And how would that be, if you don't mind explaining? — Olivier5

A model is just relation between the data from sensory receptors and the behaviour appropriate to it to reduce the uncertainty involved in any interaction. The models refine themselves by means of pursuing a minimum entropy gradient of fit between them and the external stimuli they're a model of.

It's generated by both the membrane potentials of particular neuronal populations and by the probabilistic mechanisms of neuron firing rates.

Basically, there's a higher metabolic cost to the neuronal architecture which is repeatedly delivering unexpected information relative to that which is expected so neuronal populations tend to develop networks which predict the signals from those beneath them. Part of the way they do this is suppressing noise from lower cortices using backward acting connections, partly they prune synapses within their own cluster whose discontinuity is highest (those that fire at rates in conflict with those from signals of lower hierarchies).

The higher the hierarchies, the more collated the data is that they're dealing with ('My Kitchen Table', as opposed to 'edge';'shadow';'light' etc). So higher hierarchies model the causes of signals from lower hierarchies.

The end result is that sensory data and interoception data is filtered through a system of neuronal circuits which are passing a filtered and modulated version of that data on to hierarchies above them based on an expectation of the cause of the signal. A model.

It seemed like you were saying, in this particular case we shouldn't act on what would probably reduce suffering unless we have a "watertight" case, due to the irreversibility of extinction. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, that's not far off what I was saying.

it's not reasonable to treat extinction as higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering. And stakes being equal, we should use the balance of probability to guide our behaviour. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Firstly, why is it not reasonable? Many people think the extinction of the human race is a big deal, and that suffering can be reduced to levels which make it worthwhile by social and political action. Do their values not count?

Secondly, the balance of probabilities isn't sufficient. It's more likely that we'll invent the space elevator if we continue having children, so on the balance of probabilities we should support natalism... But hang on, do we care about building a space elevator? Balance of probabilities isn't enough. An unlikely outcome which we value very highly is worth more than a likely one which we value less. Most people seem to think it a good idea to strive for the unlikely, but highly valued, future society in which everyone is grateful to be, rather than the very likely but disvalued one where no one is suffering at all, but no one exists either.

Reduction of the population is necessary to free enough land and resources to ensure quality of life, and deal with the 9 million deaths per year from pollution (16% of all deaths). — Down The Rabbit Hole

On this we can agree (though I wouldn't go as far as 'necessary', it would certainly help).

Well I appreciate your patience :lol: — Down The Rabbit Hole

Just waiting on the paperwork...

Oh my god, I have almost 3000 likes!!! :love: — Kenosha Kid

Amateur. I've got 4.6k...overnight. Looking forward to another few k today from my spontaneous fanbase.

whether morality 'objective' or 'subjective' matters mostly to philosophers, sophists and clergy – pedagogues (ideologues); that behaviors are either permissible or not however, matters to everyone else who lacks the leisure or inclination to reflect on whether morals (i.e. the permissible) are public customs or private preferences with which to each one regulates 'self-control'. — 180 Proof

Exactly. Basically the point I've been making here. Whether morals actually are objective, absolute, subjective, or relative matters not one jot when it comes to people following them. They will do so on the basis of a little bit of biology and a huge slice of enculturation. No matter what philosophers think.

How do models arise in an eliminative materialist model? — Olivier5

The definition I'm using of eliminative materialism is the SEP one...

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind. — SEP (my bolding)

So models arise in the same way as they might in most approaches to cognition. They're a named model of a neural network. Some people have kittens about models of models. If you're one of those then I can't help you I'm afraid.

... why would it matter if morality was objective or not? Objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong, they don't care either way. Neither force people to do what's right. — Isaac

Same with laws: why bother with legistlating or just punishment since "neither force people to do what's right?" — 180 Proof

Well laws have both social and penal consequences for disobeying, yes? This is the point I'm trying to steer toward. If an objective morality had any power to persuade people to act in accordance with it, then that power would be, like laws, social peer pressure. But then objectivity is not required. Popularity is sufficient.

