In other words, from outside.


Good luck with that! — Wayfarer

Why do you think that’s impossible?

In humans, it’s a meaning process. — Wayfarer

Mind explaining?

I think a 4 for me. Kept swapping countries and going to different schools. Bullying for not knowing the language sometimes. Becoming very reclusive as a result. Not being able to get many friends (but a few good ones thankfully to keep my sanity). Also unhealthy obsession with video games at one point in my life.

The problem with these posts though I find is there is gonna be that guy that’s like. “Oh just a 2 for me, my parents left me in the wilderness after chopping my arm off and I had to work my way from there” which is only gonna promote this:

folks that are in denial about their own trauma have to insist that everything's ok, — unenlightened

Because if that guy’s ok then what are my problems to his? I have to be like a 0 or something.

and perhaps not

One was a matter of principle the other a matter of prudence — NOS4A2

It would help if you told me which was which and why one is this and the other that. Also, I don't really care all that much as long as you treat them the same. And since you do treat them the same, I ask again. Why is having children ok?

Are you saying it was a matter of principle for the genetic modification and a matter of prudence for the couple case? So you don't actually think the couple would be wrong for having that child? Because that would not be treating them the same. Also mind telling me what this "principle" is that makes a certain genetic modification immoral yet makes having a child with the same genetic modification in question naturally moral? The consequences are the same aren’t they?

How is antinatalism more than moral posturing, given that there isn’t any right conduct towards actual living beings? — NOS4A2

See, when it takes a page for the other person to pull the "but morality doesn't actually exist" card after they've been debating it for 2 hours that's when you know your arguments make sense

Sure there may be no objective moral rules between people, no ethical system, not even antinatalism can escape that. But so far you have shown that you have subjective moral principles that SHOULD make birth immoral for you yet you're making a special case for it. If you want to do that I can't stop you.

Do you think the conflation posited justifies denying a happy person? — Shamshir

Yes. Do you think it doesn't? If so aren't you being immoral right now by talking to me instead of having more kids? Look at all this happiness you're denying. Also look at all those possible non existent kids everywhere. Doesn't it just break your heart, this amount of denied happiness?

Succumbing to the fear of a threat, you would, if you haven't, doom yourself to failure — Shamshir

No. I'm not dooming myself to anything here. I'm making sure I don't doom someone else into unhappiness in an effort to make them happy which no one asked for and as I demonstrated no one actually thinks is good in and of itself. I am pretty sure if there was a distribution of "risk taking" I would be pretty high up there but that's beside the point. That doesn't justify me taking the risk for someone else does it?

Also could you answer the question?

if I could show your next 10 children would be as you described there would you have a moral obligation to have them?

I think they should be treated differently because one is the actual material of procreation, will lead to procreation, and will lead to dire consequences if messed with — NOS4A2

But... You treated them the same... I asked you if it was ok to genetically modify someone to suffer and you said no. You called that a "real potential person". I then asked if it was ok to have a child you know will suffer and you said no. You called that a "philosophical potential person" because he hadn't been procreated yet. Yet you answered no in both cases. Also I'm not sure what this "rubbing together" quote is supposed to mean. I was addressing this:

I’ve already distinguished between an actual potential human—the necessary ingredients involved in procreation—and the thought of a potential child. We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as we would to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking — NOS4A2

And this

I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human. I just sense some unjust reification going on here. — NOS4A2

By showing that you DID treat both types of potential person the same. Which you did

I don’t think the two can be conflated. — NOS4A2

But you conflated themmmmm. You answered no in both cases did you not? One in which a real potential person was going to be harmed and one in which a philosophical one was going to be harmed. So far you have shown 0 difference between treating the two types while claiming they shouldn't be treated the same

So the ethics here are, it is right conduct to avoid pregnancy for the sake of protecting a child who may or may not exist at some point in the future. Is that fair? — NOS4A2

Did you mean "who may or may not suffer"? In that case yes. Why would it not be fair? Why should people be allowed to take risks with others' lives when the alternative of doing nothing doesn't risk harming anyone

Would it be fair if I said I wasn't allowed to force you to work my job that I really like despite having no input from you on whether you'll like it? Of course.

To take your ball example. If the only situations in which we had ever seen a ball move were those where it is dropped from a high altitude — Isaac

That's not the case. I said you only ever saw one ball fall and it did so from a high altitude. Let's also add that you saw the ball on the ground not moving once as well. It makes much more sense to say it is a sufficient condition then does it not? It requires much more evidence to claim something is a necessary condition. You'd need to have good reason to believe you've uncovered much of the cases in which the ball moves.

