So anything that affects physical stuff is itself physical? — TheMadFool

Yes. That's how we've defined the word. At first "physical" meant things with a mass like rocks and water. Then it expanded to things with no mass like electromagnetic fields. And now, we have things with no mass and no specified location/velocity in quantum mechanics. What do they share in common? That they can affect physical things.

If you have another definition for physical things that can account for all of the above I'll be happy to hear it. If your definition makes it so that electromagnetic waves are non-physical, have fun with that. It doesn't coincide with how people use the word you're defining at all. I'm sure everyone can agree that electromagnetic waves are physical.

Isn't that begging the question? — TheMadFool

No, there can still be nonphysical minds, they just wouldn't be able to do anything.

whether the nonphysical can/can't affect the physical as of yet an open question? — TheMadFool

No because if something "nonphysical" pushed something physical that "nonphysical" thing will be studied by physicists and included in the list of things that are physical.

The question at hand is whether or not minds are nonphysical. My definition of physical does not imply minds being physical or non physical. So it's not begging the question.

Take the idea of God, a nonphysical entity that allegedly can act on the physical. — TheMadFool

What is this meant to prove? You need to prove God exists to say anything by this.

Why not? You're begging the question again. — TheMadFool

I'm just speaking from experience. No matter how many times I wished to fly as a kid, I didn't fly.

And again, me saying that non-physical things cannot interact with physical things does not imply that the mind is physical or non-physical, so it's not begging the question.

What's common between a lump of clay (physical) and a field (you claim it too is physical). — TheMadFool

They can affect physical stuff. Also that knowledge of how they work falls under the field "physics".

Too, electric fields, to my reckoning, are mathematical objects - mental constructs. — TheMadFool

They're not just that. Mental constructs can't push around charges. Electric fields can.

In what sense is sound physical? — TheMadFool

In that sense that it can affect physical stuff.

Since color and feeling angry are not properties in the explanation — Marchesk

They are. Anger is: *insert the physical explanation of what's happening when you're angry here*

Right, but the problem for physicalism is that experience is not part of the explanation. — Marchesk

You don't think so because you begin by assuming that the experience is different from the explanation since it's non-physical, aka, you beg the question by assuming physicalism is false.

If you assume that the experience is the physical process, it's not a challenge.

It's not that physicalism cannot account for experience, it's that you define experience in a way that physicalism cannot possibly account for. In other words, if someone tells you "the experience of anger is the physical process of anger" (as I am doing) you wouldn't be convinced because by definition, to you, the experience of anger is non-physical. But that identity does allow physicalism to account for experience.

Just curious, an electric field has no mass? — Marchesk

No resting mass as far as I know.

For starters, thoughts don't seem to be physical e.g how much does the thought of Descartes weigh — TheMadFool

There are plenty of physical things that don't weigh anything. Like an electric field.

then thoughts don't seem to be energy per se but patterns in energy and patterns, last I checked, aren't physical, are they? — TheMadFool

We say sounds are physical even though they're no more than patterns of air movement.

The red experience is not part of the explanation. It's only a correlation. — Marchesk

That's one interpretation. One which presumes physicalism is false.

The physical processes, in terms of physical explanation, do not include the experience as part of the explanation. Ergo, the physical processes qua physical explanation, are not identical to the experience. — Marchesk

The neuroscience doesn't attempt to explain what the experience is. It explains what's happening in your brain when you experience something. This does not confirm or deny the identity that what's happening in your brain is the experience.

One interpretation is that the experience is fundamentally different. Another is that the experience is the physical process. And many more. The neuroscience doesn't take a side here. It just tells you what's happening in your brain at the same time as the experience.

The reason I said that was that anyone can justify anything in the name of X. Crass utilitarianism isn't a good reason. — schopenhauer1

"You can harm people when it alleviates more harm" is a perfect example of crass utilitarianism.... But no, crass utilitarianism is bad because....reasons.

Right, you cannot use someone unnecessarily (see my definition). — schopenhauer1

I'll take this as a "no" you can't harm someone to ameliorate greater harm form someone else. Now you have problems with the sleeping lifeguard again. You can't wake up the sleeping lifeguard to save a drowning person by this formulation. So again, a terrible standard for you that contradicts your beliefs.

