Your mode of conversation is: anything goes in; the same thing comes out. — Kenosha Kid

But glad this one nailed it for you. — Kenosha Kid

These two statements contradict no?

All my examples demonstrated the same thing. — Kenosha Kid

Incorrect. You never gave an example where we get the same result from the experiment every time following a measurement. You never actually said what the experimental results were for any previous examples. If you had said, for instance, that when we record the results on paper we get the exact same results 100% of the time after we observe said paper, that would convince me that it was the paper doing the collapsing not the mind.

Anyways I'm done wasting time on you. You never went into this with the spirit of conversation, and you are no scientific communicator. You don't actually care to help others understand, rather you use someone's ignorance to justify being an asshole. You can't call yourself a scientific communicator while attacking people for trying to understand.

It shouldn’t be. — Pinprick

Maybe but it is.

unless you consider desiring truth to be a preference. — Pinprick

What else could it be?

there is a difference between an idea being wrong and an idea being worth considering. The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong to be wrong is correct, the idea that it has to be proven wrong to be worth considering is not. What determines whether an idea is worth considering is largely personal preference. You personally seem to prefer the idea that offers the most explanatory power, that may not be the case for others.

I don't appreciate how you make me out to be some sort of religious fanatic being forcefully ignorant of how QM works. I'm not an expert. Every 2 lines I say "In my understanding". I'm not trying to rewrite or misinterpret on purpose, I just don't have a degree, so don't be an ass about it.

Without actually disagreeing, you still seem to end up concluding that therefore your claim is true. — Kenosha Kid

You hadn't cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing WITHOUT conscious observation until now. Check it. Even if we printed the results of an experiment on paper you have not shown that our conscious observation is not what collapsed it but rather that it was the recording of the results.

Perhaps observation of the film collapsed the state, I hear you ask! But no. If the film was in a superposition of a*|stripes> + b*|boobies>, then we would expect to see stripes a/(a+b)*100% of the time as we repeat the experiment. We see boobies 100% of the time. We can never get stripes with this experimental setup. Ergo each wavefunction is collapsed at the slit without consciousness of it. — Kenosha Kid

This is literally the first example you have given where "observation" is done without a conscious human. Why couldn't you just start with that?

So like I said, you have to go with Everett up to a point, assuming that decohered states continue to exist side by side until the mind cognates the "true" state, at which point the "counterfactual" state (along with the counterfactual observer's body!) vanishes. — SophistiCat

Now I'm interested in how this would hold up. In the example given, even before the mind cognates the "true" state, it had already been decided by the measurement devices placed. If a measurement device measures which slit the electron goes through, and we NEVER get a case of a striped pattern, isn't it safe to assume that the measurement is what collapsed the wave function not us? If it were us we should get a striped pattern.

As described above, the measurement collapses the wavefunction — Kenosha Kid

And this measurement is done by us, the conscious observer. If you do a double split experiment and no body looks at the results, the results remain uncollapsed. Because no one looking at the result = No one has made a measurement.

Knowing the outcome of a measurement allows us to remove any inconsistent information in the wavefunction as of the time of measurement. — Kenosha Kid

US knowing the value of the measurement. In other words US looking at the measurement is what collapses it. Right?

is also rigged up to a printer and we later discover that radioactive decay had been established before the cat was dead — Kenosha Kid

Again, when WE discover that the radioactive decay had been established. How do we do that? Why by looking at the experimental results through the printer. Which would also collapse the wavefunction of the cat, because the two are related.

If there's no such output, we do not know this so cannot assume the system to be in a pure alive or dead state before we open the box and check. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly. So when we do not observe the outcome of a quantum mechanics experiment, the outcome is not collapsed yet, it is simultaneously every outcome. In other words, our mind collapses the wave function, again.

Wave functions have been collapsing since before the earth was even formed. — Francis

According to the copenhagen interpretation (as i understand it) You can't know that so don't assume it it's unscientific. Had the wavefunction only began to collapse when the first human opened his eyes you'd get the same universe.