The evidence does not make "much more sense in light of the evidence". It may do to you, but the making of sense and the garnering of evidence is not a logical matter — Isaac

I know. My bad for writing it like a syllogism. But it is a statistical matter.

And if that child grows up to not only enjoy its life but do the world a metamorphosmic good? — Shamshir

Then you've done nothing good but something neutral at best. Making happy people =/= Making people happy.
To demonstrate:

Say you have 3 starving people and 2 solutions you can employ:

A: Feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and perfectly happy people so that overall you create much more pleasure than in A

I think everyone here would pick A right? Because B doesn't actually help anyone. If it were true that materializing happy people is good on its own you would pick B.

So it can be seen that making happy people is not good in of itself. It's like creating a problem for someone else then solving it. The exercise is pointless morally speaking.

As for the metamorophosic good, it is much more likely, statistically speaking that they do a slight bad to having a neutral value. You'd need to show me the child in question is destined for greatness and that he will enjoy the journey there for me to think having him is ok. And you can never even show the latter so how do you expect to show the former?


In fact I'll ask you this: if I could show your next 10 children would be as you described there would you have a moral obligation to have them?

Yes if the options were to bear a child with 10 broken limbs or not, I would think it prudent to choose the latter for the reasons you mentioned. — NOS4A2

And there is your proof that the philosophical potential person is to be treated exactly the same as the actual potential person. Because, as I said, the consequences are the same. Do you still think they should be treated differently? If so why.

But we’re not really talking about parents genetically doomed to have genetically deformed children, are we, but all births regardless of the child’s condition or not — NOS4A2

You don't need to be genetically doomed for your child to have a shit life. So don't take the risk for them.

all I was trying to say is that the evidence we have merits one belief much more than the other, that being that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness not that they are necessary. Neither of those is tautological but one makes much more sense in light of the evidence. Just like seeing a ball fall towards earth merits "being at a high altitude is sufficient for this ball to move" much more than "being at a high altitude is necessary for this ball to move" assuming that's the only piece of data you have

We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking. — NOS4A2

Why not? The consequences are the same. We agree genetically modifying someone to have 10 broken limbs is wrong right? Well what if a healthy couple find out that if they have a kid he would have 10 broken limbs on birth because of a very rare combination of genes that they have. Wouldn't it be wrong for them to procreate too?

That’s my problem: What child? The imagined one? — NOS4A2

That's also my problem with you saying genetically modifying children to suffer is bad. What child is getting harmed here? The imagined unmodified child? The situations are identical.

I just sense some unjust reification going on here. — NOS4A2

I don't. If you do present you case. I see the situations are identical.

I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human — NOS4A2

In both cases the action in question is done before fertilization as I note for the third time. And in any case why do you think those two types of potential human should be treated differently?

I can understand why people wouldn’t want to have children, but I just don’t see this conduct can be construed as right or wrong conduct towards something that doesn’t exist. — NOS4A2

Why can genetically modifying a child to suffer be construed as wrong conduct towards something that doesn't exist then? Where is the "unmodified child" that was harmed?

If you feel the situations are not identical please tell me why. Procreation is not a cutoff point as I noted.

There are no answers to why questions, at least not in science — T Clark

And that's why the problem is hard. Lol.

As for how do mental processes arise, I believe it is through the action of biological processes in the brain and elsewhere in the body. — T Clark

Yup. We can agree those processes are sufficient for mental processes to arise.

Yes it is wrong. But it seems we’re dealing with extant things here, and not the faint imaginings of a “potential human”. — NOS4A2

I asked why it is wrong. You're not actually doing anything to anyone are you? It is simply not the case that the child exists when you genetically modify it as I have noted. It's confusing but "genetically modify children" actually means genetically modify sperm and eggs (as I noted)

I’ve never seen anyone harmed by the birth of a child, but I suppose there could be an argument about overpopulation or environmental concerns, — NOS4A2

How about the child? Also overpopulation is another argument but I don't use it.

really? I thought we were. Forget the solipsism and just answer this then. Please?

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise
— T Clark

I am. The question was "Why does consciousness arise?" Not "what is necessary for consciousness in humans". The former is the actual hard problem. — khaled

But doesn’t that becomes a moral imperative to avoid having a child in order to avoid harming someone that doesn’t exist? — NOS4A2

No. It's "avoid harming someone that will exist". You seem to be thinking that antinatalism is doing this to protect the poor magical ghost babies. Antinatalism doesn't say anything about magical ghost babies. It simply says: avoid the course of action that might hurt someone.

