But asking for every moment separately "Sleep instead?" and asking for the sum seems to lead to different results. This is strange. — Heiko

Can you clarify?

There is no moment in my free-time I would strictly not switch out for sleep. But in practice I would not switch them out all together.
Dunno what the result would be if there weren't necessities like work and stuff that would require me to be awake.

I know, this is clearly not what you were asking for.

1) There are a lot of de facto things in the context of living in any given human social system. I'd rather be sleeping than clothes shopping or grocery shopping. I'd rather be sleeping than working on various spreadsheets or reading technical material that isn't interesting but necessary. I'd rather be sleeping than doing a lot of various tasks throughout the day big and small. — schopenhauer1

I think this sets out a false dichotomy. I'd certainly rather be sleeping than working, but I'd also rather be partying or watching TV or playing a game than sleeping.

I'd certainly rather be sleeping than working, but I'd also rather be partying or watching TV or playing a game than sleeping. — Michael

Sure, but sleeping is sort of a neutral state..one where you are not conscious. Its a stand in for "not existing". Would you rather not exist much of the day or exist and bear through the activity? Its purposely meant to make you think about the motions of most everyday tasks and their worth.

Sure, but sleeping is sort of a neutral state..one where you are not conscious. Its a stand in for "not existing". Would you rather not exist much of the day or exist and bear through the activity? Its purposely meant to make you think about the motions of most everyday tasks and their worth. — schopenhauer1

Most people will already agree that a lot of the things we do we only do because we have to, and that we'd prefer to do anything else instead (e.g. sleeping) were that an option, so I'm not really sure the overall purpose of your argument.

Most people will already agree that a lot of the things we do we only do because we have to, and that we'd prefer to do anything else instead (e.g. sleeping) were that an option, so I'm not really sure the overall purpose of your argument. — Michael

I think you stated it.

Let me clarify.. If sleeping (being not awake) is preferable to most activities in waking life.. Of course no one is disputing that there are some things one rather do than sleep. But the percentage might be more interesting than one would first suspect.

If sleeping (being not awake) is preferable to most activities in waking life.. Of course no one is disputing that there are some things one rather do than sleep. But the percentage might be more interesting than one would first suspect. — schopenhauer1

This is quite ambiguous. Although a large percentage of my day is spent doing things I'd rather be sleeping than doing (e.g. working), in terms of all the things I could be doing (e.g. parting, watching TV, playing games, etc.), sleeping certainly isn't preferable to the majority.

If all you want to say is that a life of mostly sleeping is more desirable than a life of mostly working, then fine. But don't go further than that, because a life of mostly partying, watching TV, and playing games is more desirable than a life of mostly sleeping.

And of course, even if a life of mostly sleeping is better than a life of mostly working, I'd also say that a life of mostly working is better than a life of always sleeping.

This is quite ambiguous. Although a large percentage of my day is spent doing things I'd rather be sleeping than doing (e.g. working), in terms of all the things I could be doing (e.g. parting, watching TV, playing games, etc.), sleeping certainly isn't preferable to the majority. — Michael

Yet you don't do them.. And hence in my OP:
I just think that the de facto options of a normal human life may actually skew towards preferable to be sleeping.

If all you want to say is that a life of mostly sleeping is more desirable than a life of mostly working, then fine. But don't go further than that, because a life of mostly partying, watching TV, and playing games is more desirable than a life of mostly sleeping. — Michael

Ok, so this amounts to a world that doesn't exist for many realistically.

And of course, even if a life of mostly sleeping is better than a life of mostly working, I'd also say that a life of mostly working is better than a life of always sleeping. — Michael

You say the exact opposite thing in the second part then you did the first part. You prefer sleeping to work, you prefer work to sleeping. Which is it?

Edit: Oh I see you said "always" sleeping versus mostly. So, you those minority of moments you prefer more than sleep make it worth it. Why?

Edit 2: Actually, I don't care why. This is an argument for birth not suicide. If you knew that your life would be mostly "rather be sleeping" would you want that? Oh Nietzsche you asshole. Eternal return.. worst idea ever.

Edit 3: Actually, the point is that by the mere fact that you "rather be sleeping" much of the time, this speaks louder than your stated preferences.

Edit: Oh I see you said "always" sleeping versus mostly. So, you those minority of moments you prefer more than sleep make it worth it. Why? — schopenhauer1

Because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me.