Again, please define to me what is utopia. — schopenhauer1

I already did on the other thread, but ok, here is an example of one:

A world where at the snap of your fingers (or a similarly easy activity if you're disabled) any suffering will go away. Also there is no euthanasia option, you cannot leave the game, and refusal to snap your fingers will subject you to suffering exactly as it would IRL.

Let's go with that one.

You can never know if someone will find something worthwhile, or change their minds down the line, or simply have on balance not a great life. You just don't know. — schopenhauer1

But this is a terrible argument. Because it would make surprise parties wrong (you never know, they might absolutely hate them) but they're not wrong, according to you.

You keep coming up with standards for why birth is wrong that also lead to things you think are right being wrong, and it's getting very tiring pointing them out. It would be very helpful if before you post another standard you ask yourself "Can this lead to a contradiction in my beliefs". You'll find it basically always does. Because you're just cycling between 5 or so standards, all of which contradict your beliefs.

Rather, it is unjust to impose anything unnecessarily that involves forms of unwanted, effort, annoyance, suffering, and things that you would not do otherwise if you were to create your own universe. — schopenhauer1

Literally every imposition fits this description to different extents. And you think some impositions are fine. Again, terrible standard. Sigh....

But that's just the thing, you pick analogies which aren't life or in this case work. — schopenhauer1

"Your analogies to life are not life itself", excuse me what? I assume you mean that my analogies aren't like life in any way. Prove that. Don't just state it. If any analogous imposition I come up with to life , automatically becomes not analogous when you realize you think it's ok to impose, then you're begging the question.

If someone gave me a gift that lasted a large chunk of life or a whole lifetime, I couldn't get out of it, and it causes severe dislike, annoyance, and negative experience in general.. I wouldn't call that much of a gift — schopenhauer1

Agreed. Problem is, most people would tell you that life is mostly good with the dislike, annoyance, and negative experiences being the side effect. In other words, life is not like that. You think it is, but have provided no reasoning or evidence for why it is.

So the brain is creating an experience that is not part of any scientific description of the world — Marchesk

No. The experience is what the brain is doing. The referent of "experience" is the neuronal activity.

Saying that there is an "experience" that is created by the neuronal activity, separate from said activity, is something you added, not something I said.

I do not see how this helps physicalism. — Marchesk

When you propose the existence of a non physical experience created by physical processes, you're not challenging physicalism, you're assuming it is false from the get-go.

How would you fit color experience into physicalism? — Marchesk

Color experience is what your brain is doing when you see color

She already knew about those changes. — frank

But she didn’t have them happen to her and was surprised when they did. What’s the problem?

I think the thought experiment is supposed to have implications for physicalism, along the lines of: there are aspects of the mental that aren't physical. — frank

I don't.

There was clearly a physical change that led to mary's new experience wasn't there? Why can't her reaction simply be attributed to that? If you can change something mental without changing anything physical, then you'd have a case for aspects of the mental that aren't physical. But as it stands, someone being surprised for seeing something for the first time, isn't a challenge to physicalism.

I wouldn't say she learns anything new, so much as has a new experience. No implications for physicalism.

A new discovery in the science of evolution has shown that a logic developed through evolution will never seek to understand the truth, it just learns to maipulate it's environment without a deeper understanding of what it is manipulating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=997s
This is a real warning: when manipulating the universe around you - even if you do it successfully - you have not the slightest clue what you are really interacting with. (I strongly reccomend watching the video in the link to understand this better) — FalseIdentity

In other words you're saying: "If you use logic you're going to find every answer that will ever be relevant to you". So who cares if there is a "deeper understanding" when that deeper understanding cannot affect us (if it did, we would have evolved to detect it). There is certainly deeper understandings than what we have right now, but point is, the use of logic will give us all the answers that can affect us. The only thing it doesn't give us access to is things that are irrelevant to us. So, who cares?

So my first complaint is that logic pretends to be something that it is not (a universal key to truth - this it is clearly not). — FalseIdentity

Logic isn't a person so it cannot pretend.

My second complaint relates to the discovery that logic is developed mainly for hunting and is hence predatory in nature — FalseIdentity

I don't see why this is a complaint really. And besides, nothing you said supports this in the first place. Logic wasn't "evolved to allow us to hunt" as you can see, it does way more than just that. This is like complaining about the invention computers because they can be used to bash someone's head in.

2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

For someone who doesn't understand what's good you sure are convinced that logic is evil!

