that likely the case? I think it's more like sensory fatigue, where prolonged exposure to a particular sensation results in reduced stimulation, but obviously it still isn't a zero sum situation. I can stare at a pattern for a while and it starts to fade out, but that doesn't mean that being blind is just as good as being able to see. Being blind is an experience - an experience of the deprivation of sight. Non-existence means no deprivation and no desires. There's no hunger which needs to be satiated. When you are brought into existence, the negative has to exist before the positive can exist. For example, you need to be fed and sheltered, you have emotional needs, etc. What about a dreamless sleep. Is it close to non-existence?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 23, 2017 20:07:00 GMT
That would only be true if the sum of experience is a zero sum of pleasure and pain. But is that likely the case? I think it's more like sensory fatigue, where prolonged exposure to a particular sensation results in reduced stimulation, but obviously it still isn't a zero sum situation. I can stare at a pattern for a while and it starts to fade out, but that doesn't mean that being blind is just as good as being able to see. Being blind is an experience - an experience of the deprivation of sight. Non-existence means no deprivation and no desires. There's no hunger which needs to be satiated. When you are brought into existence, the negative has to exist before the positive can exist. For example, you need to be fed and sheltered, you have emotional needs, etc. My point is that being conscious for an indefinite period of time can be better than non-existence. I don't think boredom or other forms of suffering would necessarily nullify the pleasure that one could enjoy even if being conscious for a "greatly extended" period of time. If I understood correctly your statement that I quoted, you are denying that possibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:11:52 GMT
Being blind is an experience - an experience of the deprivation of sight. Non-existence means no deprivation and no desires. There's no hunger which needs to be satiated. When you are brought into existence, the negative has to exist before the positive can exist. For example, you need to be fed and sheltered, you have emotional needs, etc. My point is that being conscious for an indefinite period of time can be better than non-existence. I don't think boredom or other forms of suffering would necessarily nullify the pleasure that one could enjoy even if being conscious for a "greatly extended" period of time. If I understood correctly your statement that I quoted, you are denying that possibility. My point is that positive experience is only useful to satiate the hunger that was caused by the existence of consciousness itself. A non-existent entity cannot covet sentient experience, but a conscious mind can yearn for non-existence. In order to have the reward of heaven, it is necessary to be put, without consent, in the path of danger and harm and this is a cycle which perpetuates itself, so your existence is likely to facilitate the suffering of someone else and will guarantee it if you have children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:12:43 GMT
Bringing someone into existence may not be directly harming them, but it does bring them into the path of unavoidable harm and probably most people will encounter serious harm at some stage in life. The reason why looking at it from the optimistic perspective doesn't work is that good and bad are irrelevant concepts in a universe without consciousness. When you bring good and harm into the world via the birth of consciousness, so do you bring into the world inequality. You create a lottery in which there are winners and losers, and who falls into which category is decided by chance rather than by any intrinsic merit. If you are a God who wants to bring sentience into the universe, who knows that some of his created beings are going to experience grievous suffering but that others are going to experience great joys, then what you are doing is you are making the former group pay for the experience of the latter. Are you suicidal ? Rationally suicidal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:18:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:20:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 23, 2017 20:30:00 GMT
My point is that positive experience is only useful to satiate the hunger that was caused by the existence of consciousness itself. A non-existent entity cannot covet sentient experience, but a conscious mind can yearn for non-existence. In order to have the reward of heaven, it is necessary to be put, without consent, in the path of danger and harm and this is a cycle which perpetuates itself, so your existence is likely to facilitate the suffering of someone else and will guarantee it if you have children. Experience, including positive experience doesn't need to be useful. Positive experiences just need to be fun. I'd like to see some evidence that positive experience is a function of satiating hunger. The utility of the universe existing is meaningless except self-referentially, and consciousness is the same. By the way, I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of heaven. I'd like to see some evidence of its existence as well before I go there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:34:28 GMT