Laws themselves are not absolute. They change over the years and are different in different countries. Are we immoral in the UK for letting our young adults drink at 18 instead of 21?

It's the normative force that matters in getting people to behave, not the objectivity. Good social narratives, positive role-models, being valued by your community... all worth a hundred times more than an appeal to a supposedly objective fact about the world that people would happily disagree with no matter what the evidence.

Housing is highly illiquid. If you give everyone more money and impose rent control, rents will rise and many people will be unhoused. If you let prices float upward, it won't help much because you can't truck in new housing. — fishfry

Might be different in America, but here we have plenty of housing. Entire blocks of flats lie empty in London because it's more financially viable for investors to simply hold on to the property than it is for them to rent out the space within it. I get what you mean, but I don't think the lag times are as significant as you might think. I'd need to see some data on it.

the government is freezing rents and bailing out landlords. Making an absolute sucker out of anyone who scrimped and saved to honorably pay their rent. That's a big problem with bailouts, moral hazard. It makes a fool out of anyone who actually paid their debts. — fishfry

Sounds like a crazy system, but in a sense, one the minimum wage is needed to solve. People have to be housed, it's morally bankrupt to just let them live in the gutter, but also it's no good for the economy because they're not ready-to-work when there's growth and businesses need to expand their workforce. Someone has to pay to keep the potential workforce pool alive and healthy (and educated and skilled, but that's another story). At the moment, it's the government, but all that does is present a competitive opportunity for companies to compete on low labour costs. Minimum wages remove that incentive by shifting the burden of costs to the companies. Of course it makes little difference in the long run as the companies pass that cost on to their customers and people pay more for stuff instead of taxes. The important point is not making anything cheaper, it's removing the incentive to compete by scraping labour costs.

Historically, free markets do better than controlled economies in terms of vibrance, growth, doing business, and establishing the right price. Controlled economies lead to misallocation of resources.

To be fair I'm now arguing an Austrian economics position about which I know the buzzwords but not the details. I should probably quit while I'm behind here because I'm already in a bit over my head. — fishfry

Me too. My take though is that the historical perspective is too broad brush. All economies are controlled. We have acres of laws about tax, corporations, assets etc, not to mention the articles and memoranda of the corporations themselves, the government incentives, central bank involvement, World Bank, International Monetary Fund. The whole global economy is laced up so tight... I don't think 'control' is even a variable - it's happening anyway.

But if you set the rate too high, especially in a world with a huge surplus of unskilled labor, you create massive unemployment. Which you solve with welfare programs, again making a sucker of anyone who works for a living. — fishfry

Yes, I can see how that might be a problem, but personally, I think this is not even an economic issue, it's a cultural one. There's simply not that much work to be done. We're much more efficient at making stuff these days and there's a limit to amount of stuff we need. It follows inexorably that there's less work around. I think we need to deal with that culturally before we can work out a sensible way of dealing with it economically.

I'm sure you remember the famous story of the luxury tax on yachts passed 30 or so years ago by the US Congress. — fishfry

I don't actually, but it does sound exactly the kind of daft thing a government might try to paper over the cracks with. What I meant by making profits on luxury items was that this is where the corporations would focus their normal advertising, cost-competing, efforts, I didn't mean government taxation.

there are often grounds for a kind of 'mutual exasperation' in such discussions. — Wayfarer

Indeed. This will probably be another such, but I'll come back on a few of the points you've raised. After all, that the point of this place.

There's the expectation that if you're going to criticize the role of science in culture, then you ought to have a good scientific reason for so doing. Allied with that, the expectation that if you do pursue that line of thought, then you must prefer to 'get your information from burning bushes' (I was actually told this recently). — Wayfarer

I think this is true, but what I experience is the less common, but annoying - 'if you don't agree with the 'woo' you must be cold robotic positivist with no philosophical understanding'. The cliches work in both directions.