Again, we didn't evolve the capacity to reason purely to hunt. The capacity of reason has other uses. Including defining "the good" (and evil, as you do here). If it is as you say, and we cannot understand good, then you cannot make the argument that logic is evil. You're cutting the branch you're sitting on.

1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?) — FalseIdentity

Again, the capacity of reason is not limited to be used in hunting and gathering, even if we accept that it evolved for that purpose. Just like a chair was invented for sitting, but can also be used as a weapon.

Note also this argument can be used to say ANYTHING we evolved was evil:

Are there any thought shools that attack logic? Is Nirvana for example a state beyond logic? — FalseIdentity

Why would Nirvana be any different? We evolved the capacity to experience Nirvana correct? Since we evolved it, it means it isn't necessarily pointing at truth. And supposedly you think that if we evolved a capacity, it must purely be to hunt (for some reason) making it predatory, so that's your second complaint also applying to Nirvana. And the rest follow in exactly the same way.

Unnecessary is not ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms, but simply causing harm to someone for no reason other than you want to see an outcome take place. — schopenhauer1

But, when you do this:

If I punch you now, and you get enlightenment from it later — schopenhauer1

That would be ameliorating greater harm with lesser harm clearly, so is this wrong or not?

Also, importantly, is this "greater harm" you're ameliorating just a general measure of utility, or must you ameliorate greater harm from the person in question with lesser harm? So would it be wrong to punch someone so that someone else gains enlightenment? Because depending on your answer this:

Prior to birth you can prevent harm, period. Once birth happens, you have to immediately start ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms — schopenhauer1

May or may not follow. If you think it's fine to harm someone to ameliorate greater harm from someone else, you can argue that having children is already ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms.

Unjust = not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. — schopenhauer1

This is just pushing the definition backwards. What is "morally right and fair"?

In this case, making someone else play a game they had no hand in creating, cannot escape from without dire consequences, etc. — schopenhauer1

So doing this is not morally right and fair? But this also applies to having children in a utopia, which you said you're fine with. So which is it?

All I have to show is THIS world is sufficiently unfair to make others play.. — schopenhauer1

Agreed, but I don't see where you did so. All you do is cite specific features of life, that are also present in a utopia, or in other impositions you think are fine.

Let's first make this criteria.. What to you makes a utopia.. Then we can move from there. If you don't answer that question, I am not going to move forward. — schopenhauer1

HA, nice switch. First off, I don't see how it's significant what I think counts as a utopia and what doesn't, I'm pretty sure what you mean to ask is: "What to you makes it ok to impose". Answer: "It's fine to impose something on someone when it is very likely they will find it worthwhile (among other cases that are irrelevant here)". You don't like this standard, clearly. And you try to convince me that it's bad somehow.

I don't use my standard when arguing with you, I try to get you to spell out a standard that doesn't lead to ridiculous consequences. So far, every time you've said "Life is X, and X is wrong", X is in common with utopias, or gifts, or other things you consider moral to impose, meaning X isn't a good standard for you. You did this in the last comment too:

In this case, making someone else play a game they had no hand in creating, cannot escape from without dire consequences, etc.

-You

So doing this is not morally right and fair? But this also applies to having children in a utopia, which you said you're fine with. So which is it? — khaled

And when you say "Life is too much X" you fail to show why it is. In order to do this you'd need to, for example, find an imposition that is "lighter" than life that we think is wrong to impose. Then you'd have a case for why life is too heavy of an imposition. But you haven’t done so.

In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood. — baker

Right. So:

Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled

It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. This is why you read a paragraph until the end and don't nitpick the start to dismiss the rest.

Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. — baker

That's not my claim that's yours:

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice. — baker

We must follow the rules. Can you make your own rules? Can you have designed it from the first place nd then played it, tweak it, reverse it? Of course not. Then it's not just.. — schopenhauer1

Not a very good standard considering this is also the case in the utopia and you find it ok to impose life there.

1) Can't create your own rule for the game..
2) We can judge the game (unlike say an animal that kind of just lives out the game).. Our layer of rationalization/language etc. allows judgement etc. — schopenhauer1

These are both true in a utopia and IRL, so the real difference maker must be (3)

Every other kind of harm is always justified when the person is born, so it's after the fact (schooling, vaccines, punishment for violating something, etc.). Not so in this case. — schopenhauer1

But I'm just confused what (3) actually means. This bit seems to just be begging the question. "Impositions are fine after you're born, but if it's before you're born they're not fine". Isn't that exactly what we're debating?