Because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me. — Michael

Yes, see Edit 2 and 3.

If you knew that your life would be mostly "rather be sleeping" would you want that? — schopenhauer1

If I was conscious before birth (somehow) and had to choose to either be born or to stop being conscious then I'd choose to be born, because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me.

Actually, the point is that by the mere fact that you "rather be sleeping" much of the time, this speaks louder than your stated preferences.

I don't know what you mean by this. That work sucks? I know.

If I was conscious before birth (somehow) and had to choose to either be born or to stop being conscious then I'd choose to be born, because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me. — Michael

Yet wanting to sleep much of the time is is not being conscious either. And this whole "terrifies" thing is why I made edit 3 cause I knew you were going to go with a suicide slant with it soo..

Actually, the point is that by the mere fact that you "rather be sleeping" much of the time, this speaks louder than your stated preferences.

I don't know what you mean by this. That work sucks? I know. — Michael

Or whatever else you don't want to do, and thus.. never existing might have been preferable to the waking hours you enjoy existing more generally.

never existing might have been preferable to the waking hours you enjoy. — schopenhauer1

Doesn't even make sense. Who would be around to do the preferring? Something can't be preferable without a person to prefer it. Preferring something is a state of a concious human mind.

Who would be around to dovthe preferring? Something cant be preferable without a person to prefer it. Preferring something is a state of a concious human mind. — Isaac

Hence edit 3.

Hence edit 3. — schopenhauer1

Edit 3 still contains the concept of preference. It's incoherent without a preferer.

Actually, the point is that by the mere fact that you "rather be sleeping" much of the time, this speaks louder than your stated preferences. — schopenhauer1

You can retrospectively and meaningfully talk about preference in its relation to never existing. You just can't actually never exist.

Or whatever else you don't want to do, and thus.. never existing might have been preferable to the waking hours you enjoy existing more generally. — schopenhauer1

No, a few hours of consciousness is preferable to none.

No, a few hours of consciousness is preferable to none. — Michael

I think you mean a few waking hours doing only things you'd rather be doing than sleeping. Sure, but you can't have that.

You can retrospectively and meaningfully talk about preference in its relation to never existing. You just can't actually never exist. — schopenhauer1

I don't see how. How can anyone meaningfully say they would prefer not to have existed when not existing negates any ability to experience a state of preference?

We don't talk this way about any other contingent states. We don't say, for example, that a painting would be more/less vibrant had it never been painted. The vibrancy is a property of the painting and so had it never been painted there'd be not entity to possess this property.

I think you mean a few waking hours doing only things you'd rather be doing than sleeping. Sure, but you can't have that. — schopenhauer1

No, this is the hypothetical situation where I replace the things I don't like doing (e.g. working) with sleeping. There are still plenty of things in my life that I prefer doing to sleeping. And the few hours doing them is preferable to never having been born.

No, this is the hypothetical situation where I replacing the things I don't like doing (e.g. working) with sleeping. There are still plenty of things in my life that I prefer doing to sleeping. And the few hours doing them is preferable to never having been born. — Michael

Cool

I don't see how. How can anyone meaningfully say they would prefer not to have existed when not existing negates any ability to experience a state of preference?

We don't talk this way about any other contingent states. We don't say, for example, that a painting would be more/less vibrant had it never been painted. The vibrancy is a property of the painting and so had it never been painted there'd be not entity to possess this property. — Isaac

We talk about situations which never happening being better, no? A state of affairs where one does not exist where X, Y, Z does not happen (rather be sleeping). A state of affairs where one does exist X, Y, Z does happen. It is just "good" that the negative did not happen. I don't even have to exist for this better situation to be true. If negative could have happened, but it did not, that is good.

You can retrospectively understanding that a better state of affairs could have taken place.

We talk about situations which never happening being better, no? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Better for the people who experience the world absent of the negative situation, not just 'better' in general. There's no general sense of 'better'. Something's being 'good' is belief within a human mind. Without human minds the concept has no meaning.

Yes. Better for the people who experience the world absent of the negative situation, nit just 'better' in general. There's no general sense of 'better'. Something's being 'good' is belief within a human mind. Without human minds the concept has no meaning. — Isaac

Actually I think it can be both.

Even if there was no person to know they were not around to be the beneficiary of the good, it is good. But yes, good is only recognized when there is someone around who can recognize it.