Again, antinatalism doesn't benefit ANYONE. It just makes sure no one is harmed.

Answer this: you agree genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong right? Doesn't that become a moral imperitive to avoid harming someone that doesn't exist? (Note: genetic modification is done on sperm and egg so it's not actually doing anything to the child)

believe that biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes. Nothing else is required. — T Clark

But that doesn't answer the original question though does it? "Biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes" doesn't answer "Why do mental processes arise" does it? That would require finding necessary not sufficient conditions

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise — T Clark

I am. The question was "Why does consciousness arise?" Not "what is necessary for consciousness in humans". The former is the actual hard problem.

So, the world is full of very advanced chatbots. Is that correct? I started a new Tai Chi class today with about 15 people I'd never met before. They were all robots. Is that correct. My mother was a robot? My wife is a robot. Everybody but me is a robot. Do you expect me to take this seriously? — T Clark

Of course not. I'm just showing that what you presented isn't scientific evidence, it's opinion. Granted, an opinion we all share (except solipsists), but still an opinion.

What is, in your mind at least, the most convincing reason why having children is bad? — NOS4A2

Pretty simple. Having children risks harming someone whereas not having them doesn't. And I see no other scenario in real life when people think it's acceptable to risk harming someone for no good reason whatsoever like that.

For me it's more consistency than anything really.

I wasn't aware that you had said that. I must have misunderstood — T Clark

Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)

You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence

There's lots of talk of non-biological mental processes, e.g. artificial intelligence. I didn't think that's what we were discussing — T Clark

It was. The original "hard problem" I posed was "How does consciousness arise?". You answered with "through biological processes" and now I'm showing that that's a sufficient not necessary condition and therefore doesn't satisfy as an answer to the hard problem.

That is completely untrue. I have all sorts of evidence of mental processes in other people. I talk to them and they describe their experiences. I see them solve problems. I watch their behavior and recognize patterns that are consistent with my own behavior when I have specific experiences, e.g. I see mother's hold and touch their babies and I understand that as evidence that they love their children as I love mine. They say "look at the red light," and, when I look up, the light is red. — T Clark

NONE Of this couldn't have been done by a very advanced chat bot. Mental processes are not actually necessary for anything you're describing here.

You’re not being moral towards any being. — NOS4A2

True. Antinatalism doesn't claim it is "helping" potential people. As I said, you are not doing something good by not having children per antinatalism. What antinatalism is claiming is that having children is bad.

Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position. — Coben

Yes.

Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes. — T Clark

I don't. I contend with saying I have no idea what they come from.

when has antinatalism talked about beings that will never exist? It talks about beings that will exist, and says that they might suffer. It also says the alternative doesn't harm anyone. So any rational moral person should seek the alternative.

Antinatalism doesn't say you are good for not having children if that's what you're saying. (Because that's the only sense antinatalism would be talking about beings that will never exist, except it doesn't)

It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark

I don't understand how this is a reply to what I'm saying. All I said was that we know that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness, from that we can't claim that they're necessary for it. In order to show they're necessary you'd need to first find every instance of mental processes in the universe (impossible because as I said you can't detect mental processes in anyone but yourself) and then show that all of them require biological reactions (which isn't guaranteed even assuming you managed to do the initial impossible task somehow)

I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes? — T Clark

None. What evidence do you have that anyone other than yourself has mental processes at all? None. That's the point. We can't "detect" mental processes in anyone but ourselves. So it makes no sense to claim from there that every form of mental process has the properties that our brains happen to have.

Also this

If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis. — Coben

Thanks you saved me from typing that

Consciousness is a mental process, one among many. — T Clark

True

Mental processes are manifestations of biological processes — T Clark

You don't know that. We know that our biological processes result in mental processes. That doesn't mean mental processes are always manifestations of biological processes.

They have developed theories about how mental processes in general and consciousness specifically develop from biological processes. — T Clark

I would like to see those theories. Because most of the ones I've heard of make an unhealthy amount of assumptions. Like for example: that biological processes are necessary for mental ones.

Now matter which way you look at it, you can't extrapolate a definitive theory from a sample size of 1

it is ethics applied toward beings that will never exist, “potential persons” and the not-yet-born. — NOS4A2

This wouldn't be the first example of such ethics. I would bargain you find genetically modifying children to suffer as much as possible (by, say, giving them 10 broken limbs on birth) wrong. Even though no person is being harmed at the time the modification is taking place.