That's very inconsistent for your line of argument. You try to find ethical "rules" that people abide by, that they don't abide by in the case of having children, for no justifiable reason, hence showing an inconsistency, like here for example:

in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else" — schopenhauer1

It's also what I'm trying to do to you, show an inconsistency in beliefs which I believe is there. But point is, this:

Every other kind of harm is always justified when the person is born, so it's after the fact (schooling, vaccines, punishment for violating something, etc.). Not so in this case. — schopenhauer1

Separates the "laws for imposing" into two categories. "Laws of imposing after you're born" and "laws of imposing before you're born". This completely destroys your project. You are trying to show that people's "laws of imposing" would preclude birth if applied rigorously. By separating it into two categories you open the door for someone to say: "Every other kind of harm needs justification when the person is born. Not so in this case. Since the person is not born, no justification is needed to do something that could harm them, so yes I am justified in genetically modifyin ma kid to be blind!" With exactly as much validity as your claim above.

Right, but I am talking more about the idea that anything is justified if somehow your feelings about it lead to a positive experience (whether you know it or not). — schopenhauer1

Important question is: What about cases where you know that they'll appreciate the imposition later down the line? In other words, it's not what you feel about it, but what they feel about it. Supposedly neither of these matter when it comes to whether or not an imposition is wrong (happy slave and all) so again I ask the question (this is probably the 10th or so time):

So, what's your definition of an unjust position, without reference to what the person in the position thinks of their position? Is it unjust above a certain number of work hours a week? A certain difficulty of work? What's your standard? — khaled

And you still haven't actually explained what you mean by "unnecessary". I get what you were doing with the original quote, I'm asking for clarification on what you mean by "unnecessary".

So just to be extra clear, if you respond to nothing else:

What is "unnecessary suffering" as opposed to "necessary suffering"?
What is an "unjust position" as opposed to a "just position"?

Still goes back to the happy slave in an unjust situation. — schopenhauer1

You claim that the happiness of the person in the position doesn't have much to do with the justice or injustice of imposing that position. So, what's your definition of an unjust position, without reference to what the person in the position thinks of their position? Is it unjust above a certain number of work hours a week? A certain difficulty of work? What's your standard?

It would seem in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else" — schopenhauer1

What does "unnecessary" mean here? What is "necessary harm"? I thought an example of "necessary harm" is when it prevents an even larger harm on the person in question (what's what I remember your definition was), but you contradict that here:

If I punch you now, and you get enlightenment from it later, that would be crass utilitarian thinking.. Another way to think about it, is I shouldn't punch people, whatever their later feeling on it is. It is wrong to cause suffering, period — schopenhauer1

Wouldn't sending kids to school also fall under this umbrella of wrong impositions then?

When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...? — baker

Let's say life starts, idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right?

Your example is about someone poisoning people. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

False. That was not how I was defining the game.. This thread is about "work" in particular. that part of the game of life to do with working in an economic system of some kind to keep alive. — schopenhauer1

Oh wow, not like I pointed that out specifically:

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. — khaled

Right I get your one trick pony... Like a kid who learned a joke and uses it over and over cause someone laughed the first time. What's black and white, and "red/read" all over?? — schopenhauer1

It certainly comes off that way when you cannot comprehend a simple argument so I have to repeat myself over and over. The fact that you make the same thread once a week and then complain about getting the same reply, also helps make the impression.

If snapping fingers is a set of challenges, then it would be wrong. — schopenhauer1

So I guess having kids in this utopia is wrong then?

Can we agree that the world we live in now at the least, is a set of challenges? — schopenhauer1

Of course.

I am not sure about your utopian world, but this one certainly is. — schopenhauer1

What's there to not be sure about? Of course it does. The challenges are laughably easy, but they're there.

Right, is that a set of challenges to overcome? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Are there dire consequences? — schopenhauer1

Absolutely.

If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you — khaled

Are the challenges so minimal as to the consequences being de facto, not dire (due to their easy obtainability)? I think that makes sense. — schopenhauer1

No, it doesn't. The ease of the challenge does not make starvation any less dire. How would it? Also you accept that they are challenges here, although minimal. You can't say "they're not challenges" and then turn around and say "they're challenges that are so minimal that they make the consequences less dire". Pick one.

