You're confusing observing something first-person with observing it third-person. Which is why I just pointed out the distinction. We observe someone having a dream with neuroimaging equipment, via their behavior, etc. — Terrapin Station

Observing someone or something is always first person. I can observe an elephant and you can observe an elephant in the external world. But I can also observe an elephant in a dream and you have access to that. But they both require a first person perspective/perceiver.

You cannot see someones dream or consciousness in their brain so you cannot judge whether that conscious preexisted their birth or exists after bodily death.

I find it quite easy to imagine consciousness to be separate from the body based on preexistent phenomena.

For example it could be like CD which you can slot into different computers. Your mind could inhabit different bodies.

It could be like a radio receiving a signal.

It could be like the telephone or internet where you can communicate with someone but they are not actually in the device.

I think the link between mind and body does not entail complete dependence.

You observe it from a third-person perspective, exactly as you observe every single other thing in the world that's not yourself. — Terrapin Station

If someone is having a dream I cannot observe that.

I can only interpret peoples behaviour to infer what conscious state they might be undergoing.

We have to rely on analogy to form beliefs about the similarity between our mental states and anyone else's.

Whereas with a body we can look closer and closer into the body to see intricate machinery, cell structures, DNA and can even scan for atomic forms. The privacy of mind is an unbridgeable gap at the moment.

Yes. It is utterly bizarre to exist at all — Inyenzi

I think the big bang and evolution narrative have made it seem more plausible for some people.

But consciousness is still a big mystery as well as why anything exist at all.

You can trace your DNA to a material lineage of causes but cannot do the same with consciousness.. Consciousness is like an arbitrary phenomena that it is hard to find a causal explanation for. It could be something that exists in a separate dimension or something

Just the same way we know any and everything we know. Based on observation of the world. — Terrapin Station

You can't observe someone else's consciousness.

There are lots of things you can't observe that can exist. I think skepticism about mental states is problematic.

For example imagine someone has been victim of crime but they can't prove it. You just have to have some faith in humanity that a majority of self reports are not lies. The same goes for mental health or biographical reports and other memories. You could be skeptical about so much that people can't directly prove and you can't directly observe.

But this skepticism is usually selective. People will believe personal accounts that they judge to be plausible by a personal or metaphysical standard. So then people will accept lies based on this plausibility criteria but will reject truths on the same criteria.

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. — S

What do you consider credible evidence? It seems you are making a value judgement by using the word credible.

You don't exist as a person, as something conscious, etc. prior to conception, by the way. — Terrapin Station

How do you know this?

I think whether there is an afterlife will depend on the nature of consciousness. I think there are good arguments that the mind and that body are not the same thing.

Mind body interactions seem problematic but they seem least problematic if everything is mental in some sense such as on the Idealism position.

I think coming into existence as a conscious entity from nothing and ending up as one specific person at one specific location is puzzling. "Why am I me?" is a common question.

↪Andrew4Handel
But exactly how does the “social construction” of money work?
It works because we believe it works, it is literally as simple as that. — hachit

I suppose it has to be enforced by the law courts and police as well.

Surprisingly you can accrue massive debts without facing prosecution.

I think, as others have said, money is about convenience. If I were a sheep rearer I wouldn't have to drag a group of them everywhere I go — TheMadFool

Often research groups and groups involved in projects or the government will claim we need X amount of money.

Why don't they specify the actual material they need so that people can directly supply the material?
Because I always wonder what they need the money for and the figures seem arbitrary. Sometimes the money might be to pay someones large salary or for some form of bureaucracy.

I do think there is something lacking in transparency in the values created by money I suppose in bartering or other material transactions you know what your getting.

What I am mainly wondering about is how money acts as a stimulus for innovation.

It might be that money just redistributes resources to particular tasks and bodies that are innovative.

So money is like a permission slip to resources and time and person power.

I find it strange what an incentive a money is when it not metaphysical a real thing but a kind of representation or concept.

This is The Stanford encyclopedia on the ontology of money:


"The social ontology of money: But exactly how does the “social construction” of money work? This question invokes the more general philosophical issue of social ontology, with regard to which money is often used as a prime example. An influential account of social ontology holds that money is the sort of social institution whose existence depends on “collective intentionality”: beliefs and attitudes that are shared in a community (see, e.g., Searle 1995, 2010; Smit, Buekens, & du Plessis 2011). The process starts with someone’s simple and unilateral declaration that something is money, which is a performative speech act (see Austin 1962). When other people recognize or accept the declaration it becomes a standing social rule. Thus, money is said to depend on our subjective attitudes but is not located (solely) in our minds (for a discussion see also the entries on social ontology and social institutions). In an early philosophical-sociological account, Georg Simmel (1900) had described money as an institution that is a crucial precondition for modernity because it allows putting a value on things and simplifies transactions; he also criticizes the way in which money thereby replaces other forms of valuation (see also section 4.1)."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/money-finance/

Modern money is mainly fiat money which gets its value from the government So it is not the equivalent of bartering.