I do think eliminative materialism is unquestionably wrong (and I'm not alone in that). It's an example of the self-reinforcing tendency in this kind of theory - it purports to be 'scientific', although actually it's not, because there's no way of demonstrating it scientifically, it's not a theory about anything objective. — Wayfarer

I don't find this to be the case. The extent to which I'm an eliminative materialist is entirely a model-based one. I think it's a good default position and the arguments I make for it are entirely pragmatic. I don't, nor would ever, claim that it can be supported on 'scientific' grounds. I think you over group non-woo ans science. They're not the same. What I detest about 'woo' is pretence, not anti-science. I don't care much about anti-scientific thinking. What I care about is people trying to get power over others by claiming to have 'secret' knowledge that only the enlightened can access, and all that bullshit. I don't just mean organised religion here. It goes all the way from the Pope, to some guy on the internet with a condescending "you wouldn't understand unless you've read...". It's all power plays and they piss me off (hence the occasional rant). If anyone came on claiming the Lord of the Rings was all true somehow I'd have no truck with them at all - believe what you like, just don't claim that only the enlightened can then talk to Frodo.

Eliminative materialism exists due to the fact that the intrinsically subjective nature of conscious experience or existence, is out-of-scope for objective explanation as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

No. This is taking the way the world seems to you to be the way the world actually is. It seems to you as if consciousness was intrinsically subjective, it does not seem that way to others. Eliminative materialism doesn't agree with you about the intrinsic subjectivity and then rule it out of scope. It disagrees with you about the intrinsic subjectivity (or about it's nature, anyway).

This was the whole point I was making in the other thread. You claim that conscious experience is intrinsically subjective as a fact about what is the case. Yet you've derived this 'fact' by introspection alone...using your conscious experience of existence...the very thing you just argued was intrinsically subjective...So how exactly does it deliver you facts about the world which you can claim apply to others. It's just your story, the way things seem to you to be. It's not a description of the way the world is because, as 'science' has proven, measurements of the way the world is are observer dependant.

this is something that critics of Dennett have been saying for 50 years - but none of it counts. He simply ignores the criticism, dismisses it as hand-waving. If no criticism can ever really be made, then who is being 'dogmatic'? — Wayfarer

See, now this is an example of the problematic arguing style we started out with. Obviously critics of Dennett criticise him. It's tautologically true. It's not an argument in itself to say "some people disagree". Dennett is a Philosopher who is not only just as well educated as his critics, but has won awards for his work. He obviously does not 'hand waive' away criticisms. It seems to you that he does because you don't find the counter-arguments compelling, but again, the way things seem to you is not the way things actually are. Your conscious experience is unavoidably 'observer dependant' and does not simply deliver you an unfiltered understanding of the what is the case.

Also want to clarify that where I think the problem lies is not with science - for instance, I have zero regard for climate-change denial, anti-vaccination, or creationism - but in taking science as being authoritative with respect to human identity or the human condition. — Wayfarer

Again, I would have the same issue. Science is far too under-informed to be authoritative about something as vast as human identity and theories are too underdetermined by the data anyway, even if we had all the data in the world. The point is...so is any other approach.

I will often weigh in, usually when the opinion is expressed that humans 'are an arrangement of atoms' and are therefore understandable, in principle, in terms ultimately reducible to physical laws (in other words, physicalism). — Wayfarer

And it's good that you do. That's the great thing about these places, we get to hear from people with all sorts of perspectives. It just seemed a little unfair to weigh in as if your insight was worth hearing, but then when others try to explain why they think differently you say "I'm not interested". Seems a little one-sided is all, but I understand you don't necessarily mean it that way, I gather your intention from your earlier...

The thing is that modern culture, generally, presumes that the ‘scientific worldview’ is normative, kind of the arbiter of what is considered real. It is more like an undercurrent a lot of the time. — Wayfarer

I'd just say, take a look at the responses...

, for example. You're not David here. The crowd are cheerleading for your team, not mine, Dennett's the bogeyman, Nagel the enlightened sage...etc

I had largely taken it for granted that relativism is bad because, just cause.. — Cheshire

Yes. You're not alone, clearly.