Without a measurement the electron is a wavefunction, in other words is not a definite particle. In the double slit experiment an electron acts as a wave and interacts with itself. A wavefunction isn't an epistimological limitation. It's not that "We don't know where the electron is" It's "The electron is simultaneously everywhere specified by the wave function" or at least acts like so. So without an observation the electron (matter) doesn't exist as a particle (definite).

Do we just say all is mind just because it is difficult to disprove? — Chaz

I think the main appeal of the idea is that the only thing you can be absolutely sure exists is a mind. Namely your mind. So it makes sense to take your start there, and say that mind/consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe out of which everything arises rather than trying to get mind through particles bumping into each other. We haven't been able to do that for so long that the main reason "All is Mind" is springing back up is because it offers a very simple explanation.

Not only that but it makes for a very humbling theory that doesn't stroke mankind's ego, and it removes the constant anxiety that your mom might not be conscious but your couch might be (something you can't actually disprove scientifically until we develop a consciousness-o-metre which doesn't seem like it's happening any time soon).

either made up fundamentally of mind or matter but this is a false dichotomy. — Francis

It would be if there wasn't a "Other" option

believe the universe is fundamentally made up of matter/energy but that the mind is an achievable property of matter under the right conditions. I chose other. — Francis

That sounds like option 3 to me to be honest. A classic dualism with mind being produced by matter.

WHAT you look at is explicable all three ways — god must be atheist

Well materialists tend to have a hard time explaining how qualia exist but aside from that yes.

The Copenhagen wavefunction is a mathematical encoding of what we know. If what we know about the past changes, that change is encoded in the past, not at the moment of discovering the change. — Kenosha Kid

That is what I mean when I said that it makes the mind necessary for matter to be definite

the more conscious the matter is — Pop

Sounds like panpsychism to me. People like to diss it but I actually really like the theory. They cite the "Combination problem" as this massive dagger going right into the theory's heart then turn around and say "Sure we haven't found any way particles can lead to qualia and we haven't even developed a way of measuring qualia but materialism is still a valid belief". Materialism has a way worse combination problem if you ask me. At least panpsychism has the existence of qualia assumed just unkown how it combines while materialism doesn't even have that.

The Copenhagen interpretation does not suggest that the wavefunction collapses when the paper is eventually looked at. — Kenosha Kid

As far as I know that is exactly what it suggests. The uncollapsed "result" is measured by a measuring system which then prints it to the paper at whichpoint we see it. The collapse happens somewhere in this process. What makes you think it happens at the paper? Why not at the measurement device? Or in the printer? Or in the cable leading to the printer? The copenhagen interpretation sets the collapse of the wave function to be at the point we can actually see it collapse, aka when we observe it. Because that is the only point at which we can actually know it collapsed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT7SiRiqK-Q&t=853s

But regardless it was weird of me to compare them since the copenhagen interpretation isn't exactly "All mind". Panpsychism and some rare forms of idealism are the only things that fit that category. The copenhagen interpretation doesn't actually say "The world is made up of mind" but rather "Things only exist in a definite state when we observe them". At least in my understanding.

This is not accurate — SophistiCat

I said many not all. Quantum interpretations that involve mind are generally not popular

How, exactly, would any definition of reality that included anything else but matter read? — tim wood

So I guess all forms of qualia are not part of reality? They're not matter are they?

I think it depends on how you define it. The way you defined it would have me say "I don't know". The way I see it your definition implies that there are three ways something can happen:

1- Deterministically (Like kicking a football and it moving)
2- Randomly (Like in quantum physics)
3- "Free will"ly

Absolute determinism is saying that (1) is the only way something happens. Modern forms of "There is no free will" say that (1) and (2) are the only ways something happens. People who say free will exists can mean that 1,2 and 3 are the ways things happen. They can also say that even though (1) and (2) may be the only way things happen that that STILL constitutes free will (This is the compatibalist view)

All of these positions EXCEPT compatibalism debate whether or not (3) exists. Does (3) exist? I don't know. I can't really test that. I could be making what I think are "freely willed" choices but they could just be a combination of randomness and determinism. Compatibalism states that "free will" as we care about it is not a metaphysical 3rd option for things to happen but that the combinations of 1 and 2 are meaningful free will.