I think governments and international bodies have the power to shape the economy and often intervene even in when they claim they aren't or shouldn't.

I think the government could distribute resources and do this as part of a social contract. Governments can also confiscate resources.

An example of the government distributing resources could be The National Health service in my country where anyone is allowed to access it and they get the treatment they need.

People have to need a treatment or they have to pay. For example they would have to pay for non essential cosmetic surgery or for any treatment that was not deemed essential, necessary or viable.

Only individual human beings have executive agency. Institutions such as governments, colleges, churches, corporations, etc. can not have, do not have executive agency. — Bitter Crank

These institution are usually run on a hierarchy with certain people within the institution having more power and responsibility. It is not like a headless chicken.

Also there can be collective responsibility within an organisation based on who did what and who voted for what or neglected a responsibility etc.

..and then there’s NZ PM Jacinta Ardern — Possibility

We will have to see what her legacies. I am not sure how representative she is. She certainly seems well meaning.

I think politicians that promote liberal and progressive causes still leave their countries with similar problems after they leave office such as successive governments in the US and the continuing huge prison population and poverty.

I believe it is possible that the people that constitute a Government organisation are possibly more unethical and psychopathic than your average human. There have been studies of personality traits in different fields of employment that show marked differences in different fields of employment.

Also it seems politicians often have a different educational background than the majority of the a country especially in Britain, with a class divide.

But if this is not the case you could say that they are representative of general human flaws.

But I feel they have the power to make more positive decisions than they do. It could be that politicians want to get elected so they appeal to the lowest common denominator to get ahead.

Overall I think politicians are capable of causing more harm than one individual.

I'm not saying the aforementioned justifications for violence are necessarily the best options — Judaka

I think that if something is not the best option then it is less reasonable.

I think harm leads to more harm. For example bombing Germany and Japan in world war two was a response to harm. There would be no justification for the second harm if the first harm hadn't happened.

I think we need to start from the first cases of harm because I think if there was no harm in the begin there would be less harm after. Things like social inequality and poverty can cause further chronic harms.

I don't know exactly the most appropriate way to define "Justification" there are various definitions but I am looking at it in a more morality and reasoning sense.

I think if you killed someone and made a million dollars on the surface that seems to give a reason for killing them. But very few people believe that is acceptable. But also if you turned that into a moral rule, that you could kill someone for profit then it would create a war of all against all. I think reasoning would lead to cooperation and harm minimization.

Another thing is that when I talk about justification I am not just looking at the person committing the harm for whatever reason but at the victim, can you justify to the victim what you have done to them.

As I said...you seem to have a black or white position on this. — Frank Apisa

That is because I find suffering completely unacceptable.

Well my position is that justifying any harm justifies all harm or leads to moral inconsistency and incoherence.

If someone endorses causing me harm I see that as endorsement of harm per se. I couldn't take seriously further claims they made prohibiting harm or telling me not to cause harm.

There are justifications. You may not agree with them...but that does not make them non-justifications. — Frank Apisa

Do you think there are justifications for having sex with children?

I think there might be a conflation of excuse and justification here.

However my overall point would be once you justify some harm it does undermine claims such as that we shouldn't harm others or that lives are valuable.

In a lot of those sorts of cases people simply are not articulating their actual stances very well. The stances are going to be more detailed, nuanced, qualified than what they may have stated. — Terrapin Station

It is easier to make contradictory statements and hold contradictory beliefs when you do not have profound beliefs.

Another scenario is someone who hates Clark Kent but Loves Superman. You can have contradictory feelings because you are unaware that the objects of a belief are the same thing.

What does your brother think? — T Clark

My brother does not have children and said he would not have children if there was a risk of them getting MS.

I don't know what his opinion is on antinatalism.

Okay...but keep in mind that an Aztec chief or shaman might consider "being essential to human existence and welfare" to be a very reason-based assessment. — Frank Apisa

If you come from the position that harm is unacceptable then that would undermine any justification for harm.