When “folk psychology” is spoken to you, what best describes what you hear, in a narrower sense of the term? — Mww

As I was arguing in one of the other threads about psychology (I can't remember if it was the "All psychologists are Nazis", or the "Psychology killed Jesus" thread, one of the enlightening, well-informed and balanced discussions we've had recently), we all have a whole slew of psychological theories. You have a model of how someone will respond given a particular set of circumstances, including yourself. That's what I understand to be 'folk psychology'. It's usually not far off the mark, we've been doing it for millennia after all.

Not only are they worried about what’s morally permissible, their actions are bound by a strict moral justification. See Mein Kampf or the old and new testament But I get what you’re saying. In committing genocide they are rejecting one set of moral precepts
in favor of another. — Joshs

Sometimes. I think there are also cases where the narrative these people use is "Morals don't apply to me" or "morality is nonsense" etc. There are all sorts of available narratives, but yes, some grander purpose narrative is often chosen which they would see as 'moral'. Hopefully the point still carries. There's simply no status an action could be labelled with that would prevent people from deriving an alternative narrative within which doing the thing anyway was justified.

If it could be argued coherently that they shouldn't do it because of some sort of absolute morality then maybe it could be stopped, however. — ToothyMaw

Again. How?

We find a book clearly written by God called "All the Morals" and in it is a passage which say "FGM is immoral". People who want to do FGM say "Well we're Immoral then" and carry on.

You're not saying anything about why people would stop doing something on finding out (or being convinced) that it was objectively or absolutely immoral. What is it about a thing's status in this magic Book of Immoral Things, or whatever, that makes people not do the things that are in it?

Ok, what makes people do right or wrong things if not my naive proposal. — Cheshire

Well, the long answer is the subject of entire research projects. The short answer - several different factors; empathy, disgust, in-group reinforcement, social narratives, social identity... are the main ones.

allowing for moral relativism no doubt allows for beliefs that cause actions that then cause unnecessary suffering. — ToothyMaw

How? No one seems to be presenting a mechanism connecting objectivity of morals to people being somehow unable to act or form beliefs contrary to them

No — Cheshire

Then why would it matter if morality was objective or not? Objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong, they don't care either way. Neither force people to do what's right.

Making wrong things appear permissible. — Cheshire

Do you really think people capable of genocide are worried about what's morally permissible?

It delivered the worst humans have ever done. Slavery, Genocide, Illegal Downloading... — Cheshire

But how?

relativism causes so much harm — Cheshire

Intrigued by this. How do you imagine it causes harm?

Interesting background, thanks.

As you may know, I'm a research psychologist. Although I'm retired now, I spent the vast majority of my career on beliefs and the factors which affect their formation, strength, defence...etc (particularly social factors). So you and I have perhaps a significant overlap in interests (though not in music it seems - waaay to pop-ish for my tastes, but I appreciate the exposure nonetheless).

My version -

...of course, Sonny really is blind, so they're talking about actual eyes and actual seeing...but you get the point.

Generally don’t think I can be accused of being discourteous although plainly my views are at odds with many others. — Wayfarer

I wasn't imputing your intentions. I was pointing out the consequences.

If you say "materialists have missed the point / got this wrong", that can be taken one of two ways.

Either you're presenting your view for discussion, or you're just jeering at materialists {"what a bunch of losers to have got it so wrong, am-I-right"}. If, in response to the materialists defence, you say "I don't discuss with materialists", the effect is to render your comment of the latter type, regardless of your intention. Not discussing the issue is as good an indicator that you didn't raise the matter for discussion as one could get.

By refusing to discuss the arguments, you appear to be taking the position that either eliminative materialists are wrong beyond question (which is, you'll forgive, more than a little dogmatic), or the position that eliminative materialism is not of interest to you (in which case, why keep bringing it up?). Do you see the problem?

It's not about which posts you reply to, it's about which debates you engage in. If the eliminate materialism debate doesn't interest you, then it might give less of a mixed message if didn't keep starting them. If it does interest you, but not the actual responses of the eliminative materialists themselves, then it's not really 'debate' you're interested in, is it? Difficult to understand the purpose of the post, if not for debate.