And.. if a tree falls in the woods..

As with your other posts, it is nothing but your odd ontological commitments (plus a general dissatisfaction with life) which lead to anti-natalism, yet you seem perpetually surprised that those of us with less Platonic dogmas don't reach the same conclusions.

This was not meant to be anything too rigorous. It was just more like...

"Wow, if I think about it, a lot of the day I'd rather not be conscious than go through this". If this were aggregated. they would only be awake for a much smaller amount of time for the non-sleep activities. That was it really. Then it leads to whether it's worth it for those small amounts of experience.

The reason it is not rigorous is its not a priori (I guess you might call more "Platonic"). It inevitably leads to people saying "Gee Whiz, schopenhauer1, I prefer almost ALL the time being awake through all the neutral and negative things!" or "I almost never have negative or neutral experiences!This is what @Michael did. I just don't feel like psychologizing over their own preferences, biases, what they state vs. what is actually the case, so I said "Cool" to him and moved on.

However, I suspect the percentage of preferred awake time might be lower than people think with a bit of reflecting. I just don't want to go down that rabbit hole of psychologizing and biases like Pollyannaism though, so I'll let people say "No way, schopenhauer1, you are wrong bout me and us other humans! Don't speculate about me Mister!" etc etc

But I think there are indeed a lot of de facto things about living that people would rather not be conscious for and in fact, in retrospect, would have perfectly been fine replacing that activity with sleeping.

There is something called sleep. It exists. "It like to be asleep" would be unconsciousness. Do you have to be aware for "something to be like"? Maybe, but that's not the topic at hand really. — schopenhauer1

Yes. There is no 1st person experience of death or sleep presumably. There are kinds of awareness around or preceding (in case of death) those events.

Time does not pass for an unconscious or dead being subjectively.

In the case of sleep or death then inevitably there is nothing (no 1st person or something it is like) until there is awareness.

I've often thought it would preferable to not exist but one can't really be certain of what that entails. But maybe awareness is inevitable because neither death or sleep is an experience.

This is an interesting idea. What is also insightful is to change the starting position:

Imagine you were constantly in a deep sleep and now had to decide which moments of “your” day/month/year/decade you specifically wanted* to be woken up and remain awake for whatever time before you would sleep again.


I might be reading something interesting, like this thread that stimulates my curiosity and temporarily staves off most of the boredom, but still – I wouldn’t want to be woken up just so I read this and then go back to sleep immediately.

Of course everything that’s even less interesting, or is neutral, or horrible wouldn’t even be in the picture in the first place.
If you could chose what to experience in life, it probably would only consist of a few minutes, maybe hours, or, at most, -days- for most people.



But no, choice and avoidance of suffering is the exact opposite of how life works, you are forced to endure every bit of difference between “your” (imposed) target state and “your” (imposed) actual reality.

The difference between those two changes and it’s sometimes more horrible than at other times, and they even pretty much never align, and if they would or come close, it’s only very temporarily, and you are very soon pained again.


*where does that “want” even come from? It’s another type of constant suffering inherent in being alive.

If you could chose what to experience in life, it probably would only consist of a few minutes, maybe hours, or, at most, -days- for most people. — An0n

Yep agreed. It's amazing how much of the day could disappear, and it really wouldn't matter, or would be in fact, a relief. It's like grinding gears, that is somehow also like being on autopilot, because it's just things to maintain some sort of work related to (inevitably) surviving in a complex society, or its related to comfort, also in the context of a complex society.

But no, choice and avoidance of suffering is the exact opposite of how life works, you are forced to endure every bit of difference between “your” (imposed) target state and “your” (imposed) actual reality.

The difference between those two changes and it’s sometimes more horrible than at other times, and they even pretty much never align, and if they would or come close, it’s only very temporarily, and you are very soon pained again. — An0n

Exactly! Very on point. See my thread on The animal that can resent every moment. I liked the way you stated it: "Forced to endure every bit of difference...". Endure is a key word here.

*where does that “want” even come from? It’s another type of constant suffering inherent in being alive. — An0n

Yes, exactly! We know that we are unaligned from our (imposed) target state as we endure it. We are not only experiencing the negative state, but know we are. It is the added fly in the ointment, if you will. I call this kind of inherent, constant suffering and "want" necessary suffering, as it is built into being alive, as you say. Please share any more thoughts on the matter.