If you're going to say that the ease of the challenge makes the consequences "de facto less dire" and this makes the imposition ok then I'd argue that's exactly what's happening IRL as well. Starvation is a big deal, but what you need to do to avoid it isn't that difficult, therefore starvation is "de facto not a dire consequence" which by your definition would make life ok to impose (since it doesn't have de facto dire consequences). How would you show that I'm wrong in this case? Same question as before: How would you show that life is too difficult so as to make it wrong to have children?

Yes, I would agree hence "Set of challenges" was my more detailed definition as given to 180.. — schopenhauer1

Which is met.

It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1

Which part of this is not met in the utopia? Unavoidable? Yes they're just as unavoidable as they are IRL. Set of challenges? Yes as you say yourself:

Are the challenges so minimal as to.... — schopenhauer1

Some unknown some known? Yes, all known. If these challenges are not overcome one has a very hard time of things including death? Yes.

So the entire definition is met. But that won't stop you from claiming they're not challenges. So which is it: They're not challenges? Or they're challenges but they're so easy they make the consequences of failure "de facto" not dire? Pick one.

You're not giving me the Socratic "aha" moments you probably think you're doing bud. — schopenhauer1

I would never think I'm giving you any Socratic moments. Not with the level of comprehension you're displaying.

You're just "sweeping the leg" and I'll just give you the "crane kick" every time :). — schopenhauer1

A fantastic analogy! I high kick wouldn't connect if I'm sweeping your leg. In other words, your "rebuttals" are not addressing the arguments I'm making.

I am not an anti-natalist, but if I were, then I would uphold all of the implications of my beliefs. — ToothyMaw

That's what they all say at first, until they see said implications.

No to mention the harmful consequences of giving a crappy gift or sending a kid to school are significantly less than the wide range of horrible illnesses/conditions/disorders than can be inherited or developed throughout one's life — ToothyMaw

Oh, so now it's not about unconsented impositions. Now only unconsented impositions that have consequences that are "too bad" are considered wrong to impose. So sending kids to school is fine because, hey, how bad can it get right?

When you do that you add more work to yourself because now you need to show that life counts as "too bad" and why it does.

And besides, you can't just take the absolute worst consequence of something and say "see this is how bad it can get! So it's wrong to impose!" You'll get that all impositions are wrong by that logic. "Sending kids to school? Monstrous! What if they get molested by teachers!!!!! See how bad it can get! Sending kids to school is wrong now!". "Giving someone a gift you are near certain they'll like? Monstrous! What if they hate it so much they get a heart attack at the mere sight of it and die! Giving gifts is wrong now." etc. Taking the absolute worst consequence and using that to say the imposition is wrong is a terrible argument.

Not to mention, if we were all anti-natalists, there would be no children to send to school. — ToothyMaw

Irrelevant to the argument.

So what I said remains valid: typical anti-natalist reasoning doesn't have ridiculous side effects like "charity is wrong". — ToothyMaw

Yes it does. The most popular argument for example, the "it's an unconsented imposition that can be harmful so it's wrong" that I hear very often has the side effect that giving gifts is wrong unless you ask for permission first. It would also prevent you from, say, sending a kid to school.

So far I haven't seen an AN argument that is consistent with the rest of the AN's beliefs.

Just because there are multiple ways to reach a conclusion, and one of the ways is ridiculous, that doesn't reflect upon reasonable ways of reaching that same conclusion or the conclusion itself — ToothyMaw

I never said so. I was implying that all the ways of reaching the antinatalist conclusion come with ridiculous side effects, and the best way to argue against it is to highlight said ridiculous side effects.

However, in your utopia, you can snap your fingers and don't have to play the game of life to stay alive. — schopenhauer1

False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL.

set of challenges to overcome to survive.. what one must do in an economic system whether hunting-gathering or "laboring" in a mixed market capitalist society or communism or any other economic system — schopenhauer1

Yes you still do all of this in the utopia. It’s just exceedingly easy to do so. All you have to do is snap your fingers. That’s your labor.

But really, there is no escape in this world of playing the game of life (producing/consuming/surviving via an economic system of labor/exchange etc.). — schopenhauer1

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. Still the example stands. In the utopia you don’t escape work. You still have to snap your fingers. It’s just that work is exceedingly easy.