I can decide who and who not to respond to. — Wayfarer

No one's disputing that. Mainly I'm intrigued by your thought processes, but I do think it's a little impolite of you to post your condemnations of whole swathes of the population (scientists, materialists, positivists etc) if you know in advance don't intend to actually pursue that line of discussion. If you've no intention of engaging with positivists, or materialists then it's little more than boorish jeering to keep posting about how we're all wrong about everything.

The reason it’s pointless to debate you, is because you have a fundamentally positivist attitude which is never going to be shifted by anything I have to say. — Wayfarer

Why would you want to shift my attitude? Are you recruiting?

Notwithstanding, I've a couple of questions about this approach of yours...

Why 'attitude'? Are approaches for you clearly divided into 'attitudes' and conclusions (the former intractable, the latter the result of reasoned thought)? How do you distinguish an 'attitude' from a conclusion, such that you might find it worthwhile debating a wrong conclusion, but not a wrong 'attitude'? Surely persistence in the face of counter-argument can't be a measure alone as one would presumably persist no less with a well-reasoned and right, conclusion.

If someone disagrees with you and that's because you're actually wrong, then their position isn't going to shift is it, yours is. So by saying it's pointless to debate someone who position doesn't seem to be shifting no matter what you say is a self-immunised assumption that your position simply must be right. What if I'm not changing my position because all of your arguments are weak and unpersuasive? Does that bother you at all? What if I'm not changing my position because it's more resilient to counter-argument than yours? Is that something you just assume couldn't possibly be the case from the outset?

Yeah, frustrating as hell. I can't get my head around why someone would come on to a public forum and then not do the one thing the forum is designed to do, I mean, it's not as if there aren't hundreds of topic-specific forums in which people can discuss the details of issues they're all in broad agreement on. This approach of launching into a topic with a very strong claim, knowing it will be contested, and then backing out almost as soon as it actually is contested is really intriguing. It's the main reason I keep engaging, I'm hoping one time I'll understand a little more about the thought processes here.

Science went searching for the ultimate basis of matter, and this is what it found. — Wayfarer

Yep. Which it then had the decency to admit to, investigate and form models based on.

What happened when Plato, Buddha, Mohammed,...etc went in search of the really real essence of reality? A similar admission, or thousands of year's worth of woo?

In that case, nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

Ah yes, I forgot your aversion to talking with anyone who disagrees with you. My apologies. No doubt I just don't understand the issue. In fact, have you got a massive quote from someone to that effect you can paste in lieu of an actual response, by any chance?

Do you recommend Daniel Dennett's approach to the subject? — Wayfarer

To the extent that I'm aware of it, yes. I was in broad agreement with his article 'Quining Qualia' for example. I think it made some very good points about the subjectivity of experience. Again, it seem the opponents of Dennett's position who are wanting the 'view from nowhere', where 'the blue quale' is a thing that we can call into existence as a group of humans and talk about as if we all knew what it really means.

Accepting reality as being that which we subjectively model from hidden external states forces us to discard the objective reality of things like qualia, number, consciousness, purpose, God... All these things must only be models, better or worse for their utility.

there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea so far as the respondent knows, or else, a link to or quote of or other brief educational presentation of someone else who has already had that (supposedly) exact idea, and why (if) not everyone is on board with it already. — Pfhorrest

Nice idea.

The first poster can then clarify how (if) their idea is different from the older version, or put forth what they think is a new argument that defeats the existing counterarguments that have been presented. — Pfhorrest

...which would then devolve into a carbon copy of every single thread we already have since no two ideas are so identical that no such argument could be made. Cue endless arguments about how your x is really the same as their y... You've still got the same blind spot you have in all the posts of this sort. You think that the way the world seems to you is just as clear to others. It's just a theory of mind issue, quite common. Things that seem clearly delineated to you are not delineated that way to others. It means that complex things like ideas can't be compared via 'weights-and-measures' as if they were packs of lumber. Ideas either resonate or they don't. They're like a hat, they either suit you or they don't. They're not atomic structures to be dissected and compared like an Ikea flat pack.