I think once you have reasoned that some harm is acceptable then you undermine the grounds for saying any harm is unacceptable.

I think a lot of superstitions are not evidence based anyway. If someone was sacrificed to The Rain God to create rain and that did not create rain that would undermine the justification for the killing

And the people doing the hurting are saying it is justified.

So are you. — Frank Apisa

I am saying consensual harm is mitigated which is by no means the same as justified.

, I don't believe that value/valuing is anything other than how an individual feels about something. — Terrapin Station

I think feelings and beliefs can be contradictory and actions. I think you can accuse people of being irrational/unreasonable or contradictory on this basis.

This is like the positions of wrong to kill vs abortion vs death penalty or the case that criminals do not like criminal offences committed against them. Cases of cognitive dissonance you could say.

Some people get off on being hurt. Masochists do...and derive sexual pleasure from it. — Frank Apisa

Consent mitigates this situation somewhat. You could argue that desired pain is actually pleasure.

There have been many discussions of antinatalism here on the forum. schopenhauer1 is one of it's prime proponents. I'm sure he'll have thoughts. — T Clark

My older brother has had multiple sclerosis for over 20 years which has left him paralyzed for around ten years.

I find it problematic, that creating children who end up with profound illnesses and disabilities can be justified especially if we usually condemn inflicting harm on others.

It seems to me we should definitely minimize any possible harm offspring might face. I would put the onus squarely on a parent to minimize their offspring suffering.

My overall stance is that suffering is almost always bad and undesirable and unjustifiable. I think pointless and unjustifiable suffering is probably the worst kind.

Wouldn't the difference be whether you're saving thousands of lives? — Terrapin Station

But I think you have logically invalidated the value of life by killing one person without his or her consent. Why does the innocent person you are killing's life have no value?

Also I think even if you felt you had to kill one to save a thousand lives it could still be deemed immoral. I think the problem with utilitarianism is the lack of value it allows for individual lives.

I think self sacrifice is a problem also. Even if someone consented to die for a thousand others.
Because if this is the only lifetime we have then I can't see a rational or desirable reason to end it other than unbearable suffering.

I can imagine throwing myself in front of a bus to save a child or friend/ relative but that would be "extra-rational" and emotive and spontaneous.

Intentionally, I think it can be justifiable to push people to do things they don't want to do, to nag at them, etc. That can produce change in a way that just letting them be doesn't. — Terrapin Station

But this seems to be because you want to help rather than harm them.

I think harming someone to help them is a tricky issue. A surgeon might do this, but even so patients usually have to consent to a health intervention.

I can accept that it might be necessary to harm someone for some reason but I would not therefore see that as a good thing. For example I think a heart transplant has many negative features. Such as the patients health problems before the transplant, the death of the heart donor and the long term disability and healthcare need that can occur after the surgery.

I think it probably should be primarily down to the individual how much they want to be harmed to be helped.

Cultural influences of a society plays a part in the answer to your question, Andrew. — Frank Apisa

Should we choose culture over reason? I am thinking more of a reason based assessment.

Utilitarian has an issue here. A utilitarian could justify killing one totally innocent healthy person to save a thousand lives. But would you want to be that person? On the other hand if you do accept the death of one person like this what logical grounds do you then have for condemning arbitrary violence.

You might contrast this with a boxing match however where there is consensual harm. Someone might accept harm and allow themselves to commit it. But I see that as an endorsement of harm per se.

So, for example, I think it's completely justifiable to smile and say "Hello" to someone as you pass by them on the street, even though that person might be psychologically upset that you did that, because they have a neurosis about it. — Terrapin Station

.

Maybe I should have put the word "deliberately" in my question.

What you are talking about is accidental harm. I think accidental harm is a serious problem and we should try and avoid it.

I don't know how much harm exactly is intentional. But accidental harm can be minimized. I think one problem of life is the exploitation of others and the environment necessary for life. (Insentient robots to some extent might lessen this)


If someone had a neurosis about being approached in the street then they would probably spend a lot of time in doors. If someone looked nervous then approaching them would not seem a good idea.

There are different types of inaction it seems.

Inaction might be classed as immoral in some circumstances, such as not preventing a child from drowning when you easily could.

In others such as not supporting a a war or dictatorship it could be seen as moral.

I do think inaction makes you less culpable than action. I think problems are usually caused by action first. For example environmental problems are caused by our actions.