My point is that positive experience is only useful to satiate the hunger that was caused by the existence of consciousness itself. A non-existent entity cannot covet sentient experience, but a conscious mind can yearn for non-existence. In order to have the reward of heaven, it is necessary to be put, without consent, in the path of danger and harm and this is a cycle which perpetuates itself, so your existence is likely to facilitate the suffering of someone else and will guarantee it if you have children. Experience, including positive experience doesn't need to be useful. Positive experiences just need to be fun. I'd like to see some evidence that positive experience is a function of satiating hunger. The utility of the universe existing is meaningless except self-referentially, and consciousness is the same. By the way, I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of heaven. I'd like to see some evidence of its existence as well before I go there. If you're going to be experiencing something, then naturally you want that to be positive. But if you have no hunger or threat of suffering which is induced by consciousness, then positivity is irrelevant. Once you are born, the threat of unpleasant experiences and of your needs going unmet is what needs to be dealt with before you can enjoy a positive experience. Back at the time when the universe was being formed, it was a very violent place, but still a peaceful and benign place because there was no consciousness to feel harmed by the chaos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:41:24 GMT
Experience, including positive experience doesn't need to be useful. Positive experiences just need to be fun. I'd like to see some evidence that positive experience is a function of satiating hunger. The utility of the universe existing is meaningless except self-referentially, and consciousness is the same. By the way, I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of heaven. I'd like to see some evidence of its existence as well before I go there. If you're going to be experiencing something, then naturally you want that to be positive. But if you have no hunger or threat of suffering which is induced by consciousness, then positivity is irrelevant. Once you are born, the threat of unpleasant experiences and of your needs going unmet is what needs to be dealt with before you can enjoy a positive experience. Back at the time when the universe was being formed, it was a very violent place, but still a peaceful and benign place because there was no consciousness to feel harmed by the chaos. Have you tried various drugs? I am not saying it as a meme that potheads tell each other, or some bad drug addicts do, but sometimes you need to experience the world while on drugs. It may make you experience different perceptions.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2017 20:42:26 GMT
Because I don't believe there is an asymmetry. If you are not born then you miss out on all negativity, but then you also miss out on all positivity. You say the latter doesn't matter because you are not conscious of being deprived of anything. On that we agree. However I think also the former doesn't matter by the same token - you don't appreciate what you were spared. You can only get round that by defining positivity as anti-negativity (thereby saying that non-birth has no negative component while birth ranges from negative to neutral) - I think that's a bit of a semantic trick, relying more on a pessimistic perspective than cool logic.
As I said in our previous conversation, why does it make sense to say it's a good thing that the unicorn massacre of 1986 never happened due to unicorns not existing, but it doesn't make sense to say it's a bad thing the unicorn ball of 1993 never happened due to unicorns not existing?
Normally this asymmetry is intuitive. For example, although there are some responsibilities in society to do good (i.e. pay taxes), the one responsibility of all and that takes precedent over all others, is to do no harm. There is no obligation to donate time and money to charity, there is no obligation to be kind to others. We are just obligated by law not to go out of our way to inflict harm on each others, even if we believe that there is eventually going to be a reward which is worth the harm. We don't punish people for not doing good by law but people who could do more but refuse are usually looked down upon - would we not be disgusted by someone who walks past a drowning child? Do we not shun the millionaire who gives nothing to charity as a miser? Plus why only look at the stick and not the carrot? We praise, honour and celebrate heroes and philanthropists. Sometimes we even celebrate them despite previous misdeeds. You could perhaps say that we condemn negativity more than we praise positivity on average and there is still a slight assymetry. But if we are comparing a supposed existence of pure positivity like Heaven supposedly is (put aside for the meantime whether such a state is achievable) then this would be better than non-existence, no? Unless you keep your savings under your mattress, then banks constantly take low risk strategies with other people's money and most of us are content with that. But even if you discount that (after all it's low risk and there is consent), politicians, civil servants, military and pretty much everyone else in society does things that may pose a risk to us without any consent. If I said no-one in my town should drive unless they received my consent in case they run me over, this would be pretty unreasonable of me, no? And heck there's not even much of a chance of anything positive coming to me if people drive, unlike someone making investments on my behalf. Ok I probably wouldn't argue with that. But from a utilitarian point of view, could the gamble be worth it? Particularly if you are of the opinion (as many believers in the afterlife are) that most/all will achieve unending bliss eventually? In that case would the risk not be worth it? If we were to use the Rawlsian idea of a veil of ignorance, would we choose to exist not knowing whether our existence would have more or less suffering than happiness? I think some at least would make that gamble - perhaps even the majority. You could of course argue that such a thought experiment is impossible to really run in our heads since we have a natural intuition to recoil from non-existence. But you admitted yourself that the obligation to do no harm is an intuition rather than a demonstrable truth. Why is it ok to rely on intuition sometimes but not others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:42:39 GMT
Didn't she commit suicide?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:44:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:46:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:48:26 GMT
Positive thoughts only. Say no to antinatalism and rational suicide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:54:43 GMT
|
|