It's just that you said...

The only way to make such a system work long term, is to give everyone free money and simultaneously implement rigid price controls. And then you create shortages. — fishfry

...Why would you need price controls? Supply would just go up do meet demand and so bring prices back down. Or it wouldn't (because people can conspire to limit supply), but then the same would happen with water.

Basically, what's different between houses (where you predict a rise in prices will lead to shortages) and water (where you predict a rise in prices will will met by a rise in supply and so even out)?

The problem (in our country, anyway), is not that people can't afford rent, it's that their inability to afford it is covered by the state. Since it's not in the state's best interests to just let people go unhoused (it needs a ready-to-work workforce in 'reserve' to accommodate economic growth), it has to pay landlords where the unemployed and low wage earners can't afford to. The landlords know this and so set the rent accordingly.

Prices are not set in a vacuum. If I have figs to sell in the market, I don't pick a price point at random and then see how they go. I pick a price point using my knowledge of the world. I know figs are quite common, I've bought them myself in the past etc. In a world where there was a minimum wage system in place, that would be one of the bits of information about the world I would use to set my prices. If I put my prices so high that some people can't afford them, the RPI would go up, minimum wage would go up, corporation tax and wages would go up to cover it, and I'd end up making a loss.

All minimum wage is is a system for ensuring that there's no economic gain to be had from a corporation pricing it's essential goods beyond that which it's lowest paid workers can afford. If they do, the system simply corrects the wage to meet it so no increase in net profit is possible that way. Profits have to be made on luxury items instead.

This is moral realism, though. Might makes right. The downtrodden will not like it.

"The existing natural state is that people have children. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok." — baker

As usual you've grabbed a barely connected sentence out of context just to use a a springboard for some general whinging. Not even worth a reply really, I'll just quote the rest of the post you decided to ignore

Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as... — Isaac

I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not sure how you got that from what I said. I'm comparing only actual living people and predictable effects on future living people. The current well-being of the as-yet-to-be-born doesn't factor in.

I don't know if I said something to the effect of "I just reckon" — Down The Rabbit Hole

But

I would say... — Down The Rabbit Hole

...and still no actual data.

I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well then you don't see where I'm going. If antinatalism over this period is only partially sucessful, you'll have fewer people (and less incentive) to carry out necessary projects to reduce the suffering of that 1%, such that it might be 2 or 10% that are now suffering. They'll continue to suffer all the while the antinatalist project fails to be 100% successful, yet the more sucessful it is, the greater the percentage of those who remain will suffer.

Just to be clear, I'm just getting a picture of your consequentialism here, not arguing a position I hold. I think it's mindnumbingly idiotic to set as one's goal the elimination of suffering even if there's no one left to benefit from it... I'd as soon have you committed as argue the case, but since the former isn't an option...

at what percentage does the minority get discounted? — schopenhauer1

They never get 'discounted'. That's not how averages work. The 'rule' requires a data point {the probability that your house colour will annoy the rest of the street}. We could set a rule which said 'do not paint your house any colour where the probability it will be disliked is higher than 34.56%. That rule might be an absolute rule, not subject to democratic vote, but it still requires the data point to be determined, and that measures people's current likes and dislikes.

I'm just pointing out that your thinking here is flawed. With natalism, we could have a rule which says "do not have children when the probability that they'd rather they hadn't been born is greater than 0.05%" The rule itself is the moral, and that is not subject to democratic vote, it's not 'might makes right', even if 99.9% of the world disagreed with that rule, it would still be the rule. But in order to work to that rule, the data point {what % of the population would rather they hadn't been born} is needed.

A color to a house and a human life you would think this rule would get more stringent, don't you think? — schopenhauer1

Yes. I think it would. It's reasonable to say that something like a 50% approval of your house colour might be enough. To continue having children with only a 50% approval of being born would be an abomination (if there were no other mitigating factors - which of course there usually are).