In the real world, one cannot escape from the survival game. — schopenhauer1

Neither can they do so in the utopia. The only difference, is that the survival game in very easy in the utopia. IRL you have to do more than snap your fingers to survive.

You don't have to play. You snap your fingers and you have what you want. — schopenhauer1

That’s playing. An easy game.

The utopia has a way to escape without dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

No it doesn’t. You still have to play the incredibly easy game of survival. You haven’t escaped it.

Too difficult is if you don't play the forced game, dire consequences ensue (which apparently doesn't happen in your utopia). You die, starve, hack it in the wilderness (and then probably die), or some other crappy fate. — schopenhauer1

Exactly the same case in the utopia. If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you. But we have established that having children in a utopia is fine. Hence showing that it’s not about the sheer magnitude of the punishment for failure, but also how difficult the game is. As again, the magnitude of the punishment for failing at the survival game is identical in both cases (starve, hack it in the wilderness and die, etc)

And it's tiring repeating over and over how I HAVE emphasized from the beginning that the game is inescapable because of DIRE CONSEQUENCES of not playing it — schopenhauer1

I understand you’ve emphasized this. And I’ve shown repeatedly how it makes no sense. The consequences are EXACTLY as dire in the case of the utopia. The only difference is the difficulty of the game, which you refuse to acknowledge as a variable because doing so would mean you have to show that life is too difficult which you cannot do.

Does that conclusion follow from the premises offered by the anti-natalist? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. But comes with ridiculous baggage oftentimes.

“Everything is wrong” also consistently leads to the antinatalist conclusion but also leads to charity being wrong which the antinatalist will disagree with, thus forcing them to re-examine their starting premises.

Logical consistency isn’t an issue. Not with antinatalism or nazism or anything else. The inconsistency lies in an adherent’s inability to accept the full consequences of their premises. And if they can do so, there isn’t much room for argument.

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no?

Not interested. There's plenty of opportunity to have related discussions on their terms — Srap Tasmaner

What? This isn’t about “their terms” and “our terms”. You offered a comparison that is invalid. Every antinatalist is aware that people generally like life (except @schopenhauer1 seems to remain unconvinced regardless of evidence presented)

Arguing badly against stupid positions is the best way to reinforce them.

It is precisely those dire consequences that make the game inescapable. — schopenhauer1

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s start slowly. You use the term “the game of life” quite often so when you say “game” that’s what I assume you’re referring to.

Is the game of life escapable in the utopia example? What is the method of escaping the game in the utopia example?

Is the game of life escapable in the real world? What is the method of escaping the game in the real world?

You will find that your answer to both questions is the same. Except in the one case you think having children (imposing the game) is ok and in the other you don’t. Which means that:

the injustice of an inescapable game. — schopenhauer1

Isn’t a good indicator. Both the utopia and the real world are equally inescapable. The only way out is death or suicide.

Furthermore, you agreed that your problem isn’t with inescapable games, but inescapable games where it’s too difficult not to suffer. You agree right here.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.

Si tell me when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1

So I ask you to show that life qualifies as “too difficult” and you fail to do so.

Again, it’s tiring repeating the same thing over and over. I didn’t “change the argument” we arrived at this point through simple questioning. The utopia example demonstrates that a forced game is not in itself bad, as you’re still being forced to live in the example. Your problem is with forced games that are also difficult. But you cannot show that life qualifies as such, so you attempt to reset the conversation.

An AN would tell you it’s not a valid comparison because in the case of saving someone, there is someone to be hurt for you failing to save them. In the case of having children there is no one they is hurt for failure to be born (since they don’t exist). Which I think is a valid critique.

I want to address this because this is mischaracterizing the argument to make your point — schopenhauer1

How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer this. And it would be hilarious to me if you just ignored it as usual.

That is literally saying that there is no forced game at all. — schopenhauer1

False. Living itself is a forced game. The only way to escape is suicide. And there is no euthanasia option. I did add that caveat didn’t I? I know you remember. It’s just that, in the utopia example, the game is incredibly easy (easy not to suffer in).

Now I’m saying that in real life the game is already plenty easy to bring in more people. You disagree. So show why it’s the case that life as is is too difficult.