I can't see any reason to start looking for magic. — T Clark

When did it seem to you like I was. It is still the case that we cannot answer "Why is there such a manifestation at all" with a sample size of 1.

I certainly don't know for sure, although the only way everything could be conscious is if we drastically change the meaning of the word "conscious." — T Clark

How about changing it to "has mental experiences"

As I said, I don't think the hard problem of consciousness is hard. I don't even think it's a problem — T Clark

Alright then. Why are you conscious. Please give me the theory of consciousness that will explain whether anything is conscious or not definitively

I’m not much of a dualist so I think the notion of a conscious me and an unconscious me is a distinction without a difference — NOS4A2

No difference? Try stopping your heart. Dualism doesn’t have much to do with conscious/subconscious anyway.

I’m the organism, the organism controls it’s own thoughts, therefor I control my own thoughts. — NOS4A2

I wouldn’t say the organism controls it’s own thoughts either conscious and subconscious together when environmental factors clearly influence it. Example: my comment significantly increased the likelihood you think of your reply. It doesn’t cause it, it helps cause it along with other factors

It's not the mere fact that there are chemical processes, it is the specific chemical processes that are present. It's not the mere fact that there are biological processes, it is the specific biological processes that are present. — T Clark

How do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. That’s not enough to make a general theory

Given that, yes, it seems likely that a certain level of complexity is probably required for mental processes to arise out of biological processes. — T Clark

Again, how do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. Another equally likely theory is that everything is conscious. Why would that not be the case? That’s why the problem is called hard. Because you can’t scientifically test for if something is conscious or not.

As with all other things in the world, just because. That's how it works. No mystery. You put all that stuff in a jug, shake it up and down, pour it out, and that's what happens. It's the world. It's how things are. Why is that so hard to understand? — T Clark

So are you saying that conscious experience arises out of the mere fact that chemical actions are happening there? So is my Soda bottle conscious? The question is: what specific properties in my brain make it conscious? That we don’t know. Is any chemical interaction conscious? Does consciousness only arise after a certain amount of complexity? Etc. The thing that makes answering this hard is that you can’t actually tell if anything else is conscious other than yourself. So you can’t systematically test for consciousness.

The "you" is also an illusion. This is not a novel idea. Are you familiar at all with eastern philosophies? — T Clark

No not really although I heard the “you is an illusion” thing before. It doesn’t make sense to me. I thought what that meant was that there is no real “identity” to a person and that they’re just an amalgamation of their previous experiences, nothing more and nothing less. That I agree with, but it doesn’t explain why there’s an observer there in the first place. So what happens after I get rid of this “you” illusion? Do I just stop being conscious?

I don't see why consciousness is any realer than life — T Clark

Forget about this point then

ok

Are my thoughts not regulated or controlled or determined by some organism? — NOS4A2

Yes

Secondly, Am I or am I not that organism? — NOS4A2

No. You’re not. The conscious you is a part of the organism that controls your thoughts. Not all of it.

Ah, but there is no forcing here. Nothing comes as natural as giving birth. — staticphoton

Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive.

So again, I ask for an example of the scenario I described other than birth.

But it is all about belief, no? — staticphoton

Yes, just not your own. Your child’s. Whose beliefs you obviously don’t know. So don’t assume they’ll be the same as yours. Simple. Antinatalism is “belief neutral”. The argument doesn’t take into account what the living think of living but what the would be living could think of living.

You believe in a simple logic — staticphoton

I don’t actually believe suffering = bad and that’s it. As I said, I was only doing that for the sake of argument (which was your idea). I haven’t stated what my actual views are because unlike you, I don’t think ME believing in something entitles me to force someone ELSE to do something (in this case live). In fact, I don’t think you believe that either, but you’re making an exception for having children as has been shown by the fact that you can’t come up with another scenario like I specified.

I said "can", not "will". — staticphoton

And that’s a problem innit. So you recognize the possibility that your child would absolutely hate existence right? So why are you taking the risk for him?

All moral considerations? I only saw one: suffering = bad => birth bad.
Not ignoring it, just not shallowing it.
...and by "greater purpose" I had something different in mind than working as a janitor, I'll just leave it at that. — staticphoton

And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. The whole POINT of the example is that working as a janitor is something most would say has no greater purpose. All I did was reduce the probability someone finds purpose in the activity in question and suddenly for you it went from “yea it’s ok to force them to do it” to “no it’s not ok, who’d ever want to be a janitor”.

