|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:19:13 GMT
tpfkar Such a universe doesn't exist. And the sh!tness of a universe without life is entirely subjective, although the call made by most un- morbidly-deranged non- homicidal-maniacs. I have never in any way said there should be no encroachment on reproductive rights. Certainly any for patently psychopathic reasons would be wholly rejected. And I also never suggested every specific "existence" is infinitely preferable to nonexistence, in fact I've stated outright there are a multitude of fates worse than death. You just have a combination of crippled processing power and complete lack of integrity. We work to ameliorate extreme cases and eliminate them in the future - without the slaughterous supervillain psychopathy. It's not a burden, but a wonderful option to dance it out or leave early. They can decide for themselves once mature/competent enough to make the call. Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born: "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."Such a universe once existed, and may exist now (if 'now' has any meaning in relation to parallel universes). If there's nobody to subjectively judge a universe without life as being bad, then how can it be subjectively bad? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/bb9421od5/wazup.gif) Your earlier posts on this have never allowed for any possibility for the action of deliberate procreation to be irresponsible or harmful; or for the child to be anything but cock-a-hoop about having the 'wonderful choice' of suffering in unimaginable excruciating pain every moment of their life, or opting out (which likely wouldn't be an option at all for someone so severely disabled). There are peeps, and the sane ones (not the confused bugeyed green-faced ones) do judge it. And you're insane again about my earlier posts. Or just plain stupid. Again , I don't have to meet your lugubrious handwrung nonsense with subtlety and spell out caveats in every post that have been noted countless times prior. And just look at what you quoted for the non- homicidal-maniac response to your begs to extremes as excuse for your overliteral psycopathies. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:27:13 GMT
tpfkar Such a universe once existed, and may exist now (if 'now' has any meaning in relation to parallel universes). If there's nobody to subjectively judge a universe without life as being bad, then how can it be subjectively bad? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/bb9421od5/wazup.gif) Your earlier posts on this have never allowed for any possibility for the action of deliberate procreation to be irresponsible or harmful; or for the child to be anything but cock-a-hoop about having the 'wonderful choice' of suffering in unimaginable excruciating pain every moment of their life, or opting out (which likely wouldn't be an option at all for someone so severely disabled). There are peeps, and the sane ones (not the confused bugeyed green-faced confused ones) do judge it. And you're insane again about my earlier posts. Or just plain stupid. Again , I don't have to meet your lugubrious handwrung nonsense with subtlety and spell out caveats in every post that have been noted countless times prior. And just look at what you quoted for the non- homicidal-maniac response to your begs to extremes as excuse for your overliteral psycopathies. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEWhat "peeps" have directly experienced a lifeless universe? If anyone claims to have experienced a universe without life, then they haven't experienced a universe without life, because they would have needed to have existed in that universe in order to believe that they were experiencing a universe without life. There would have needed to have been at least 1 consciousness extant in the universe in order to judge that there was any kind of deficit at all. I'm not 'insane' about your previous posts, because you've stated that nobody has any business to try and prevent others from reproducing their suffering in the universe (and suffering that is many orders of magnitude worse). You've treated it as an individual rights issues to create new lives freely and without impediment.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:27:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:32:13 GMT
"Prefer" is a comparison between more than 1 different known quantities. It's meaningless to claim a preference when one is only familiar with one of the options, and where the other (unknown option) is a situation where one could never feel that they're missing out on the other option.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:34:44 GMT
tpfkar There are peeps, and the sane ones (not the confused bugeyed green-faced confused ones) do judge it. And you're insane again about my earlier posts. Or just plain stupid. Again , I don't have to meet your lugubrious handwrung nonsense with subtlety and spell out caveats in every post that have been noted countless times prior. And just look at what you quoted for the non- homicidal-maniac response to your begs to extremes as excuse for your overliteral psycopathies. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEWhat "peeps" have directly experienced a lifeless universe? If anyone claims to have experienced a universe without life, then they haven't experienced a universe without life, because they would have needed to have existed in that universe in order to believe that they were experiencing a universe without life. There would have needed to have been at least 1 consciousness extant in the universe in order to judge that there was any kind of deficit at all. I'm not 'insane' about your previous posts, because you've stated that nobody has any business to try and prevent others from reproducing their suffering in the universe (and suffering that is many orders of magnitude worse). You've treated it as an individual rights issues to create new lives freely and without impediment. Your babble is just that. No one has to directly experience anything to make a call. Pure dippy foolishness. You're quite insane or again just stupid, because you try to conflate not entertaining restricting via your deranged "reproducing their suffering in the universe" as favoring some blanket "no encroachment on reproductive rights". Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:38:57 GMT
tpfkar What "peeps" have directly experienced a lifeless universe? If anyone claims to have experienced a universe without life, then they haven't experienced a universe without life, because they would have needed to have existed in that universe in order to believe that they were experiencing a universe without life. There would have needed to have been at least 1 consciousness extant in the universe in order to judge that there was any kind of deficit at all. I'm not 'insane' about your previous posts, because you've stated that nobody has any business to try and prevent others from reproducing their suffering in the universe (and suffering that is many orders of magnitude worse). You've treated it as an individual rights issues to create new lives freely and without impediment. Your babble is just that. No one has to directly experience anything to make a call. Pure dippy foolishness. You're quite insane or again just stupid, because you try to conflate not entertaining restricting via your deranged "reproducing their suffering in the universe" as favoring some blanket "no encroachment on reproductive rights". Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThe whole point of the lifeless universe is that nobody has to experience it, and if there are no experiencers, there can never be any deficit. It reminds me of this quote, which is quite apposite here: “Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?
Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear. Religious tyranny did domineer. At length the mighty one of Greece Began to assent the liberty of man.” - Epicurus How can the lifeless universe be a 'bad' thing when 'bad' is a subjective judgement, and by definition, nobody will ever experience the lifeless universe in order to make the judgement?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:39:16 GMT
tpfkar "Prefer" is a comparison between more than 1 different known quantities. It's meaningless to claim a preference when one is only familiar with one of the options, and where the other (unknown option) is a situation where one could never feel that they're missing out on the other option. I don't think so. Most humans are quite conceptual. Some people's deranged concepts even lead them to hope their man in the WH nukes the world. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:43:23 GMT
tpfkar "Prefer" is a comparison between more than 1 different known quantities. It's meaningless to claim a preference when one is only familiar with one of the options, and where the other (unknown option) is a situation where one could never feel that they're missing out on the other option. I don't think so. Most humans are quite conceptual. Some people's deranged concepts even lead them to hope their man int eh WH nukes the world. Does Free Will Exist?Nobody has any concept of what it would be like to not exist, because everything that we can imagine comes from the perspective of being an experiencer. But non-existence is not something that can be experienced. Nobody has any basis to claim that they prefer existence to non-existence. To prefer something means that there has to be another condition that can at least be imagined that would be less desirable (and where one would find it less desirable if one found onesself in that condition).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:46:11 GMT
tpfkar The whole point of the lifeless universe is that nobody has to experience it, and if there are no experiencers, there can never be any deficit. It reminds me of this quote, which is quite apposite here: “Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?
Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear. Religious tyranny did domineer. At length the mighty one of Greece Began to assent the liberty of man.” - Epicurus How can the lifeless universe be a 'bad' thing when 'bad' is a subjective judgement, and by definition, there's nobody who will ever have to experience a completely lifeless universe? This universe has life in it. Humans prefer it that way. We can and do judge anything as good/bad. A lifeless universe is judged bad by the vast majority of mostly hinged people, just as it is judged "good" by the crushed, the incapable, and some homicidal narcissistic psychopaths. And it's got nothing to do with fear. It's coming regardless, I'd just prefer that nutcases don't make the world infinitely worse in their morbid goals for religious perfection. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:52:31 GMT
tpfkar The whole point of the lifeless universe is that nobody has to experience it, and if there are no experiencers, there can never be any deficit. It reminds me of this quote, which is quite apposite here: “Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?
Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear. Religious tyranny did domineer. At length the mighty one of Greece Began to assent the liberty of man.” - Epicurus How can the lifeless universe be a 'bad' thing when 'bad' is a subjective judgement, and by definition, there's nobody who will ever have to experience a completely lifeless universe? This universe has life in it. Humans prefer it that way. We can and do judge anything as good/bad. A lifeless universe is judged bad by the vast majority of mostly hinged people, just as it is judged "good" by the crushed, the incapable, and some homicidal narcissistic psychopaths. And it's got nothing to do with fear. It's coming regardless, I'd just prefer that nutcases don't make the world infinitely worse in their morbid goals for religious perfection. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Your responses aren't making any sense. I'm asking how a lifeless universe would be bad if it actually happened, at the actual time when the universe is lifeless. I'm not asking about whether living people in a universe with life dread the possibility of a future universe without life. That has nothing to do with it at all. I want to know how it would have been a bad thing if this universe had never developed sentient life (and therefore nobody ever existed or would exist to fret about something that they'd never have to personally experience, and neither would anyone else).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:53:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 16:54:55 GMT
You have to be at least able to imagine experiencing the alternative in order to be able to have a preference for what you currently have. If you can't even imagine the alternative to existence, then on what basis are you formulating this 'preference'?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:57:06 GMT
tpfkar This universe has life in it. Humans prefer it that way. We can and do judge anything as good/bad. A lifeless universe is judged bad by the vast majority of mostly hinged people, just as it is judged "good" by the crushed, the incapable, and some homicidal narcissistic psychopaths. And it's got nothing to do with fear. It's coming regardless, I'd just prefer that nutcases don't make the world infinitely worse in their morbid goals for religious perfection. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. Your responses aren't making any sense. I'm asking how a lifeless universe would be bad if it actually happened, at the actual time when the universe is lifeless. I'm not asking about whether living people in a universe with life dread the possibility of a future universe without life. That has nothing to do with it at all. I want to know how it would have been a bad thing if this universe had never developed sentient life (and therefore nobody ever existed or would exist to fret about something that they'd never have to personally experience, and neither would anyone else). I don't doubt that basic sense confuses the hell out of you. It wouldn't have life, which to humans of the hinged sort would be a bad thing. "Bad" == "missing this great great thing we now have". "Good" and ""bad" are purely human (sentient) concepts, so divorcing them from us is pure twittedness. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 16:59:58 GMT