It’s getting tiring going over ground we have already agreed upon.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.
— khaled

Si let me know when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1

I interpret Albero's idea about pessimism in that why don't I discuss pessimism in more exposition rather than making these tit-for-tat microarguments — schopenhauer1

And I reply to his pessimism point later. This was in response to “Doesn’t shope give many reasons why life is too difficult a game”? No, you give none.

The idea of lacking in the human animal is shown over and over in daily life too much and is too true a truism to just dismiss — schopenhauer1

Everyone agrees that people feel lacking sometimes. But that it’s all pervading affliction that never goes a way isn’t at all the case. Not in my experience at least. Just how many people would you think agree with:

life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. — Albero

You have a habit for claiming that something is the case with no evidence. You claim that the above is shown to you in daily life over and over. Most people wouldn’t make the same claim of their daily lives. Then it seems that it’s not so much a truism, as a sign of depression. But even if we accept it as true, the rest of what I say follows.

That isn't necessarily the claim. Rather, it is the dissatisfaction at the heart of being an animal in the world with needs and wants. The very fact of pursuing this or that.. — schopenhauer1

And I’m telling you these dissatisfactions are too easy to satisfy and so the game is fine to impose. You disagree and offer no reasoning. Despite it being you that’s trying to convince others.

People are often not as happy as they need to present themselves to others — schopenhauer1

Going to therapy has nothing to do with how “presentable” you are. In fact, oftentimes people are perfectly presentable and seem happy but actually are suffering. Those are the most common patients.

Again, the root of the problem is the need for X at all and that it is constant except for very few moments — schopenhauer1

False. And we’ve been over this. Your issue is not with the need to do X (the game). Your issue is that doing X is too difficult. If X were incredibly easy you wouldn’t have an issue with imposing the game (utopia example. You still need to snap your fingers to make the suffering go away, that’s an X you need to do). And so I tell you: X is too easy to do in life, enough to make it ok to impose the game. It’s on you to SHOW why this is not the case, instead of effectively assuming your conclusion and stating that it is.

hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero

No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of.

The conversation typically goes like this:

shope: Having kids is an action of type X and actions of type X are wrong! (X can be, for example, "unconsented imposition", in this case it's "putting someone in inescapable game" typically, why actions of type X are wrong is left unexplained, but barring that...)

Me: But *insert activity here* is also of type X and you don't think that's wrong

shope: Well, this activity is not X enough to be wrong!

Me: So how can you tell between activities that are X enough and ones that are not X enough? We all agree that activities that are too X are wrong (true by definition of the word "too"), but we just don't think life qualifies as too X.

shope then proceeds to either "delineate" the argument for 20 replies, or outright not respond, then comes back in another week with another X and we do the same thing all over again. Repeat ad nauseam.

"What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.

life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction — Albero

Thing is, it has never been my experience that this is the case. Never has it seemed that way in my own experience or others' experiences.

But even if we accept this, it is absolutely not the case that:

because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature. — Albero

This has 0 proof. If it were the case that we're all deeply dissatisfied animals only pretending to be happy, you wouldn't expect anonymous happiness polls to come back positive. You'd expect people to "break" and show their "true feelings" of deep dissatisfaction at a much higher rate than they are. You'd expect therapists to be the most paid and sought after profession in the world. This makes it seem like we're all miserable Oscar worthy actors pretending we're not miserable. Most people are not Oscar worthy actors.

The consequence of "life is an escape from boredom or dissatisfaction" isn't necessarily "we're all deeply unsatisfied animals pretending otherwise", there is 0 evidence for that. Even if we accept the first statement, it could just be the case that NOT everyone is a lying Oscar worthy actor, and instead, it's just easy to escape boredom and dissatisfaction so on the whole people find the game worthwhile.

I don't think that a majority of people thinking something at a particular time makes it right. — schopenhauer1

And I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that despite everyone agreeing with your principle, they don't agree with your conclusion. That doesn't make them right. But it puts your correctness under much more doubt. I was only pointing out that it's not clear at all that AN can be logically derived from:

forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. — khaled

You are automatically thinking escape means suicide. — schopenhauer1

Pray tell what other ways are there of escaping life? Unless you mean, escape suffering.

Your point was that life is a game where one must work to survive. The only surefire way of escaping this game is suicide or starvation. However we now know that what you are really concerned with isn't escape from the game itself, but escape from suffering within the game. Which is an important departure form your op:

Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. — schopenhauer1

Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.