I lean more towards saying that: Our choices are always freely willed but only seem from the outside to be determinsitic and random. Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that A has free will and B doesn't. You put both A and B in a room with a bunch of things to do and then you ask a scientist to tell you which one has free will. No matter how much the scientist statistically analyzes their behavior he will never be able to tell which one has free will. That is because although A has free will from the outside he acts just like a very smart robot that occasionally makes a random choice. If that is the case I would argue that ALTHOUGH the scientist will be able to create a very accurate "mental profile" of both A and B and predict with very high accuracy what they will do next from studying their behavior, that doesn't mean that A didn't have free will. I don't know if that counts as compatibalism.

Schrodinger's cat paradox, double-slit experiment paradox. — TheMadFool

There is nothing logically inconsistent with an electron displaying wave and particle properties.

Paradox: a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

Surely then, God, capable of these paradoxes, can manage another one. — TheMadFool

These are examples of things that seem not to make sense. What's being asked here is entirely different from creating an electron that behaves two different ways. It is asking for something that doesn't make sense. Something that can't exist by definition.

God must be able to defy a contradiction just as easily as he winks a mote of dust into existence. — TheMadFool

It's this definition that is the issue. Omnipotent can just be defined as "Can do everything that is possible" and now there are no problems.

I think there are 3 ways to resolve this:

1- God doesn't exist/ Isn't omniscient
2- People do not have free will
3- Free will and knowing the future do not contradict (which depends on the definition of free will)

3. If X can't do something different to what God thinks X will do then X doesn't have free will (premise) — TheMadFool

This is the most important premise. This amounts to a denial of 3 but note how you called it a premise. That is because the definition of free will varies but the definition you seem to be using here is: The ability to do something differently, which is a definition that presents its own problems. It seems to suggest that there are THREE possible ways an event can occur:

1- Randomly (like nuclear decay)
2- Deterministically (like falling due to gravity)
3- "Free will"ly which I can never really conceive of

For any decision you make you will consider a bunch of variables. If those variables dictate your decision then your decision was deterministic (For example, eating when you're starving). If they don't dictate your decision then what did? If I asked you to pick between "A" and "B" without explaining what those were and you picked "A" why did you pick it? Was it because you like the letter? Then it was deterministic. Are you not really sure why you picked A over B? Then was that a random choice or a "freely willed" choice?

So far there seems to be no room for free will in our universe. Causes are either random or deteministic.

Most people who believe free will exists do so in 2 ways in my experience. The first is using some meaningless definition that assigns free will to us by default like: Free will is the ability to consider multiple alternatives, compare them, and make a choice, which results in chess bots having free will. The second is a pragmatic argument that goes something like:

1- We cannot be sure that random and deterministic are the only two modes for causes in the universe (In other words we're not sure whether or not free will exists)
2- If free will does exist and we think it doesn't then that is a great loss (As we act more irrationally and irresponsibly as a result), if free will doesn't exist and we think it doesn't exist we are right but we gain nothing, if free will DOES exist and we think it does we gain a great deal (Being able to act more responsibly), if free will DOES exist and we think it doesn't then we are wrong but we lost nothing
3- It is more pragmatic to believe in free will existing

Incidently that is the argument I use though I know it's not very good.

trust me it doesn’t. Or at least it doesn’t make sense even after rereading it 5 times over

on what grounds are you making the claim that just because not having sex is a denial of life that pro-lifers must engage in sex 24/7? — TheMadFool

Because they say they don’t want to deny life. And since not having sex IS denying life, they must have sex all the time.

Since the pro-choicer doesn't mind people denying life, it implies that he accepts both methods mentioned above as a means of denying life. Which is better? — TheMadFool

After all, a pro-choicer knows sexual abstention is the best, in the sense least controversial, method available for denying life — TheMadFool

Dude. Wtf? Seriously? “Since the pro choicer doesn’t mind denying life, it implies that he must deny life all the time”. Please rethink that statement. That’s like saying “Since I don’t hate chocolate I must eat chocolate 24/7”

I don’t want to come off as rude but this is super basic reasoning. Are you trolling me?

then pro-choicers, because they can deny life, must abstain from sex. — TheMadFool

Can =/= must. I think you might not be understanding what I’m saying.