tpfkar The way you're leaning on "benefit", everything everyone does is ultimately for their own "benefit". People can project the spread of happiness and like it (desired for their own reasons). And once conceived, it's for the extant one (of course ultimately for their own reasons). Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceIf people think that what they're doing is spreading happiness, then they need to learn that happiness is only something that's needed as a solution to a problem, whether an imminent one or a potential one. Our minds aren't happiness factories. Evolution didn't have a guiding principle to try and maximise happiness, only to maximise genetic success. Once we find one thing that satisfies us, it makes us happy for a while, and then our happiness level restores to its normal equilibrium. Even a lot of very wealthy people who have lots of friends and family are extremely miserable, and just end up in the position where it gets harder and harder to satisfy their cravings, and they end up on a path through life of escalating risk and danger. Only in the mind of the deranged. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) "Need" is not a concept relevant to our existence/nonexistence. Your pathetic experiences are not writ large. And competent peeps who've had enough can exercise their option.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 17:02:28 GMT
tpfkar Your responses aren't making any sense. I'm asking how a lifeless universe would be bad if it actually happened, at the actual time when the universe is lifeless. I'm not asking about whether living people in a universe with life dread the possibility of a future universe without life. That has nothing to do with it at all. I want to know how it would have been a bad thing if this universe had never developed sentient life (and therefore nobody ever existed or would exist to fret about something that they'd never have to personally experience, and neither would anyone else). I don't doubt that basic sense confuses the hell out of you. It wouldn't have life, which to humans of the hinged sort would be a bad thing. "Bad" == "missing this great great thing we now have". "Good" and ""bad" are purely human (sentient) concepts, so divorcing them from us is pure twittedness. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEHow would it be bad if nobody ever had to experience it, and 'bad' is something that can only be a subjective judgement? This is going back to your initial claim that a lifeless universe (which would include one that existed before sentient life, as well as one that existed after it) would be intrinsically "bad" and "broken" somehow. You can declare that it would be 'bad', but that's without having experienced it already, imagining what it would be like, or having any expectation of experiencing it in the future. So you have insufficient data to be able to claim that. Of course good and bad are purely concepts that exist in the eye of the sentient beholder; which is why a universe without life cannot be bad, and there is no productive use in such a universe for 'good' to be brought into existence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 17:02:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 17:04:58 GMT
tpfkar If people think that what they're doing is spreading happiness, then they need to learn that happiness is only something that's needed as a solution to a problem, whether an imminent one or a potential one. Our minds aren't happiness factories. Evolution didn't have a guiding principle to try and maximise happiness, only to maximise genetic success. Once we find one thing that satisfies us, it makes us happy for a while, and then our happiness level restores to its normal equilibrium. Even a lot of very wealthy people who have lots of friends and family are extremely miserable, and just end up in the position where it gets harder and harder to satisfy their cravings, and they end up on a path through life of escalating risk and danger. Only in the mind of the deranged. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) "Need" is not a concept relevant to our existence/nonexistence. Your pathetic experiences are not writ large. And competent peeps who've had enough can exercise their option.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****""Need" is relevant to justifying one's actions on behalf of someone else. Moral judgements being taken on behalf of someone else must take into account how the decision would have a bearing on the wellbeing of whomever is going to be reaping the fruits of that decision.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 17:06:25 GMT
tpfkar I don't doubt that basic sense confuses the hell out of you. It wouldn't have life, which to humans of the hinged sort would be a bad thing. "Bad" == "missing this great great thing we now have". "Good" and ""bad" are purely human (sentient) concepts, so divorcing them from us is pure twittedness. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEHow would it be bad if nobody ever had to experience it, and 'bad' is something that can only be a subjective judgement? This is going back to your initial claim that a lifeless universe (which would include one that existed before sentient life, as well as one that existed after it) would be intrinsically "bad" and "broken" somehow. You can declare that it would be 'bad', but that's without having experienced it already, imagining what it would be like, or having any expectation of experiencing it in the future. So you have insufficient data to be able to claim that. Of course good and bad are purely concepts that exist in the eye of the sentient beholder; which is why a universe without life cannot be bad, and there is no productive use in such a universe for 'good' to be brought into existence. It would be missing this wonderful good thing we have. "Missing good" == "baaaaaaad". We're making the subjective judgments from here. Good/bad don't exist anywhere else. And there you go trying to shat in "intrinsically" again, whatever you're frantically trying to work it to mean. And it's definitely not without concept or imagining, regardless of how many time you bot-repeat that particular stupidity. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 17:08:21 GMT
It's impossible to imagine a lifeless universe, because when you try to imagine it you are making yourself an observer of this imagined universe. Since such a universe has no observers, then your own conception of the universe has to be inaccurate, because when you think that you're imagining a universe with no life, you're actually imagining a universe with 1 human in it (you, the imaginer), bereft of company.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 11, 2018 17:09:18 GMT
|
|