It can feel like positive action is futile when it is trying to combat a flood of negative actions

Otherwise, how do you distinguish between an action involving something with an inability to either grant or withhold consent and an action that's contrary to an agent's wishes? — Terrapin Station

A dead person is unable to give consent but that does not justify necrophilia. That is an extreme example but it does not follow that if something can't consent we are justified in taking any action towards it.

This is a big issue with ecological philosophy. Should we pollute a lake because it and its inhabitants are outside the scope of consent. Should I be allowed to torture a dog because it cannot voice its consent other than expressing distress.

"Nonconsensual" conventionally has a connotation that something is against someone's consent.

Otherwise, how do you distinguish between an action involving something with an inability to either grant or withhold consent and an action that's contrary to an agent's wishes? — Terrapin Station

Words are not that rigid.

A tree probably would not want to be cut down if it was conscious and plants like this appear to strive to exist and flourish unconsciously.

Humans can consent once they are created so you are not referring to a situation where someone can never consent anyway.

An unconscious person can never consent because they are unconscious. The reason we don't offend against them is because of future potential.

It is important to point out that people did not consent to be born when it comes to ethical and social issues.
For example you cannot blame a child if its parents are drug addicts and it lives in poverty. I think morality is undermined because of the lack of initial consent to life. Morality implies a responsibility or contract. People are responsible for their children's existence but not for their own existence. I don't think my child would be a serial killer but it is a possibility and it is a certainly that my child would harm and exploit someone. These are the risks of creating someone else.

Someone needs to be existent and to be able to grant or withhold consent for us to be able to do anything in line with or against their consent.

That doesn't imply that they need to have experienced a particular thing to have an opinion about it. — Terrapin Station

I have not claimed that creating someone is against their consent. I am saying it is non consensual in nature. Chopping down a tree is non consensual because it cannot give or withhold its consent.

I am talking abut how we can imagine people that would not consent to different types of lives or life in general.

One reason consent matters is because of suffering and whether someone would consent to gross suffering. Suffering includes things like work stresses, insomnia, relationship breakdown to chronic disease.

I do not think any one person should have to suffer because other people enjoy life. The Kind of suffering we are talking about is not trivial.

In an analogy a lot of people find sex pleasurable but that does not justify rape. If everyone was glad to be alive then consent would be less of an issue but this simply is not that kind of world. There are clearly things that happen that people would not consent to and i can say that from rich personal experience. Your world view does not appear to recognize any kind of suffering.

First off, someone having a preference to x doesn't imply that they've experienced x yet. — Terrapin Station

That is what I have been saying all along. You appear to be claiming someone needs to be actively experiencing something for it to matter.

In my thread that was merged with this I expressed how I know I did not consent to all the negative experiences I am having. My parents assumed before having me I would have a certain kind of life. they didn't imagine the reality. I know consent matters from personal experience.

Society cannot be based on the idea individuals are responsible for their own lives. But it should be based on the fact that society is created by parents creating new people. I am not responsible for coming into existence but I would be responsible for my children coming into existence.

I'm trying to find the connection between inhibitions (the restraint we apply un-/sub-/consciously) and will-power (the motivation towards 'something') because they both seem to reflect a symmetry in the nature of force/influence they exert such that they could almost be said to be different phases of a singular factor. — BrianW

I think will power can be in service of inhibition or lack of inhibition.

Some religious people or conservatives use their will power to enforce their self restrictions. Some anarchist types will deliberately try and express themselves as freely as possible.

It's certainly possible that someone does. — Terrapin Station

No it really isn't based on how the body responds to being burnt alive. It is unbearable.

Here's how you know: you ask the person in question. — Terrapin Station

It is too late after you have created a person to ask whether or not they wanted to experience life.

Your positions seems bogus to me if you claim not be able to imagine preferences especially in cases which are likely to have no exceptions.

If someone says "I hate life and kills themselves" How can you justify having created them? You decided that that child would want to be born. By having a child you must be assuming they want to born or are just been extremely selfish and self centered.

How many people enjoyed being slaves or dying in genocide?

There is no "general rule" about preferences that is universal. — Terrapin Station

So some people like being set on fire?

If someone said

"Which would you prefer? Growing up in a nice house in the suburbs as a good looking healthy child or growing up with a chronic illness in a slum.?"

I would certainly prefer the former.

The idea that the child you are going to create has no preferences is ludicrous in my opinion. It is very easy to imagine what the a majority of people would dislike when they come to exist and social services already use this metric and the eugenics movement sterilized people based on perceived negative outcomes.