The pro life argument of “Abortion is a denial of life which is wrong” is bad because: If it were valid then said pro lifer must have as many children as feasible in order not to be “denying lives” which is bad per their argument. This doesn’t lead to pro choicers having to abstain from having children. Because there is no hypocrisy in saying that “The denying life argument is dumb” and then having kids.

But if pro-lifers should be having sex 24/7 — TheMadFool

I never said this I said that “denial of life” is an argument that would lead to this. Since if it were a valid argument one would be “denying life” every second they’re not having sex. There are other pro life arguments.

pro-choicers should be trying to enforce a moratorium on sex. After all, if the issue of abortion begins with intercourse for pro-lifers, in all fairness — TheMadFool

But I still have no clue how what I said leads to this. Why should pro choicers enforce this?

The genitive form its has been used to refer to human babies and animals, although with the passage of time this usage has come to be considered too impersonal in the case of babies — Wikipedia

Actual numbers or this is meaningless.

Please examine pain more carefully. — TheMadFool

I don’t understand what you’re getting at

When you say that you find it ridiculous that people should engage in the procreative act 24/7 if they're not to deny life then you should know how equally, if not more, ridiculous it is to say that you should use Hydrogen and Oxygen to put out a fire because water is H2O. — TheMadFool

I cannot for the life of me see how these two examples relate in any way. All I’m trying to say is that “denial of life” is not a valid objection to abortion since if it were it would be an objection to every second spent not having children

Likewise, the question of personhood - the possibility of murder - arises only after fertilization has occurred. — TheMadFool

Again, it would need to be established that a fetus is a person for this to be an issue. I think the inability to experience pain, or to think combined with a high likelihood a fetus is not even conscious disqualifies it from being considered a person

Not all mothers resent when a fetus is referred to as it. I’m willing to wager most don’t care. I believe fetuses do not in fact have personhood. They can hardly be said to be conscious in the first months of pregnancy and at least before a nervous system and brain begin to develop, they can’t feel pain. I think it is agreed that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain starting at the third trimester.

If no harm is done through abortion then why should it be considered immoral? And no I do not believe that “denying someone life” is a form of harm or else everyone who is not having babies 24/7 would be harming others in some way which just sounds ridiculous to me.

I believe that as long as a nervous system hasn’t developed abortion should be indisputably alright. Afterwards it is almost indisputably wrong. Especially considering that in most cases it is done because the family can not afford to raise the child.

I honestly can’t tell if this is a joke or not. “since nothing cannot occupy any space since its size is zero” what? Physical things have sizes. Nothing doesn’t have a size. This is an example of using concepts simply where they don’t apply

I'm explicitly now raising the possibility of some supernatural afterlife. — Bryon Ehlmann

It just seems weird to me that you would do that then. It’s like if newton was coming up with the laws of physics then suddenly said “but of course these are the default laws of physics and it is possible we can change them through faith”. Then that sort of puts a whole dent in the argument. Now the theory is just incomplete unless it can explain how our beliefs alter our experience of death/the laws of physics.

Third, I agree that an "AFTER-death type of NEAR death experience is a contradiction." I have argued the same with those who believe that the NDE occurs after death. My article assumes it does not (see top of p. 58.) Here, I am just stating that if it does (something I don't believe), such an after-death experience would override the NEC. — Bryon Ehlmann

Huh. It just seems weird to me to build up a theory off of some crucial premises then in the same paper say “But of course this is compatible with religion because my theory could be wrong though I don’t believe that”. That’s essentially what I’m hearing.