Is it not the case that you hold a vested interest in the proliferation of the stigma associated with psychiatric diagnosis?

The stigma is, after all, what makes the psychiatric diagnosis so powerful and so relevant. Without the stigma, psychiatric diagnosis would be triflesome. — baker

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't have anything whatsoever to do with the diagnosis of mental disorders. Nothing.

From what I've seen, psychologists tend to try really hard to live up to that stereotype. Maybe it's a professional deformation. Maybe it's something deeper than that. — baker

Or maybe it's because you're forming your judgment about an entire international field of research, teaching and practice based on the six people you happen to have met...?

What I'm critiquing is not science but scientism. — Wayfarer

You clearly said that the scientific method as incapable of accommodating the subjective. The method, not the philosophy sometimes associated with it. You then went on to say that science derived directly from that method proved this.

You've basically disproven your point. Science is perfectly capable of exploring the intrinsic subjectivity of experience. There are dozens of theories about reality which include, or even hinge upon, the idea that we subjectively create aspects of it. It's probably the leading theory in neuroscience at the moment, for example.

If you're critiquing, not the method, but the philosophy - scientism, then the same critique should apply to all philosophies which attempt to acquire the 'view from nowhere'. Platonism, for example, which posits that there exist forms like numbers and essences which are true independent of the human minds which grasp them - the view from nowhere. Where is your critique for these approaches?

It was the classically modern scientific framework, I was referring to — Wayfarer

Why would that be relevant, given that...

That has indeed begun to change — Wayfarer

...?

But even with regards to...

the classically modern scientific framework — Wayfarer

...Was it not this very enterprise that was responsible for said discoveries? It wasn't philosophers who discovered quantum theory. It was scientists, brought up in the exact modern scientific framework you criticised as it...

excludes or ‘brackets out’ the subject, so as to arrive at ‘the view from nowhere’, — Wayfarer

... So how did it give rise to the discovery of innate subjectivity? How is it that the very method you critique derived the evidence you're using to substantiate that critique?

I operate from the data I am aware of — Down The Rabbit Hole

I assumed that, I was just wondering what your numbers are. Key ones being - % of the population who'd rather they hadn't been born, quantification of their 'suffering' vs the suffering of humanity as it descends to extinction, and the length of time you envisage the process taking.

wasn't sure of the gross increase in suffering you had in mind. Presumably, sadness of not being able to have children, less young people to look after the older generation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, and also, any community benfitting project which takes more than single generation to complete.

I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.

Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that?

I don't think the extent to which anitinatalism will be successful is relevant to my position that procreation is a net bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The less successful it is the longer the human race is around for despite your policy, the more net suffering from those who remain. Given that the human race will end anyway at some point, a long drawn out decline by antinatalism only yields a net drop in suffering if it successfully ends the human race enough years before it was going to end anyway.

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What makes you think that? You'd need numbers on the amount of suffering, the longevity of the human race, the extent to which antinatalism will be successful - all seems like quite a lot of guesswork on which to advocate the extinction of humanity, no?

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But you said that no individual should suffer for the good of the masses. So why should those people who will suffer during the course of this 'eventually' do so just to alleviate the potential suffering of these unfortunate future people who would otherwise have miserable lives?

the dream of some objective measuring framework is long dead. — Kenosha Kid

Yes — Wayfarer

Then how come

Modern scientific method excludes or ‘brackets out’ the subject, so as to arrive at ‘the view from nowhere’ — Wayfarer

The whole of the modern scientific method doesn't sound very 'dead' to me.

Also, if...

Special relativity killed off the idea that there's a special frame of reference for an ideal observer (a god's eye view) and quantum theory made it abundantly clear that observing an experiment makes you part of the experiment (gonzo science if you will). — Kenosha Kid

...and you...

know that — Wayfarer

...then how are you still claiming that science is looking for the view from nowhere? Is quantum theory not science, is special relativity a movement in literature?

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

This is a non sequitur. You're confusing the rule with the data used to carry it out.