What is misguided at best is adopting a philosophy of life followed by closing your heart to any other possibilities. But don't feel bad, on that one you are in the majority. — staticphoton

If I was closing my heart to any other possibilities I wouldn’t be debating you. And actually, antinatalism is one of the few moral theories where believing in it blindly, even if it turns out to be wrong, doesn’t hurt anyone. Natalism on the other hand....

I'll take that as a compliment! — staticphoton

It was. To everyone in the thread. (Most of the work was done by terrapin though good job)

you can reply to people directly if you press the arrow under what they wrote. Otherwise they don’t get notified of a reply and might miss what you said. I don’t think self awareness and consciousness are the same thing though. Consciousness is the answer to the question “Does it feel like anything to be this?” Whereas self awareness seems much more specific to me. The hard problem of consciousness is “Why does it feel like anything to be me?” Some possible answers include “calm down bucko you’re not so special. It feels like something to be everything” (panpsychism) or “because you’re processing so much information” (forgot what this one is called, probably because I don’t see it as a real answer) etc etc

Our experience of the world is a manifestation of brain activity — T Clark

The hard problem of consciousness is WHY is there such a manifestation? Why couldn’t all the brain processes be happening “in the dark” so to speak.

That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity. — T Clark

But “life” is an abstract concept. It doesn’t actually exist. Can you point at “life” directly? Not an instance of a living thing but “life” itself. Obviously not, the request doesn’t even make sense. On the other hand, consciousness is a very real experience, not just an abstract property.

Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions. — T Clark

How can one’s consciousness be an illusion? How can you think you’re conscious but you’re actually not? If there is a “you” to think, then you’re obviously conscious.

to prove you have complete control over your thoughts don’t think of a white bear for the rest of your life (I think further examples are redundant at this point but just wanted to chip in anyway).

These were immediately discarded — staticphoton

They weren’t. The idea that you can ignore all moral considerations when it comes to risking someone ELSE’S life for your own ideals was. If I saw “greater purpose” in working as a janitor let’s say, does that entitle me to force you, someone I know nothing about, to work as a janitor as well? With the excuse that “I’m sure he’ll like it in time” or “I’m sure I can pass my values onto him perfectly because there is absolutely no chance he’ll disagree with them because my values are just that good”

I believe values can be passed down to offspring — staticphoton

Well this is just empirically incorrect. Do you see everyone being spitting images for their parents. If it was true that values could be passed down to offspring entirely and with no chance they disagree, I wouldn’t have a problem with having children so far as the ones that did it saw a “greater value” in life. Because they can then know that their children will think the same.

It appears to boil down to you finding it unfair that I impose the risk of suffering on someone who is unable to approve/disapprove, and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor. — staticphoton

Here’s a challenge: find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result

and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor — staticphoton

This is the problem here. YOU believe producing life is a justifiable endeavor. What if said life doesn’t?


PS: 1k replies. This thread is literally second to trump on the front page

Neurology. Sounds are physical, neurolgical reactions to them are physical
— khaled

You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words? — Terrapin Station

Rereading some of this I came across this quote right here. I thought you kept saying that the mind is physical no? That consciousness is just a brain state and is (somehow) no different from the chemical interactions in he brain that cause it. So me claiming that causally pegging the sounds of hate speech to violent action is possible is not me claiming that the mind isn’t involved. It would actually be me claiming that the mind IS involved fully according to you, at least as far as I’m understanding it

Also your definition of free will is basically equivalent to saying that mental processes don’t have predetermined results. As in this neuron might fire this way OR that way, and that that or is ontological not epistemological. So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely then why wouldn’t it count as a cause? So it would be like:

hate speech + it’s hot outside + I’m late for work + free will => violence

Where each factor contributed to “biasing the probability” (as you said in the free will thread). Are you claiming that hate speech plays no role in biasing towards violence?

I think there may be something with terrapin being in a thread and it reaching 30 pages in a week.

A higher purpose would trump the concern for individual harm. — staticphoton

You said it yourself. For INDIVIDUAL harm. Not for another individual's harm.

Are you saying your higher purpose is so high you wouldn't mind harming others for it? Knowing they might not share said purpose?

Yes, good and bad as absolute concepts, — staticphoton

I don't use good and bad as absolute concepts. I expect others to have their own, consistent moral systems though. Or else they'd be hypocrites. Not that that's objectively good or bad either

Whether they accept your teachings or not does not make them strangers. — staticphoton

My point was, you can't guarantee your child will believe in this higher purpose you believe in. That's all. I don't actually care whether or not they're called strangers.

This urge to terminate the human life cycle — staticphoton

Which I don't have. If I did I'd be a pro mortalist