Finally, I can't offer such explanation. Again, such overriding would be supernatural and thus a matter of faith — Bryon Ehlmann

Then that makes the theory INCOMPATIBLE with any form of traditional afterlife. Again sounds to me like you’re saying “My theory is not incompatible with religious views because my theory could be wrong or incomplete”

with the hope that it will prevent some greater amount of suffering in the future — darthbarracuda

Well if you add up all the suffering of 7 billion people over long periods of time it would be more than the nuke eventually. Especially considering that as we keep growing in number all of us individually suffer more.

But anyway, all of this assumes a whole lot about humanity, e.g. that it has a manifest destiny to save the world, as if humans are masters of the world and not simply a product (or an abberration) of it. — darthbarracuda

I’m not sure what you mean here. Save the world through nuclear Armageddon? And besides I only brought up that point to show how ridiculous negative utilitarianism can be

With NU I can’t justify NOT nuking the entire world of you get the chance much less not killing children. Certainly severe suffering now is better than the (comparatively) mild suffering of the world today stretched over thousands of years no? 1000*1 < 10*1000.

I think NU needs to take consent into consideration to make sense. As in the goal should not be: minimize suffering, it should be: do no harm (defined as any act done without consent). When phrased that way parents can’t kill their children because that would be inflicting harm (since the child can’t give consent) and one can’t justify harm done today to reduce suffering tomorrow.

I know this isn’t NU anymore but it’s what I use personally due to having problems with NU

You can SAY that but that goes in the face of your theory doesn't it? Firstly, you didn’t imply it was the default you explicitly said that it was what always occurs. Secondly, if it is the default there needs to be an explanation as to how our beliefs can so drastically change the experience of death. Thirdly, AFTER-death type of NEAR death experience is a contradiction. And finally, there has to be an explanation for how the NEC can be “overwritten” as you say.

not in between. But you said explicitly on multiple occasions in your paper that the event of death is not followed by any other events. That’s where it’s incompatible with reincarnation as reincarnation would require, you know, another birth event after death. And with any form of afterlife really.

You state "Most religions describe a chain of events leading to ascension to heaven." You need to describe this chain of events more specifically. I know of no such chain, at least in Christianity. — Bryon Ehlmann

I don’t know about Christianity either but at least in Islam there is an event where everyone who ever existed is packed into a “room” and judged individually by god and his angels

you should point out specifically a flaw in the logical deduction or the basic — Bryon Ehlmann

Well at the start of your paper you said there is an orthodox interpretation which implies that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning and another where their functions are separated. You picked the latter view. That’s what I mean by no proof for the theory. You started off of an arbitrary assumption that the second view is the correct one when we can’t know for sure unless we somehow “record” the subjective experience of dying. I commented based on that alone as I haven’t read the rest of the paper

implicitly claiming it as the default after-life. — Bryon K. Ehlmann

No offense but this just sounds like an attempt not to offend or put off anyone to the theory even though it doesn’t mesh well with other religions at all. “Default afterlife” would imply that based on our beliefs we either get a freeze frame death or we literally ascend to heaven. As if somehow our deeds and beliefs can change the experience of death so drastically from being a timeless singular frame to a perceptive one.

Who or what states that an afterlife must be time perceptive, i.e., filled with happenings, rather than timeless? — Bryon Ehlmann

Islam at least. And reincarnation implies that another event happens after death and one is reborn as a result. Both of which shouldn’t be possible by this theory.

I haven’t finished reading it yet but here are my thoughts about half way through:

First off, I think you’ve provided a plausible theory but not a proof for it. Until we can “see” or “experience” what death feels like and come back to tell the tale we can’t really know if this is what happens. Maybe death IS like a “lights off”.

1- I don’t think it’s compatible. Most religions describe a chain of events leading to ascension to heaven. That chain can’t happen if you only experience a single moment frozen in time. And since you keep claiming that no further events are experienced after the moment of death then you rule out any forms of reincarnation. I don’t know why you keep claiming that though. Since you’ve already disconnected brain activity from consciousness would it be so weird to claim that your consciousness continues to have experiences? You claim it can have a SINGULAR experience even with a dead brain so why not multiple in succession?