Let's say a society has a simple rule. "Do not paint your house a colour that the others in your street generally don't like". That rule could be an absolute one, not subject to democratic usurpation, but immutable for all time. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact that, in order to carry it out, one must discover which colours 'others in your street generally don't like'. Not only can this stage be carried out by majority averaging, but arguably it must be, else it would be prone to bias. One must check, by majority average, what colours are acceptable in order to carry out the timeless and absolute rule to only use such colours on one's house.

It's the same with children. The (seemingly) timeless and absolute rule is that we shouldn't do something on someone else's behalf unless their response is likely to be proportionate to the necessity of the action. There's nothing democratic about this rule. To carry it out, however, we need to assess what a person's likely reaction will be. That data is something which needs to be derived from averaging a population, otherwise we're just guessing.

Modern scientific method excludes or ‘brackets out’ the subject, so as to arrive at ‘the view from nowhere’, i.e. an understanding of reality that is as devoid of all traces of subjectivity. But in so doing it then forgets or overlooks the fact that knowledge of anything whatever always requires the judgement of an observing subject. — Wayfarer

How so?

Lets say scientists propose a model of phenomena X, they find, by experimental removal of subjective variables, a model of X which successfully predicts the behaviour of X for almost everyone who experiences X. In what way have they 'forgotten' that these people's experience of X is ultimately reliant on their mind's interpretation of the phenomena? All they've done is derive a working model of X that removes a lot of subjective variance, not a model which removes subjective experience of it.

When a scientist makes a claim that, say, F=ma, they're not suggesting that this doesn't involve any mind experiencing that fact, the issue doesn't even crop up most of the time, but when it does, the appropriate science (cognitive sciences, in this case) are acutely aware of the fact that the brain models external states, the values of which remain hidden. What they are suggesting is that this model holds true despite any variances in the minds experiencing it. Two people will both experience the relation that f=ma, regardless of their subjective mental states.

In fact, it's brands of woo like yours which 'forget' the importance of subjective judgement. Just because you feel humans are important and have a special purpose in the universe, does not then mean we all do. Your insight is filtered through your own subjective judgement, it's not a hotline to God.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species.

I don't follow you. You say...

If everyone has an extra $1000/month for rent and there is no increase in available housing and there is no increase in rents, the available units will quickly be filled to 100% capacity and there will be no place to live despite the extra money in your pocket. — fishfry

...and also...

If the price of water goes way up, people are incented to supply more water. — fishfry

...Which is it? When the demand goes up (the 'bidding up' of rents has to be demand led, yes?) you don't theorise an increase in supply to match demand (and so consequent deflation in the original price bubble), but when theorising about water, you assume rising prices will lead to a subsequent increase in supply. Either rising prices lead to an increase in supply or they don't. If they do, then rising rent prices is not a problem (supply will simply meet demand and so stabilise prices eventually), or rising prices are not necessarily met by rising supply (the market monopolises to limit supply in order to artificially sustain high prices), in which case caps on pricing could work perfectly well in some circumstances.

Both are possible, but what seems unlikely is they the choice of which will conveniently happen to be whichever makes market economics sound most reasonable.

you said jeff makes 800/hr. — Book273

Turns out according to https://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-is-jeff-bezos-mind-blowing-facts-net-worth-2019-4?r=US&IR=T it's more like a few million.

But hey, Maybe in the UK it takes 30+ hours a week to fill out the benefits paperwork, so 10/hr. Not so awesome then. — Book273

What's required in the UK for eligibility for Universal Credit;

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/your-responsibilities

Do you see just five minutes of paperwork there?


You've not answered my question. What process did you follow to conclude that benefits recipients get a better return than rich CEOs? Did you look anything up, for example? Read any research? Did you do anything at all to check before just spewing up a load of shite to insult some the poorest people in our community?

"... an' they catch 'im... an' they say e's mental!!" — bongo fury

Ah.

'Ketchup' was better...

Hopefully you can see the passing relevance. — bongo fury

I do now, yes.