In real life the escape from suffering is pretty easy in a lot of places (which would make imposing the game ok in those places). You think this statement is false. Show why this statement is false.

That world is precisely the world I am saying this is not. — schopenhauer1

Yes you're saying this. You're not showing it. I know the world isn't a utopia, but you've yet to show life is a difficult enough game not to impose. You think that life is too difficult a game. It's too hard not to suffer in life. I, (and the majority of people) disagree. You want to convince this majority that you are correct. Simply stating your opinion does not suffice for that purpose. Show that life is too difficult a game. We all understand you think it is, that alone is not convincing.

That's the nub, the heart, of the issue. :chin: — TheMadFool

Agreed. I’m not pushing for a particular position though. You and shope are trying to convince others of AN. So you must show why the standard by which you judge life as bad enough not to bring any more people in, should be objective. I’ve been asking shope for many threads now and he cannot come up with a consistent standard even, one that doesn’t lead to ridiculous side effects like having kids in a utopia being wrong, or wearing crocs on Sunday specifically being wrong. Much less explain why that standard is objective.

I'm afraid that won't do. — TheMadFool

Why doesn’t it? And what would? Would a happiness survey suffice? Because those always come back positive.

And even if we give that life on balance has more suffering (against all evidence), now what? Because that doesn’t logically lead to AN. You would need to explain why we should use a purely utilitarian standard with no other considerations.

Food for thought: assuming our imagination bears the mark of experience in the real world, ever wonder why our conception of hell has exquisite detail compared to our idea of heaven? — TheMadFool

Where did you get that our conception of hell had more detail than heaven?

And “bears the mark of experience in the real world” is vague hand waving. What exactly do you mean? That if I can imagine something in more detail, that means my life had more properties of that thing? That seems like a completely unsubstantiated claim to me.

First off, which hell and heaven? Christian? In that case it has nothing to do with our imagination and everything to do with how many words God dedicated to describing them in the Bible. Same with all the rest of the Abrahamic religions. And non abrahamic religions don’t usually have heaven/hell in tue first place, and when they do, their descriptions are not left to the followers’ imaginations.

Or you could be saying that all that stuff is made up, in which case, your argument still doesn’t hold. Even if we accept your terribly hand wavy statement above and accept your logic, all that would show is that the authors of the holy books felt it more appropriate to describe hell in more detail than heaven. Not that their imagination of hell was more detailed than their imagination of heaven.

This food for thought is way past its expiration date I’m afraid.

How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escaping suffering in life is easy enough such that having kids is ok” wrong?

Beforehand you made it seem like the difficulty of escaping the game is what determines whether or not it’s ok to inflict. Obviously a game that requires you to kill yourself to escape is too difficult to escape. But now we know that what you’re really concerned with is the difficulty of escaping suffering within the game, not the game itself. So it’s not at all obvious anymore that life is “too hard” in that sense.

I would think everyone agrees that forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. It’s true by definition (that’s what the word “too” is used for). And the majority still aren’t AN.

But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed? — khaled

You emphasize this here:

they can sufficiently "escape", so barring other information, this seems permissible. — schopenhauer1

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.

If people can snap their fingers and leave the Utopia without any problems (internal strife).. — schopenhauer1

That they cannot do. But they can snap their fingers and leave any suffering they may be experiencing and thus, no one has ever complained. Call that what you will, utopia or not. Now what?

If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)?
— TheMadFool

Because it's not perfect. And those are ways to a better life supposedly. — khaled

The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all.

Bikes just don't cut it when you mean business - a comfortable, smooth and pleasant trip. — TheMadFool

Depends on your standard I guess. In other words, life is not pretty because you choose to compare it to something better.

Are you taking back what you said about children and Utopia? — TheMadFool

For the purposes of discussion, sure, since you seem so convinced utopias are impossible and I don't care to argue that. They serve well enough for a thought experiment.

And the answer is: Obviously.
— khaled

How? Details or at least a sketch of your strategy? — TheMadFool

Experience and observation of others' experience.

Also the fact that it's physiologically possible should imply that it's possible.

But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed?

So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario?

So is it Utopia or not? Are there dire consequences of not doing X? — schopenhauer1

Yes it is a utopia. No there are no consequences to not doing anything. I don't understand what you're asking?