2- I’m not sure they would actually. Because although you call it “natural life after death” there isn’t really much life happening. It’s more like “natural freeze frame after death”

and with that comes conscious thought at some higher level — Shawn

I don’t know where you got that. Care to elaborate?

Until we can develop some way to measure if something is conscious or not I think this is all speculation with no evidence. As it stands I don’t know if you’re conscious or not. Or heck I don’t know if my couch is conscious or not.

Personally I lean towards believing that consciousness and intelligence are not related. Panpsychism seems to make the most sense to me even if it comes with problems. So I would lean towards saying yes but again that’s just speculation

However, again, a being that does not exist at all has no freedoms whatsoever. — TVCL

This seems to me to imply that since the child has no freedoms whatsoever then malicious genetic editing is not against their consent. Sure you can say that, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. I think we're getting stuck on technicality. Note that I never said that giving birth to someone is going against their consent, because that would imply that they could consent before they even existed. I always said, since consent is not given (no one to get it from) it is EFFECTIVELY denied. That is not the same thing as actively going against someone's consent.

It's the difference betweeen stopping life saving medication from an unconscious person and forcing someone to take medication they didn't consent to. Both are wrong but in the former consent wasn't available, yet it was still treated the same as in the latter case (as if consent was denied). You can say that in the former case there was no one to get consent from but that doesn't make the act not wrong.

withholding birth seems to ensure the least amount of freedoms to the child. — TVCL

Why is this a problem? Since when is "maximizing freedoms" a good thing? For example if an elderly man refuses expensive medication despite being able to afford it and chooses to die instead I think we can agree that doctors forcing him to live against his will would not be considered good right? Even though this is the exact same situation, where one freedom is respected at the cost of reducing them later.

The giving of life is not - in total - simply an act of doing harm to those given life. — TVCL

I don't think that life overall is guarateed to be more harm than good if that's what you mean. But I think we can both agree that it CAN be a living hell. And that risk shouldn't be taken for others.

The giving of life is not - in total - simply an act of doing harm to those given life. Instead, the giving of life is the giving of a state in which there is both the potential for the child to be harmed, but also the potential for the child to experience all of the things that might justify the experience of that harm to them including joy and meaning (this distinguished it from the splicing example which was solely to ensure more harm). — TVCL

Keyword: POTENTIAL. It is not a guarantee. And if it is not a guarantee consent is needed. For example a company can't force you to work for them no matter how good their employees view the company. In this forced labor there would also be the potential of harm and for things that justify it including joy and meaning. But I think we can agree that forced labor is unethical. NO MATTER how good the company in question is, even if they have never had an employee complain before. I would go so far as to say that EVEN IF you enjoy said forced labor and find meaning in it that the company still shouldn't have hired in you at first (because they couldn't have known that was the outcome). Furthermore, with life, you can't just quit as easily as you can quit a company and go looking somewhere else.

the deprivation of harm would also be the deprivation of those things that might justify it. — TVCL

I hear this one the most. Antinatalism is NOT about doing good by "depriving someone of harm". There is no one to deprive from harm if no one is born. Similarly there is no one to deprive from pleasure/meaning if no none is born. Not giving birth to someone is NOT a good thing. On the other hand giving birth to someone IS a bad thing. That's the view. Again, it's the same logic as "Don't shoot poeple". It's not that "not shooting people" is good it's that shooting them is bad.

in which case there is the freedom to cancel life in the form of suicide. — TVCL

And this is the most monstrous argument of all, and one that I am very sad to hear often. You are basically saying "If you don't like it just kill yourself". This can be used to justify ANYTHING. If this was truly a justification, then torturing someone is fine as long as you give them a button they can press to kill themselves.

However, completely depriving the child of life does not allow for this option to exist at all — TVCL

You make it sound like the lack of the option to: suffer to the point of killing yourself despite all the survival mechanisms that are supposed to keep you alive
is something to be sad about lol.

made the suffering worthwhile. If those who give children life are responsible for inflicting the harm done to them, they must also be responsible for the things that justify that harm. — TVCL

True. But it is still not good to take that risk for others. It's like how in the forced labor example the company is responsible for your suffering as well as your joy. But that doesn't permit them to forcibly hire people, even if they have a prestine track record.

it is still the same that no wrong is done to the child prior to its existence. — TVCL

Technically true yes but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. It's wrong in the same way that setting a bear trap in a public place is wrong. Even though the bear trap harms no one at the time of being set.

Indeed, we could conclude that genetic splicing is wrong because we can argue that once the child exists it would be better for them to have sight than to be blind. — TVCL

Fair enough. Although this implies that giving birth to anyone with "suboptimal" genes is also wrong. It is better for a child to be born a genius than not. However this doesn't answer whether or not having children is ethical in the first place.

If malicious genetic splicing is carried out the wrong is not done until it is actualised in a being that exists. — TVCL

This also applies to birth. The wrong is done when actualised in a being that exists, because that being is harmed.

this is not the same as arguing that even if the child is to be born blind it is better that the child never had existed — TVCL

This has never been the argument. If it was then it would be an argument for killing said child. The argument is it is better to avoid creating harm by not giving birth to anyone. Since birth results in unconsented harm.

Then, again, we circle back to the same point; it does not make sense to posit a state which is better or worse for a being that does not exist. — TVCL

Therefore, there is no wrong done to the child before it is born — TVCL

I hear this a lot. Can I ask you a question instead? Is it ethical to genetically engineer a child to suffer? As in purposely giving them genetic diseases they wouldn’t have? Why or why not?

Because if there really is no wrong done to the child before birth that would empty genetic editing is completely fine. Therefore it should be ethical to purposely give birth to a blind deaf child when they would otherwise have been fine right?

My attempts at justifying antinatalism to people usually fall on deaf ears so I learned to have them justify it for themselves lol. If you truly believe what you implied you would answer “Yes it is perfectly fine to blind children as long as it is done before they’re born”. However most people don’t believe that. And I think many people would come to the same antinatalist conclusion if they thought about why they think malicious genetic editing is wrong.

But what if it was - in fact - better for non-existent being(s) to have a chance to exist? — TVCL

“Non existent beings” is a contradiction in terms. The only way anyone would be harmed by someone not having children is if there were magical ghost babies yearning for someone to be born so they can become them somehow. I don’t believe that is the case. Non existent beings don’t have anything “better” or “worse” for them because they don’t exist.

it doesn't seem plausible to posit a being that can or cannot consent without existence — TVCL

It is not plausible so I haven’t posited it. Since there IS no one to get consent from in the matter of birth we effectively don’t have consent. We can’t remove someone’s organ because they’re passed out for example EVEN THOUGH there is no one to get consent from at the moment. When consent isn’t available it is effectively not given, and I don’t see why birth should be an exception.

there is not a comparison that we can use to judge the two states besides one-another. — TVCL

I agree with you. But the point isn’t moving someone from a “good state” to a “bad state”. The states aren’t comparable because in one there is a person and in the other there isn’t. So you can’t say “X would be better off in the state of non existence” because that would imply the existence of X in the state of non existence which is a contradiction. It’s just about not harming someone. When one is born they will be harmed yes? That’s unavoidable. Consent is required if one is to inflict harm ethically onto another. Since it is not available, it is effectively not given.


Antinatalism is generally pretty difficult to grasp or accept so I think it is best explained by asking people to justify their positions on other matters. Antinatalism shares premises with many common ethical beliefs so if someone believes in said premises then they should reach the same conclusion.

On that not I ask you “Is it ethical to genetically engineer a child to suffer?”. As in purposely giving them genetic diseases they wouldn’t have? Why or why not?

It would be weird to regard them as equally indicative or not equally indicative. That would assume there is some function which you can give an ontological theory that then spits out a probability of said theory being “the case”. How would you make such a function when people can’t even decide if there is a “the case” or if truth is fundamentally subjective.

Furthermore it assumes that that function would spit out an equal probability for both theories which I don’t see reason to believe

So I think the best answer I can give is “I use actual physics because it suits my purposes better but I don’t believe that it is “the answer” just because it works so well. I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong”