Whatever makes the pain go away. — Noah Te Stroete

And so it all comes back to this. Pleasure in the short term. Hedonism without the work of creating the world of a hedonist.

I don't see myself ever being happy just sitting back and waiting. I've seen too many smart people do that and face the consequences.

I suppose if you can relax, you probably should.

I think an ideology has to come from somewhere. For it to be a way of life, that way of life must be desirable in some way, no? A society needs a common goal and for Americans, that may very well be mass consumption and the accumulation of wealth. I think it's just as selfish as hoarding wisdom or strength (as some people and nations throughout history have done) but I also believe as humans we are selfish creatures. For the most part, I think we are focused on surviving in the immediate future and wealth can be a huge boon to that.

He did have access to the writings of the atomists, right? — Marchesk

Perhaps he did. It's hard for experts to get a grasp on what the people of the past knew, let alone doofuses on the internet like me. Maybe he was proposing a counter to that or maybe his argument built upon it. I don't have a clue.

but I am still curious to know how Aristotle would answer that question. — Walter Pound

My speculation above is all I can provide. It's a shame we can't ask him.

one thing I just remembered reading is that, space-time curvature doesn't behave like..like the sound of a jet as the jet travels along; — wax

So no doppler effect for space-time? Interesting.

It sounds like Aristotle didn't have too much to go on in terms of the natural world and of course, we can't blame him for that since he lived so long ago. I think that back then, the conclusion most would come to is that matter stays the way it is, and only forces of nature could change how matter is. This is their, "form" the way that matter is. They never considered that molecules could combine because there is no way they could have observed it. For them, a rock was a rock, and it was a rock because a volcano (a force of nature) spewed it out of the ground. Now a rock could be an igneous rock with traces of all sorts of minerals, and for us, a rock is that because we have observed a phenomenon and dubbed it so.

Even as recently as the 1700s, people didn't think that things like life could be made in a lab. They didn't understand that the rules the universe goes by could be used by us because they didn't understand the rules. I think that matter to Aristotle was the building blocks of the world, only changeable by the will of the gods. (or for Aristotle specifically, the "Prime Mover") For an old Greek guy without the thousands of years of scientific inquiry that we have, I think that is a pretty good answer.

These seem to be questions about the very nature of the universe that can't (currently) be observed in any way, and observation is necessary for determining these things.

We can examine that time slows down the closer you are to the center of mass of an object, but there are no rules as for why or which is a result of which. Unless we discover a new part of the universe that we didn't know existed (a new sense, akin to sight or smell, or something that tools can sense like UV radiation) I don't think we can solve this. Or there is some way to look at what we already have that we just haven't gotten to yet.

The asymmetry which is a big part of Benatar's antinatalist argument is that absense of "good" is not "bad" unless there is an actual person to be deprived of that good. However, asymmetrically, abscense of bad is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good. — schopenhauer1

Interesting perspective. However, it's a bit too authoritarian in my taste to tell people what is good or bad. What makes things good or bad? Well, that's the opinions people hold about things. If everyone agreed murder isn't bad, it wouldn't be. In fact, groups of people throughout history have decided that murder is sometimes good and have performed it on numerous occasions for various reasons. Giving any one person/group the power to decide what is worth pain seems like a bit of a dangerous thing to do, considering that people are very easily corrupted. Even if everyone agreed that being a parent was morally wrong, could we rely on the people enforcing that to not value their own comfort over the comfort of the newly born? The only way I see antinatalism being a foolproof and valid argument is under two conditions, one being that everyone agrees that making new people is wrong, and the second being that we had a mechanism of destroying all life on the planet simultaneously without fail. (After all, if we don't get everything, beings could be born and suffer again) I don't think either of those criteria is met right now, and they may never be.

However, if they ever are, and we decide to act on this line of reasoning, you will then become right. Until then, I would guess that every culture on Earth would generally disagree.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum. — xyz-zyx

I don't think anyone should be banned from anything. Call me a libertarian, but I think challenge is essential to progress. Even if this is a "smear campaign" as you put it, why not let detractors give their say? If we are so right, we can win against them. If we are wrong, we lose from the get-go. Besides, I think you may be getting too paranoid about this. I have only had a pleasant conversation with Schopenhauer1. He gives me the same amount of respect as most others around here, which is to say probably a bit more than I deserve.

I don't agree with antinatalist views, but I don't agree with your comment here, either.

If something doesn't exist, we can't say it has any properties, potential or otherwise. "They never suffered" is noting that those properties never obtain relative to something nonexistent. Same for "potential happiness never existed." — Terrapin Station

I've been thinking about this one for a while and I believe you are right. There is still something to say of his aversion to talking about positives which I think I was trying to get at here. I don't know.

Nope. Suicide isn't the same as not existing in the first place. The point with most brands of antinatalism is that precisely because no actual person is deprived of the "good" of life prior to birth. It is a win/win. No person exists to be deprived, no person exists to suffer. — schopenhauer1

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that "Oh if they never exist, they never suffered", and, "Since they didn't exist their potential happiness never did either". Either what they will experience exists before they are born or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Tradition really. Keep on doing what we've always done without question. That is what the self-interest and slogans are for. Take on cultural values of production. — schopenhauer1

Are we not questioning it now? People question whether or not they have meaning all the time and come to conclusions. Just because you haven't yet doesn't mean others haven't either.

Also, if these cultural values are so necessary, where are they in me? You don't seem to answer that.

Uptopian fantasies. Also, again, using people in the meantime as debit for future people. — schopenhauer1

You act as if a Utopia is entirely impossible. It isn't with modern technology, but what of tomorrow? Of course, you don't intend to have offspring around tomorrow to help with that, do you? Do you claim a Utopia is impossible out of actual facts or guilt for not wishing to contribute to it?

Fails in whose eyes? — schopenhauer1

Partially in the eyes of evolution. Evolution, while not having a definition of, "perfection" does guide us to be the most well adapted to our environment as possible. Nothing is more adapted than complete comfort constantly. If we don't achieve that, we have failed every form of life that has come before us. Giving up because we just don't feel like it is even more pathetic.

It is also partially in our own eyes. While you don't share this vision, most people want pleasure and are willing to take the pain now for greater pleasure later. If we decide to give up we have failed all people past present and future who are willing to do that.

The daughter wouldn't even exist to be deprived. There is no "telos" of the work of anyone. There is no work done in vein as there is no thing that needs to receive people's work. — schopenhauer1

But if the work is not done, there is no benefit, and that work would not be done if there was not a greater benefit. The thing that receives our work is ourselves. If the farmer didn't work he would only suffer. How is that better?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't presume there needs to be a future posterity that needs to be grateful for anything in the first place. If no thing exists to be deprived, then there is no deprivation being had by any actual person. — schopenhauer1

But isn't deprivation the act of giving nothing in place of something? If you don't give life, then those potential children are deprived of choice. They are still deprived of something. You still lose.

Ultimately, your argument hinges on the presumption that life isn't worth it, that pain isn't worth pleasure, but a vast majority of people disagree with that. They live, and their pleasure and pain are there own, so there isn't any metric you can use to measure the two in comparison. Ultimately, if you are right, all of these has to be true.

Morality has to be objective at least to the point where pain is wrong, and we have already addressed that isn't always true.

Pain has to always outweigh pleasure, which we have already addressed isn't always the case.

And finally, everyone has to agree with you. This whole idea that birth leads to bad is inherently flawed because you never address that birth leads to good as well. You have thrown out that part of the equation entirely. You forgot about it. This whole idea disregards the fact that there are billions of people alive today that want to be that way. You have ignored reality and based an argument on a perceived moral high ground, and worse yet one that not everyone agrees on. If you wish to not have children and this is your reasoning, fine. This can't be an argument for truth, however. When we discuss emotions, what we feel goes. If people feel differently than you, and that group is a gross majority, then they are right, regardless of what you feel. That is what society is. General consensus guiding the minds of all.

Is Schop depressed? I don't know -- could be. But quite a few people have decided to not have children who are not explicitly antinatalist and who are no more depressed than the average person (that is, slightly depressed from time to time). They view the world as too screwed up to be a fit place for a child. The big problem used to be the threat of nuclear war (which actually hasn't disappeared). The new threat is ecological collapse. The various harbingers of ecological collapse are already coming home to roost, so... just a matter of time. If the left one doesn't get you, the right one will. — Bitter Crank

These threats. They cause so much anxiety and therefore suffering. These are the problems we need to solve. We can't do that unless we go on living.

I don't see the world as fit for a child right now, but I would like to have one. I would like to give them a better life than I had.

This reminds me of an old adage, "Heroes are not born, they are made". It is very unlikely for anyone to be in a position to fix these problems. I ask of you, what is the difference between a hero and a good person? Aside from them both being subjective, (one man's Hercules could be another's Hitler) I think that the difference is the opportunity. A good person might protest for something they believe in or donate to a charity they believe is reputable, but a hero is made through a heroic deed. Simply put, a hero was the right person in the right place at the right time. They had the opportunity and the means to do something great.

It is more about how you are remembered of course, but no one mistakes a hero for a good or bad person, they mistake a hero for a villain. But what of villains? Don't they usually have good intentions? Nobody destroys a city just to destroy a city unless they are mentally ill. (which many fictional villains are) While some interesting villains are mentally ill, I tend to like the ones with good motives more. Sometimes it's hard to disagree with the villain. In the end, both the hero and villain are destroying the city in the process of stopping each other, why is one good and one bad?

This reminds me of how our world has become. It always seems to be two sides fighting, but instead of putting their beliefs on the table and talking about it, then taking a course of action, we fight and destroy the city and in the end, one of us escapes and we fight again in the next episode. There's a reason TV shows don't go on forever. Living like this isn't sustainable.

Doesn't matter. They were used too. Being born is being used, period. — schopenhauer1

To bring us back to my prior point about objective morality, why is being used bad?

People (not all of them, but I would think a majority) like to be useful. They enjoy having a positive effect on others. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean others don't. Of course, feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person because I don't believe in anything being inherently bad. (So at least to me I don't think you are a bad person.) Others would disagree. Consider a farmer that worked all his life to put his daughter through college. He works hard and suffers for it, and in the end his daughter is using him, but he does get something in return. The joy of seeing his offspring prosper. If you don't or can't feel that way, that is understandable. Just don't have children. As for the farmer, I know his daughter. She's my sociology teacher. She enjoyed her life considerably more than her father and is now working hard to give her children a better life. I know her children and they appreciate it. They are experiencing joy far more than pain. There are others like them. I don't think that they should be limited in how much joy they can produce. One of her daughters even has horrible heart complications. I won't get into the details but even with those, she is happy. I see her every day. 50 years ago she would have died a painful death, and if the doctor that treated her was never born, she most certainly would have.

Not really. Being that we cannot make a choice to be born, right off the bat you can see who is using who. We are born for our parents, and with the inevitable enculturation process, this means for society's means to be used for labor. As I've said before, values like "family pride" lead to values like "good laborers". Family pride leads to the inevitable sacrifice of the individual for society's means. By society I mean the maintenance and continuation of institutions which produce and maintain what is produced. — schopenhauer1

You can not choose to be born without being born. Therefore, if you are not born you can not choose to be born. Both ways eliminate free will from the equation. No one will ever have a choice. If you wish to terminate your life after you are born, you can do that. Birth is, therefore, the genesis of choice. It is unreasonable to ask for a choice before you can even have one. Sometimes parents don't choose to have children. There have been plenty of accidents. Even when parents do choose, they are the only ones who could have done it. Essentially, parents give you a chance to exist, therefore giving you a choice. If you wish to go back to nonexistence, you can do it any time. You can not choose to live but you can certainly choose to die. That is your out if you wish for it. Most don't for the reasons I covered above.


As for the values that warp our mind so, I am lacking in them. It hurts to be honest but I don't feel any attachment to my family. I have no pride in where I came from. My parents were college dropouts. My grandparents did nothing of note. My father was a racist and my mother can't think about the world as you or I are right now. I don't fit the stereotype of a good worker nor do I try to. I'm lazy, that's really all there is to it. I understand the end game though, and I do contribute sometimes, but probably not as much as I should. I don't feel bad for it either if we are being honest.

As for these institutions, you have conveniently ignored the benefit of what they produce and maintain. They give pleasure. The movies, amusement parks, foods, all media, the are maintained through our work, and the benefits outweigh the detriments, otherwise, there would be less or even no people.

That sounds like a terrible interim. Even so, there is built in systemic suffering not related to the usual contingent (read common) notions of suffering. There is the subtle suffering of the human psyche of desire, which is simply inbuilt. — schopenhauer1

And what is the goal of the advertising you see on TV? satisfying desire. You, of course, need to contribute to society and earn money before you can have it. Some contribute by maintaining what we have and some contribute by making new things to satisfy more desire. The ultimate end of such a cycle is everyone having their desires met entirely. Living is an investment in the future. Your children would live a life so much better than yours, assuming you put in the proper effort to build that future for them. More desires met until we have the labor to have everything we need. Children would be born into a world of bliss. They won't need a choice because they won't want one. We can't get there unless we try though. We can't have the infrastructure required to live nice lives unless we live mediocre ones first.

Anyways, procreating more people so that they can be used, is not good, period. The ends here, don't justify the means, when, someone didn't need to be born to experience any harm in the first place, and no actual person prior to birth exists to be deprived. — schopenhauer1

And how does a future where no one suffers outweigh the suffering we have now? We have practically unlimited time left in the universe. Even if it takes a thousand years from now, that is roughly 13000 years of human civilization with suffering and the rest of the lifespan of the universe that doesn't. The sooner we work toward this, the more we get from it.

I don't see how perpetuating suffering of future people justifies past iniquities. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. This isn't about justice. Things that happened to past people were horrible but I do believe they were necessary and I don't want to punish anyone for that. Punishment would just cause more suffering and waste valuable time and resources. My point was that we shouldn't let their effort be in vain.

What does society want? It has taken a life of its own. I believe there are social facts- institutions, if you will. Cultural norms perpetuate these institutions at the behest of individuals — schopenhauer1

You didn't answer the question. What does society want? If it has taken a life of its own, first, how did it break free from our minds, and second, what is its motive? If individuals command that norms perpetuate institutions, why is it? Of course, our leaders are wealthy, but they would have no job if there was no job to do. At the end of the day, even corrupt officials make decisions. Those decisions have to have something in it for the people or they rise up. There is no government in the world that has only two classes composed of a single leader and thousands of slaves. The single leader would have been slaughtered by his servants long ago. The people's wants and needs matter because those desires keep them in line. A government that wants to continue existing must satisfy their people or risk death. As humanity gets better at providing what it wants, we get closer to a world where everyone has what they want. You can't do that without a sizable population or a lot of machines made by a lot of smart people.

Of course the one needs the other, and I don't think there is any way around it. But, individuals can be prevented from suffering, and being used (as is always the case once born). That is to say, to simply not have more individuals. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the ultimate selfishness. By discontinuing the human race you are hurting people past, present and future.

You hurt the past because all of their work has been in vain. Nothing matters not because we were destroyed by some inescapable force of nature, but because we decided it didn't. To put it frankly, we would be the kid in the group project who refused to do their part. the main difference being that without our part the project doesn't exist and everyone fails.

You hurt the present because of all the people who want their children to be happier than they were. If you had told that farmer 50 years ago that he wouldn't be allowed to have children, he would have felt so much pain. His daughter would have never felt the joy she did. That daughter would be in so much pain because the work of her father and herself would be in vain.

You hurt the future because all of the children who could have existed didn't get to have a choice. Some of them would have loved to be alive. Some of them for sure would have wanted out. You may have prevented suffering, but that suffering could have been avoided in ways that didn't involve the removal of joy. If we truly are able to build a world where suffering is no more, then you have eliminated a near infinite amount of people would live in that world and feel no pain. By ending the human race, you have objectively prevented more joy than pain.

I think that if individuals find their load of suffering to be more than they can handle, they should be helped. If they can find no help, perhaps it is better for them to end it. That is a choice that has to be made on the individual level. If everyone decides that they shouldn't have children and end the human race, then it will be done, however, I doubt that will happen. You are free to do as you choose, but don't expect to be remembered as one of the great heroes that built the world our posterity will be so grateful for. So, help build a future without suffering and only joy, or leave so the rest of us can. That is essentially the idea. I don't think either way is wrong, I just think that you shouldn't force everyone to do one or the other.

That is poppycock propaganda. The same goes for working for so-called "selfish" reasons of accumulating wealth. Anyone who takes economics 101 knows that working really hard to accumulate wealth means simply producing more output.. output society needs and uses.. In other words- it is really using the person who thinks they are using society, but that is not the case, but the other way around. Yes, does this take the complete opposite view of the common notion? Yes. But doesn't mean it's wrong! — schopenhauer1

I think that again you are only looking at the disadvantages. Society certainly uses us. We work from 9 to 5 and come home exhausted. We lose free time. We can't always feel pleasure. However, we also use society. On your time off, you can experience things infinitely more entertaining than our ancestors had. That is because their suffering advanced society to the point it could provide that. Generally, the amount of suffering goes down with the amount of work put into discovering new things via society. It is a cycle, what goes around comes around. I think that instead of limiting the workforce because it hurts us in the short term, we should look into advancing what we already know to both make ourselves more productive, (therefore us working for society) but also increase the amenities we will enjoy in the future (therefore society working for us).

I think that looking back at history, the pattern is that suffering has decreased in a linear fashion and pleasure has increased exponentially. I think that relates to the total amount of work we have done as a species, which can be increased by working hard but also inventing things to do the work for us. Yes, you may work more often than you'd like, and yes a child will suffer, but that suffering (at least from my observation) creates so much more pleasure. Following this logic, there may be a day when we can feel only pleasure and have the work automated. Of course, we would never get there (or at least we would get there slower) if we are not willing to make sacrifices in our selves.

I think that while you saw that society used us, you forgot to ask what society was using us for. What other motive is there? Society is made up of us and our collective will. What else do people want other than to feel good? People have certainly gotten the short end of the stick but even now you live on their labor. The least any of us could do is to continue to build the future they worked so hard for, even if they didn't know they were working for it.

First, we are animals.. just saying. — schopenhauer1

Who makes definitions? They certainly don't exist without us. I think that we are biologically very similar to animals, but it's the differences that count. There is a difference, at least to me, between you and my dog. My dog will do whatever I say and I value that, but you will question me, challenge me, and in turn make me stronger. I value that more.

Life is the big old monster that is the basis of all else- including suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the first problem. Your argument is based on an objective view on morality. Now, look through any of my comments and you will see I have a rather negative view on this. Here I would like to explain why.

Essentially your logic goes like this- Life is evil because those who alive suffer, and suffering is inherently wrong, therefore, we should all die.

This is the thought process of someone who is suicidal. I can at least provide some evidence for that because it was mine when I was. Of course, you just have to take my word for that, but word is better than nothing I suppose. It could also be said that I'm just referencing my own experience, but I think the context of it even correlating does give me some ground to stand on.

Of course, to clarify, I'm not saying you are suicidal, or even that you are implying everyone should die, this is just my take.

Also to clarify, I don't even think you are inherently wrong. I still struggle with depression sometimes and that is mostly because I can't prove you wrong.

Of course, I can't prove you right either. Your argument hinges on the idea that suffering is inherently wrong. What of the pleasure that can come from suffering? No one likes going to work, but what about the luxuries that a paycheck provides? Family reunions are tiring but the bonds you share and the support network you develop give you comfort. To take it even further, slaves were treated unfairly almost universally across the planet, but much of the infrastructure we rely on was put in place by them. Industrialization most certainly would not have happened without underpaid laborers (many children) that lived in squalor.

Essentially, the work comes first, then the reward. You have to suffer before there can be pleasure. If we had never decided to live together and farm crops despite the many challenges that kind of living situation created, we would never have invented anything. We would be animals.

In my view of morality, suffering is a necessary evil. In yours it is intolerable. In the mind of a racist, it is good if it is happening to who they want it to happen to. In the mind of a masochist, it is good because it makes them feel good. These are all perspectives based on experience. I have seen the good and the bad. You focus on the bad. The racist has only seen the bad. The masochist has learned to love the bad. That last one kind of makes the whole idea of "bad" things fall apart. Can anything inherently be bad? What happens when you disagree on what is bad? When the Christian kingdoms of Europe thought it was bad that they didn't own Jerusalem, and the Muslim Caliphates thought it was good, people died in bloody wars. Is that not suffering? When the East and West couldn't agree on how war torn Europe should distribute wealth, did that not lead to division and suffering?

So in conclusion, you can't be proven wrong, and you can't be proven right. Same for I. To put it in Chess terms, we are in a stalemate. Maybe one of us can still win though. We don't see the whole board, yes? There are things we don't know about the world. I hope we can work together to find a way we can both win. For our lives to have meaning. Let us not make the mistakes of the past. And if God exists, have him forbid we decide to forfeit.

. The great human project can be that which unites us against the principle of procreating more life. This can be our great cause. It is an inversion of the usual trope that life is always good- including the pain. Humanity can finally say, "ENOUGH!" and do something about it, by non-action - that is to simply not have future people. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps instead of cutting the suffering off, we should take it upon ourselves? Tank the suffering so that our children only know pleasure. If we do what needs to be done instead of shying away, we can break through to the other side. If we shy away instead, while our children will never suffer, they will also never have pleasure. They will lose because we never gave them a chance. Now, if they are born with losing odds I see no problem with cutting that off. A child that has a year to live or one born to unfit parents is set to experience an unfair amount of suffering. A healthy child can contribute to the cause of bringing pleasure.

I think you may have accidentally taken what I said out of context.

Not to say that symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought, but I would rather read a research paper in Spanish than hieroglyphics. — TogetherTurtle

We are in agreeance. Apologies for any confusion.

This kind of reminds me of 1984. Not in a good or bad way, just in respect to how artificial both signs and language is.

If we were to experience the world outside our own minds, language would mean nothing. While you have the context of language, a bold claim about the local mayor spray painted on the side of a building means something, but that meaning is lost to those who cannot speak the language. (or if you lack the concept of a language) Essentially, meaning lives inside our minds, and is given to others through language, or symbols as you point out. The problem with this is that different words mean different things to different people. Meaning can be lost or misinterpreted.

One must wonder, is this a flaw of our minds, the language (or symbols) we use, or both. In George Orwell's 1984, the government of Oceania, and presumably the other two world powers, are developing a language that can't be misinterpreted. They are doing this to limit free thinking. They are along the line of thinking that, "If freedom can't be communicated, then it loses meaning and can't exist".

I think that symbols are more efficient in some cases. Traffic signs and turning signals are certainly more efficient than making a giant sign that says "Left turn caution on green" or "I'm going right". I think symbols, however, do leave less room for speculation because of their innate meaning. While efficiency in communication increases, diversity of thought decreases it seems. Not to say that symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought, but I would rather read a research paper in Spanish than hieroglyphics.

So if the debate is only using language in everyday life versus only using symbols in everyday life, I would argue a happy medium. When society values safety over freedom (like driving) symbols should be used. When society values the diversity of thought over its possible danger, language is used. I honestly couldn't imagine a world where one exists and another doesn't.

If Voting Made a Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It — Mark Twain

I like this one.

I believe most of this. I don't think that any politician since the beginning of recorded history has cared about those they represent. (at least not enough to make the world a better place for them) I don't know how I feel about a class of "masters" above them though. It certainly is possible, but in my observation sometimes legislation is passed that limits the power of the corporations and organizations that line the pockets of congressmen etc. Of course, it is mostly in favor of big business, so I don't think that's too big a point.

The "world order" conspiracy idea has always intrigued me because unlike other crack theories, there is actually a motive. Infinite wealth for you and your bloodline is a very good motive, and I can think of some people I know personally who would probably stab me in the back for that. Of course, they would justify it by saying, "I would donate the money" or, "It's for my children". Greed and a desire for strength is human nature, at least that's what I've seen.

This whole idea reminds me of the Russian revolution. Of course, I'm not an expert on the topic, but the general idea was that the Tsar wasn't taking care of his people and communists began to fight back. After the war was won, the communist party took power and people died of famine and were sent to gulags. I think it is very likely that originally the revolutionaries wanted a better world, but ambition for power lead to corruption of that idea.

It makes one think, can a truly egalitarian society even exist? Do human social hierarchies work that way? If they don't, can we change ourselves to make them work?

It brings up ethical questions as well. Can the poor be happy? Is suffering worth safety? Is human civilization even worth it if it means that while we are safe, we can never be free? Of course, I think those are the questions the ruling class doesn't want us to ask.

Well, it’s all up to speculation anyway and I think we’ve come to a conclusion on that. I’m interested in the “what makes people better” discussion as well. I’ll look out for it. In the mean time I would say it certainly has to do with context. So I’ll see you then.

They are much less interested (not at all?) in how all of these lives interact to create things called culture or society. — ZhouBoTong

They are not interested in the how, but they are certainly the what. That was my point. If they didn't exist we wouldn't have a culture to study.

I was just pointing that said people should not be expected to contribute to philosophy, any more than I should be expected to hold up my end of the conversation on celebrity couples. — ZhouBoTong

Perhaps not expected to contribute to something specific, but expected to contribute. It connects to a field of study I have been interested in recently. How do people develop an interest? If we know that, can we make people interested in everything?

(yes a bit of a contradiction in there, if they were interested in humans' need to grow, then couldn't it be said that they had an interest in growing?). — ZhouBoTong

Maybe they are growing interest in growing by studying the human's interest in growing. Complex, but I wouldn't expect less from a god.

Besides watching human progress, I also just want to witness some of the cool galactic events: like watching the sun grow until it encompasses the earth, or when the milky way collides with the Andromeda galaxy, but that is all just for fun. — ZhouBoTong

I like to think of the fun as payment, and the help as work. I would live for both, or at least that's what I think now. Any future version of me is subject to their own development.

I just hope that we can avoid creating an under-class. — ZhouBoTong

I think they would have a strange equivalence to pets. We give them everything they need, and in exchange, we get to watch and study. I don't think they would even need class structure unless they choose to have one. It would be as if New York was lifted off the face of the earth, hooked up with all of the facilities it would need, and then was studied. Whether or not they know what is happening has to do with the experiments we are running and the consent of the subjects. If they wish to ascend, they can do that as well.

(ie, just because someone is smarter, or stronger, or funnier, of kinder, does not necessarily make them a “better” person. Now if I am trying to accomplish a goal, then I may prefer a smarter or stronger person. But life does not have goals, aside from the ones given to it by humans). — ZhouBoTong

I think that in a world where those things aren't able to be implanted via advanced science, it does make them better. However, in a world that does have those things, I imagine everyone who chooses to will have them.

Even if it were possible why would we need to instil hope, or emotion, into a computer. If some computers are given varying degrees of humanity, the situation would quickly evolve into a state of competition, each tribe having their own territory or interest. Robot wars. — Amity

It would be useful in life or death situations. If a robot has a choice is saving a human from a fire or itself, empathy would be useful. Sure, the computer is more useful alive, but the machine's job might be to save people from fires. If a computer is trying to teach children how to spell, then patience would be required. If a computer is only concerned with productivity (which they often are) then children with learning disabilities would be sent from the classroom.

Robot wars are interesting, but I ask you to consider our current situation. We have wars between humans all the time, but we can also make peace. I think that it is in our best interest to make peace, whether the possible aggressors are biological or synthetic.

A form of The Turing test happens every day. Think computer-generated spam, chat bots and the need for us to prove we are human as part of online security. — Amity

But do you actually think that Suzy is real when she tells you to go to her totallylegitnudephotots.com account? I would hope you don't, so Suzy doesn't pass the Turing test.

I think the larger question in all of this is: What does it mean to act human ? — Amity

That is the big one.

More and more we are using computer assessment tools to make decisions, the results of which can seriously affect someone's life. Quantitative check boxes while helpful can only go so far. The person administering should also have life experience, qualities of empathy, compassion and common sense. — Amity

Wouldn't automated systems be better if they could more accurately mimic people with life experience, empathy, and compassion?

I don't have to justify anything about a computer and how human it might be no matter how well it manages to deceive a questioner. We can be deceived by chatbots. That still doesn't make them human. — Amity

As I said above, you really shouldn't be deceived by modern chatbots. Well, at least you aren't deceived by the ones you know about. I could be a bot you know. That would explain why I'm so adamant about my own consciousness.

OK, enough input/ output for me, I think. I'll leave you with...

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” 
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe — Amity

I understand the wish to limit a discussion. Sometimes I wish I could just walk away from things so I'm more than willing to display the empathy required for that. I hope you wish to pick up this line of thought in the future though, it seems useful to me.

'Tries to' and 'in one aspect ' being the operative words here. Human consciousness is more than neurons firing. — Amity

How do you know that consciousness is more than neurons firing? I would think that we should start small but start to teach machines more complex subjects as time goes on and our understanding grows.

The thing is - there would be no awareness and no sense of being bold. No sense of accomplishment.
That is the difference in type of consciousness and yes, we would not necessarily wish to burden a computer with what it means to be a human. — Amity

Why would there not be a sense of boldness? Wouldn't a sense of boldness make the machine work better under harsher circumstances? If we can make machines learn differences between images and make their own, why can't we make them learn differences between emotions and make their own?

How are we aware ?
Well, that is the question of consciousness addressed by various disciplines. — Amity

I think that most people agree that we don't actually know. We only have ideas. If or when we discover the answer to this question, I think that as long as nothing supernatural is involved, we can harness the power of such things and recreate them in simulations.

Well, we can hope that we are doing the best we can but we don't know that we are.
To hope is to be human. — Amity

We truly must always be on the move, always looking for better ways when all signs point to nothing existing. I don't think that will ever change. Even if we discover everything in the universe and how it works, we must still look for new things because I don't think there will ever be a sign saying that we have found everything. The machines we create to help us in this will probably need to feel hope. The machines we make to do other things might not.

Do you know of the Turing test? Essentially, you are put in a room with two monitors. You type in a question, and that question goes to recipients in two separate rooms. In one room is a person, and their answer appears on one monitor, and in the other room is a self-learning AI, and their answer appears on the other monitor. If you can tell the difference between the two, the computer loses. If you can't, the machine is indistinguishable from a human. Of course, you would need to ask many questions, but if the person asking them can't tell the difference at the end of the day, then how do you justify the machine not being both aware but also human?

I have no idea what a virtual mind is. I understand that there are models of a virtual brain out there in science world which can be manipulated to assess changes in structure to behaviour. Not sure about current research. Can you give me examples of how a virtual mind could change the real world, thanks. — Amity

To define what a virtual mind is, we must first define what a mind is. I find that a quick definition from the internet that sounds about right is a good place to start.

1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

So, if a mind is what enables us to experience the world, then a virtual mind is what a computer would use to experience the world. Something similar yet different is a neural network. It is defined as follows.

1
a computer system modeled on the human brain and nervous system.

So, a neural network is essentially a computer program that tries to mimic consciousness in one aspect by modeling itself after how neurons fire. Experiments with neural networks have been partially successful. For instance, Google has been working on a neural network that can identify dogs by breed, simply by giving images of a said breed and then quizzing the network. If the system finds a trait that is common between pictures, it uses the information on breed and traits to make connections and then can more accurately classify new pictures when they are given. This is very primitive compared to our own or even animal brains, but it is certainly a step in a bold new direction.

So, a virtual mind would be something on par with our own minds. Something that can not only identify dog breeds as quickly as us but also pick up on social cues and other complex things that animals can do just fine but computers completely lack the ability to do. I think that computers will develop the ability to do these things just as we did, through a lot of trial and error (via evolution), but they have the advantage of us guiding them through and upgrading their brains regularly rather than getting an upgrade whenever the forces of nature decide that it is advantageous.

So, how could a virtual mind change the real world? Well, just like how we do. We use our hands to pick up rocks and sticks and move them to our pleasure. A machine could do that with synthetic hands, and with the right materials used in construction, you might not even know the difference between them and a human at first glance.

Really ?
A computer does not have nerve endings to receive data. It would never say 'Ouch ! That hurts. '
It is not connected to muscle fibres which act on information. Avoidance of pain.
It does not become conscious of itself or how it fits into the world. — Amity

Our current machines are not outfitted with such things, but they can be. However, I think the question quickly becomes "should we?". Is it ethical to make a machine feel pain? We only feel pain because it is a necessity. If you start bleeding internally or eat something poison, then pain is the only way you will know. A machine might not need to feel pain to work and may, in fact, benefit from not feeling pain. If I were you, I would rather have a virtual mind help me shut down a failing reactor rather than complaining of the heat coming off of it.

A computer might not have nerve endings, but it does have connections to cameras and heat sensors and speakers and microphones that can do the same jobs, as well as connections to tools that detect things we aren't able to sense, like infrared light or invisible toxic gasses. If the question then becomes, "how do they even realize that all of this is real, how are they aware?", then I would redirect you to the question of "how do we even realize that all of this is real, how are we aware?".

Interesting. Where is the information on biological computers ? — Amity

There is some but the ones I speak of are pure fiction as of now. I think I recall that MIT is already experimenting with it, but it's more along the lines of using biological compounds (like DNA or RNA) to do math. It is purely hypothetical, but if we can get better at both biological and synthetic engineering, I don't see why we have to isolate ourselves to just one. People already get hearing aids or pacemakers to enhance their bodies, and phones and computers are already a staple in everyday life, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that we will cut out the middle man and put the computers right in our bodies, as well as changing our own bodies to better accommodate the machines we implant.

I don't think that computers experience anything. They might be able to interact via technology. However, there is no sense in which they are experiencing the human concerns re those situations mentioned above: — Amity

I don't think they do as of right now but most signs point to them being able to in the future. I think that's why it's important we think about all of this now, because if we wait until then, we might have a lot of catching up to do on what makes us human or what a human can even be.

So in essence, the field is certainly in its infancy, but if we see it through we may not only be able to ascend to levels of knowledge not even thought possible, but create new life in the process.

Or maybe we're wrong. If anything, it is good to challenge preconceived notions of who we are and what we can become, even if we don't change what we think. We just have to know that we're doing the best that we can.

Well we cannot know any specifics because, as you say, we cannot leave our own perspective. Since we are affected by things that are not out selves, there must be something that's not identical to our minds. Even if we are all dreams of a god, that god is still not us, it is more than us, and thus (partially) outside of us. I think therefore something thinks. — Echarmion

Fascinating. Maybe someday we will find a way. Until then, we work towards that.

But you did say you don't think it's the same person so far as the individual is concerned. But I don't see why I would not consider a copy "me" as well. So I wonder what your initial perspective was and where it came from. — Echarmion

I would consider it me, but as for others, I think it is once again up in the air. Maybe I just worded that wrong. Sorry about that.

Does not everything live inside our minds, with the exception of the mind itself, and whatever is it's object? — Echarmion

I think the question is not "Does not everything live inside our minds...?" but "Can we even know?". How do we know that we aren't in a simulated reality? How do we know that we aren't something else having a dream of our existence? It reminds me of a part of the Cthulu mythos about the father of all the gods who sleeps and dreams of our existence. In the event that that is true, would our brains be real at all? Is there a way to reach outside of our tiny perspective of the universe and see what is true?

'...To Searle, the reason computational logic patterns can’t be causal explanations of mind/brain behavior is that they are simulations. He points out that simulating a hurricane on a computer may tell you some things about the hurricane, but it doesn’t constitute causing a hurricane. And the simulation has no causal power to make the hurricane do anything, such as change course or grow less powerful. Likewise, simulated fires don’t burn anything, and simulated car crashes don’t bend any metal. Simulated logical patterns don’t cause mental states or influence brain states. Searle accuses the Strong AI people of confusing their virtual reality with the real thing... — Amity

The reasoning here is interesting. I think the difference between a virtual fire and a virtual mind is simply in function. Sure, a virtual fire can't burn anything in the real world, but it also isn't meant to. A virtual mind, however, can interact and manipulate the real world if given the right tools to manipulate them with. Essentially, the difference between a simulated force of nature and a simulated human mind is consciousness. What causes consciousness is more or less unknown though.

If the human brain only uses electrical signals and chemicals to transfer its messages, then there is really nothing differentiating it from a computer anyway. Computers use electrical signals and stand-ins could be found for the chemicals. It actually brings up an interesting idea in biological computers, essentially growing a brain that is good at whatever task you need it to be good at. If you could get the contents of a human mind to fit in that, while also adding some synthetic components, you essentially have the same idea discussed above but even under skepticism like that above it works because where the human mind is transferred to is biological and technically not a simulation.

I'll bookmark the article and read it when I get the chance.

The putative conflict with transitivity arises when we consider a case in which both of the separated hemispheres of A's original brain are transplanted to separate bodies resulting in what certainly look to be distinct individuals. Suppose, one of A's brain hemispheres is transferred to B's body, resulting in a person PB, and the other to C's body resulting in a person PC. It flouts transitivity to say that PC is identical with A, and that A is identical with PB, but deny, at it seems we should, that PC is identical with PB.' — Amity

I think that they are all different people now. Person A, PB, and PC all have different brains (at least in structure) and think differently. Also, if you transfer person A's brain to PB and PC, person A no longer has a brain and doesn't really exist. That's my view anyway.

...Clark shifts the philosophical emphasis from analysis of the brain to analysis of a human’s kinesthetic interaction with an ecological and social space. He points out that large-scale social projects, such as a building project or a disaster relief effort, occur across a considerably extended space and through the intersection of many people’s minds, and are not limited to neuronal firings in any individual brain. — Amity

They may not be limited to any one brain, but computers are also not limited to any one piece of hardware. Computers communicate through the internet all the time. I think that would be the equivalent of the interaction with social space. To experience the ecological world, they could simply have cameras for eyes and speakers for speaking. That is how they would interact kinesthetically with their environment.

I really don't understand much of this. It is all highly speculative in any case.
Remind me why are we so concerned with the issue ? — Amity

I don't think anyone fully understands any of this. As a species, we know more about what is on the surface of Mars than we know about how our own minds function. Not that martian exploration isn't important, I just figure that we would have got to the thing closest to us first.

This reminded me of organ transplantation. It is about continuing the function of the organ in another body. What would be the point of your mind being uploaded to someone else if consciousness wasn't continued ?
The organ in question would be the brain. I am not sure that the original mental states would transfer over. However, it could continue to function with awareness but 'as new' ? — Amity

I think anyone's brain could be of use as sort of a "librarian" for a database. It's hard to give computers personalities or the ability to differentiate between different things, (like dog breeds for example) so a human mind (in biological form or just having its neural pattern uploaded to a computer) could act as a stand-in for the typical search engine you might use now. Imagine using Google to search for information, but instead of typing into a search bar and letting the algorithm pull up pages with exact and relevant search results (with varying degrees of accuracy) you speak directly to a person that can fully understand what you are talking about and find you those results at light speed. We're talking a LOT of computing power here, (at least by today's standards) but it is theoretically possible as long as whatever makes the human mind conscious isn't inherently biological.

As for just a brain transplant, it would be useful if someone had information that you needed but their body couldn't go on living, so you transfer them to another body. If the brain is where all experiences and knowledge is stored, then it only seems logical that the memories would be present in a new body.

I believe I have seen some claims of brain transplants having been successfully performed on dogs. I remember watching a video somewhere about how Russian scientists performed the operation and documented it, but Russian scientists also claimed to have no Cosmonauts die during their space program, so I would take all this with a grain of salt.

Arguably, what you consider your self is down to opinion. Nevertheless, it should be possible, given your personal opinions of what "self" is, to identify the meaningful change that happens. — Echarmion

I think that is my problem. I don't think any meaningful change happens at all. It's my belief at least that life doesn't have any meaning besides what we give it, so therefore, if we give the person the value that another once had, they might as well be that person. Same with the ship. The value or identity given to the ship has everything to do with what we think and nothing to do with inherent value in the real world. That changes when you have belief in a god or deities, but I don't. I do, however, acknowledge that there is no way to 100% prove god either way, so I think that it is an opinion, but that's just my opinion.

I think the answer to the "Ship of Theseus" dilemma is not consensus but just context. To answer the question, you have to know why the question is being asked. Do you ask because you want to cross the sea? Then the origin of the planks if of no interest to you. Do you ask because you want to touch the same wood Theseus has touched? Then the origin of the planks is all that matters, and whether or not the planks even come in the shape of a ship is irrelevant. — Echarmion

I think that the answer does have to do with context, but also consensus and knowledge as well. It has to do with context because depending on what you wish to do with the ship, it can have a different identity. To the man wishing to cross the sea, maybe he just doesn't care if it really is the ship and doesn't wish to look further into it so he gives it the identity that everyone thinks it is. Because everyone thinks that it is the ship, the man wishing to touch the same wood as Theseus would consider it the same ship. However, if everyone knew that the ship had been restored, I don't think they would consider it the same ship.

It's all interconnected in a way, but none of it has anything to do with the outside world other than how we interpret it. Identity lives inside our minds unless god is real is essentially my viewpoint.

The implications of this debate for something like mind uploading might someday be relevant though. — Echarmion

I very much think so. As for how I would view mind uploading, I would simply be glad that I could be put to some use after death, even if the consciousness isn't continued.

Ultimately, I think this is up to opinion. The idea of self is too abstract to really put in objective terms. I personally don't think it is the same person as far as the individual who is teleported is concerned, but to everyone else, you would be the same person. So the teleported individual dies and doesn't come back but the cloned individual has all of the dead person's memories and therefore is indistinguishable from the original to their friends, family, and colleagues. I believe they say over every seven years, every cell in your body is replaced. Are you the same person you were seven years ago? Everyone else seems to think so, you in the present seem to think so, and you in the past would probably say so.

It's like the ship of Theseus in a way. A ship is docked, and every so often a storm comes in and damages a part of the said ship. If every part is replaced, is it still the same ship?

I believe the answer is in the general consensus. If everyone thinks that it is the same ship, then it is the same ship. Really, everything in the universe is comprised of matter and energy, and therefore everything that isn't defined as "microwaves" or "Helium" (as examples) has been given an identity by us. Everything we define is also comprised of these things. So "Dogs" or "Chairs" don't exist unless a human mind classifies them as such, but the carbon in a dog's body or the iron used to make the chair will exist regardless.

You may think that, but there is no evidence for it. And when we talk about the physical reality, evidence is all that ultimately matters. Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment, but there have been plenty of experiments that all confirm the notion. Including experiments that specifically tested whether you can trick photons to reveal the hidden variable that determines their state, but you can't. Either the universe looks into the future and sabotages our attempts to find this hidden truth by telling the particles to act differently, or it really is a probability distribution. — Echarmion

I think that probability has a say in it, but I don't think it has to be observed or at the very least just by a human. Generally, most things happen the same way whether we look at them or not. I'm aware that in quantum physics that can be very different. I'm more partial to believe that things are determined but we just don't know why, because that's always how it's been before. When we didn't know why certain planets didn't obey predictions based off of the theory of gravity we genuinely didn't know why, and while that was troubling, further study led to the creation of the theory of relativity and most of those problems went away. Of course, I'm no professional historian or scientist (at least not yet) so there's a good chance that I am missing something, but to me, that seems like the general pattern.

As for my thoughts on probability, I think it is a reflection of how little we really know about the world. If we knew everything, including hidden variables, we wouldn't need probability because we could speak in absolutes. Maybe this could be a way to test if we really know everything about a subject, keep testing it and see if it does anything strange.

The only way to know anything for sure is to find these hidden variables that seem to be so stubborn. I think that someday we will find out what these are. More abstract things have been found by less well-equipped scientists. Until then, maybe the cat is in a superposition. I just hope that hurts less than death, for the cat's sake. But then again, I would assume you know more than me. It's generally good to assume you are going to learn when talking to others rather than assuming you will be teaching.

Sure thing. I don't think anyone cares too much about getting off topic, as it happens a lot here, but if you would feel more comfortable sending stuff directly I don't have a problem. If I remember correctly sending new messages is fairly simple here so I'm sure you will get it.

Dang, I am out of time for today. I think you had a couple of other important points, and I will try to get those tomorrow. (and I did not even proof-read this so sorry for any problematic errors). — ZhouBoTong

Don't even worry about it. It is said that you can't rush perfection, and even so, we are far from that.

Interesting thought, but here is my problem with most other people's interests, they are entirely focused on one topic. You mentioned your family does not have the same interests as you, well what are their interests? If they are like most people I know, their interests can be summarized in one word: people. — ZhouBoTong

I think there is a Benjamin Franklin quote about this, but I couldn't find anything since the man seemed to be a walking quote machine that spent all his free time rearranging words to make them both meaningful but also memorable.

As for discussing people, I think that it is limiting, but much in the same way as only discussing events or theory crafting. There is only so much to discuss. Theories are more applicable to the real world, but I can't imagine a future where leisure is a thing of the past. We can modify ourselves to not need amenities, but I don't think that we will ever remove the desire for amenities simply because we wish to enjoy the fruits of our labor per se. So as we make strides in knowledge of the natural world and how to apply that to make our lives better, they are studying things that aren't necessarily important to the improvement of the human race as a whole but are important to us culturally. Essentially it is my belief that culture is as equally important as science because the two need each other to push forward. If there were no stories of far off worlds colonized for the glory of humanity, would we even have the idea to do that? If there were no televisions or radios or the internet, would we hear of those stories even if they existed?

and given that they use the information they learned on a regular basis." — ZhouBoTong

Very true. Practice is a necessity.

I was going to comment on the "level playing field" but you actually address my problems in your Sci-Fi solutions so I will mention it then. — ZhouBoTong

I wonder if practice could be thrown aside by infallible memory banks holding information for centuries. Even with modern information storage formats, you can lose some quality over time, but remembering a lecture 20 years from now like it happened yesterday (or in fact, better than that) is a huge step up.

If the nearly imperceptible differences between my upbringing and my brother's result in such noticeable differences in mental ability, then I worry that we are a LONG way from any ability to interpret these differences into an educational experience. — ZhouBoTong

This reminds me of an interesting mystery that never hit me until I saw it written out. Will we reach the end of science? Does the universe have a set number of secrets or will we run out one day in the far off future? Right now, the trend seems to be the number of questions increasing, but could that change?

As for me, I would like it if there were always mysteries. It may be a bit selfish, but if I can, I would like to extend my life for the sole purpose of assisting humanity in discovering these. Whether this means mind uploading, biological life extensions or cybernetic implants don't really matter to me. As long as some part of me is off doing its part then I can rest peacefully even if my consciousness doesn't transfer on with it. That's a whole other discussion though.

Now, it does assume that all humans have access to the technology. Also, what about the 40% of people (pulled that number out of my **), that will view genetic engineering, etc as wrong/evil/or just no. Don't they fall behind? I get that I am getting very deep into an imaginary hypothetical, but the problem is still there. — ZhouBoTong

Getting deep into things we can't prove is what we do. I can give it a pass for sure.

As I said earlier, I'm not an economist and could probably use some more reading on the subject, but I do know that the resources to actually do these things are out there. Whether or not distributing them equally enough to do this is feasible in current or even hypothetical social and economic structures is unknown to me. As for the people who don't wish to advance themselves, I think they are necessary for two reasons. One, I typically believe that a society has to have dissidents. If everyone agreed, then there would be no direction for society to go in because it would already be there. That leads to stagnation and in my observation death of a group as a result. Two, I think that having a group of unaugmented humans would be good as a safety net in case we do something to ourselves that does damage or we wish to be reversed. They could also be good for studying the human mind as it originally was, as well as research into social structures and many other things. They may not have a place in the debates we discussed, but they are certainly welcome. The only thing stopping them from coming is them.

. The cat is either alive or dead, there is no certainty, no hard determinism, no omnipresent observer making all things certain and predetermined. — Josh Alfred

I've always questioned why the cat isn't dead or alive just because we don't know if it is. Just because we don't know a true/false value doesn't mean one doesn't exist. We have no evidence that the universe doesn't exist without an observer. I think that in our mind the variable is unknown, but there is a correct answer, us knowing it or not doesn't change that.

I definitely took that part out of context. But it is still pertinent. In this case, what if everyone votes to limit harmful speech? I get that calling it a “right” places it outside the whims of democracy; but we already limited this “right” by declaring you cannot yell “fire” in a theatre along with a few other similar examples. If it is not an absolute “right”, then we can debate its applicable extent. (and I apologize, I may have been traumatized by too many weak libertarian/min-archist arguments where all government power is a bad thing – so I may have taken that bit in a seemingly strange direction). — ZhouBoTong

I actually disagree about the whole "fire in a theatre" thing. I think this contributes to a phenomenon known as "bystander apathy".

Essentially, bystander apathy is what happens when you drive by a wreck on the road, and you decide not to call it in because "someone else will do it". So, how do I think that these two things connect? Well, if someone thinks that they see a fire in a theatre, (of course you would have to be pretty stupid to just think and not know that there was a fire, but you have already said you don't think most people are very smart, so I don't think this is too much of a stretch.) but they aren't sure, they have two reasons now not to yell "fire!". The first is that they think someone else will do it, and the other is that in the event they are wrong, they face legal repercussions. You will, of course, have a lunatic that tries to get everyone out of the theatre for any kind of nefarious reason, but laws don't stop crazy people, and they can't get tried until after the event. Essentially, they don't care about laws and they have plenty of time to do what they want with those people before the police arrive, so outlawing speech like that is not only useless but harmful.

I think a more effective approach to making theatres safe is to study and help the lunatics who would use their rights to hurt people, rather than making everyone suffer.

Sorry for making this in another post. I came back today to check what was going on and realized that I didn't respond to this.

why does this change when we start talking mental capabilities? — ZhouBoTong

I believe that this changes when we talk about mental capabilities because we are also talking about a hypothetical even playing field. I like to think of it as a gladiatorial arena for ideas. There are no social stigmas blocking the way or regulations on speech impeding truth. If we also make both people roughly equal in intelligence then all that's left to see is what side makes more sense at the end.

I also like to think that anyone can attempt to learn anything at any time, contrary to certain aspects of physical strength being time-gated (For instance, it's very rare to see a 12-year-old with strong abs, or a 50-year-old for that matter). While a child can't understand quantum physics, once they are old enough to learn, they can keep that knowledge their entire lives barring any kind of neurological degeneration. There are some parallels between physical and mental strength, however, that is a good point.

Weren’t our upbringings as similar as possible? I get that as close as possible, still leaves a lot of wiggle room, but I think there are as many mental “gifts” as physical “gifts”. — ZhouBoTong

I agree that it does seem that way sometimes, but there is little scientific evidence for it as far as I know. If I am wrong, I'd like to know, but unfortunately, we as a species don't know much about something as close as our own brain. If I were to make a guess, I would say that the reason you learned better than your brother could be left up to the few differences you had in your upbringing. If there is anything I've learned from just observing anything really, it's that small changes in starting conditions can bring massive changes in the ending conditions. It may seem unreasonably small, but one connection made in your brain while you were out playing alone one day could have made it easier for you to understand your father's methods, and from there it would just increase. At least in my experience, small things don't matter often, but when they do, they matter significantly.

Agreed. So far, my experience suggests that INTEREST is the single greatest factor in achieving a high mental level in any field. Natural ability matters. Access to resources and upbringing matters. But interest is what separates the all-time greats from the rest of us. — ZhouBoTong

Of course! How could I have forgotten something so simple yet so important? Interest is so important. So, the question is now, what causes interest? (I think this is why non-philosophers find so little interest in discussions like this, it's just one question to another.)

I think I would fall back to my theory on mental "gifts" for this one. Interest might be sparked by small connections made be things that might even seem irrelevant. It's similar to how an art critic might see things in a piece that no one else would think of. It's almost the genesis of that whole concept. By chance, a toddler makes a connection in their mind between two things and 15 years later they're majoring in anthropology. What is it, 10,000 thoughts a day for the average person? That leaves a lot of room for the dominos to all fall in just the right way for them to have an interest. It also leaves a lot of room for someone to have no interest at all.

This leads into your point on interest later on. I'll get back to that.

I was actually saying that 49% of adults that DO NOT have learning disabilities, will struggle to defend themselves. Perhaps this will make my point, 90% will also struggle to defend themselves from the top 1%. The mental equivalent of all pro soccer players vs. Messi and Ronaldo. Sure, they have developed their skills to a very high level. Generally speaking, they can defend themselves very well, but when they come up against the champ (not me) – that person who has been reading Kant since age 12 (and for some reason enjoyed it), and it just made sense – they will not be able to keep up (by the way, I count myself as part of that 90% mentally. I can see that I get things quicker than most, but every now and then I meet a really smart person and think there is a bigger gap between they and I, than between me and the average 10 year old). — ZhouBoTong

So, I have a bit of an opportunity to talk about my crazy sci-fi ideas it seems

First, I believe that gene tailoring and cybernetics could easily close that gap between the 99% and the 1%. We need more research into those fields, a whole lot more, but if we wish to compare our ideas, the 12-year-old with a photographic memory does have an advantage over the 66-year-old Alzheimer's patient. But, could that advantage be nullified by not only curing the disease but giving the older gentleman an extension to his own brain? As I mentioned before, I believe that we can take our evolution into our own hands now, and we can use that to evolve our ideas. Essentially, every human mind can be equal because we can make it that way. Whether or not this is economically viable or even acceptable by any society in its current state is unknown to me. I generally advocate for getting most of our materials and energy from space, so I know that the materials exist for such an uplifting, but I don't know if we can even get along long enough to do something like that. Regardless, this is what I mean by an "even playing field". Even without this, however, I do still believe that upbringing does mostly effect intelligence and that everyone could possibly be intelligent, but a lot are doomed from the start due to social factors. Even rich children can be raised to be dumb because they were spoiled, and poor children can get straight A's and become doctors. It has to be something that we're missing, that everyone can experience. I think that stalking children their entire lives goes against some ethical rules for scientists, however. That's too bad. As for it being a genetic factor, we know what almost all of the human genome does, and there's no "better at math gene" as far as I'm aware.

But what makes us different from them? It can't be biological because both of my parents and my sibling are like that (hilarious, I used the same logic to say the difference can’t be due to upbringing – hmmm, I think we are both right). — ZhouBoTong

I do think this is funny, but perhaps we were both wrong. If it was genetic, it could simply be recessive. If it was upbringing, it could have been slight differences. There are reasons to believe and refute both, but I can't help but feel that there's something that we just haven't stumbled across yet. Something that could revolutionize the human race.

I agree, they just need to be interested. Are they? — ZhouBoTong

And so we reach my current idea on what that is. Interest. Humorously, interest is an interesting topic. What drives man to explore, to do something new? Not only that, but how does interest come about? What is it, whether it be a miracle of brain chemistry or something else, that makes us so infatuated, not with everything, but only with certain things? How was that advantageous to our ancestors, well, not only ours but those of most life? Animals are curious all the time, not to the extent of humans but still to an impressive extent.

If we can understand what causes interest, we have unlocked a whole new universe of transhumanism. If we could spark interest in everything for everyone, what couldn't we learn?

As for others holding interest, I think so. They may not hold academic interests, but they do like something, even if that is so simple that it would put you to sleep. If we can find out how to trigger the process of creating interest in their minds, maybe they will start to learn. Maybe we can relate to them more if we change ourselves to enjoy their interests as well.

I hope you are right, but I fear individualism will prevent people from coming together to accomplish great things. Can we act as a group without a massively powerful entity (like government) leading the way? — ZhouBoTong

Individualism and communalism, a dichotomy for sure. But I've noticed something about dichotomies, that even though the two sides are portrayed as complete opposites, as two faces of a coin, the distance between those two faces, in reality, is tiny. only millimeters really separate heads from tails. A person can be an individual, but what happens when they join a group? They think as one, act like one. Could you say that a group is an individual? What about a scenario where the whole world is grouped together? Could you say that we are all one individual, pushing and pulling our own ways, but ultimately moving one? After all, we only have one future that will exist, whether we get to choose which one or if it is ultimately decided already depends on your views on free will.

Well I am still new here, give me time and you may change your mind — ZhouBoTong

I'm new as well. seniority matters but not as much as the seniority want you to think it does. I think it's like that everywhere.

I think it important to remember that this "power" does not disappear if we do not give it to government. I prefer to choose to give that "power" to a selected group (that could very well include, dumb or shady people), rather than continue to the play the game of winner take all (until Adam Smith winner take all was accomplished by military power, more recently economic power is the best way to take over) and hope the winner is benevolent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the underlying idea of democracy is that power should be distributed. I never implied that the power would disappear, simply that it would be spread among the populous as equally as possible. Maybe that was the part you took out of context.

Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence? Not all definitions of violence include physical force. How about if I call Susie a doo-doo head? Safe to say that people should not be harmed by words, but equally safe to say that people regularly are harmed by words. Is harm violence?

As far as physical harm goes I am a pacifist, but as far as mental harm goes I'm a bit more lenient. Let me explain this a bit.

To physically harm or kill someone is the ultimate silencer. For animals, this can be advantageous because the weak dying off improves the likelihood that offspring will be strong and live on. Humans have ascended past that. Our medical problems and disadvantages can be fixed through our own knowledge, and therefore the traditional form of evolution can be bypassed or even accelerated by our own knowledge. All of this adds up to my conclusion on the subject: killing or maiming physically is a waste of time because it won't make us better. In fact, I would argue the contrary.

In a sense, I believe that we have shifted the burden of natural selection from the structure of our bodies to the content of our minds, and if we wish to be strong and survive when we are threatened, we have to make our ideas strong. Similarly to how we test our bodies, our ideas need to be tested in a "mental combat" of sorts, the strong learning from their experience and the weak either escaping to live another day to become stronger or having their ideas die. This mental combat is more commonly known as a debate or argument. There, of course, is a difference between those two, debates being seen as more civil and arguments as more confrontational. This leads to your example of Susie's feelings.

Let's say that Susie is in fact hurt by being called a doo-doo head. You could say that she is not strong enough to just take it and think of it as just ignorance. While she is certainly weak in that situation, you could also say she is only that weak because of the aggressor in this situation, who is socially dominant to her. If even for a short while that inequality was abolished and both sides were on an equal playing field, I think that Susie would be considerably more likely to hold her own. So, if she were on that even ground and her feelings were still hurt, I would say not that she necessarily deserves the pain, but that she is weak. Of course, name calling doesn't really prove anything, so no actual harm is done to the "ecosystem of thought" I have theorized, but Suzie's feelings are hurt, and while I do feel for her because I have been in that situation before, I made it out and I believe she will too.

I think it's generally safe to say that while some people are significantly more physically strong than others and hold more potential for that, most people have the same capacity for thought. It may not be as developed due to neglect as others, but that potential is still there. Of course, there are people with learning disabilities, but no one is born with an inferior "brain type" (in parallel with a body type) that judges whether they will be able to do math or English or art better. You could make parallels between learning disabilities and physical weakness, but learning disabilities are generally seen as an illness and a lanky body type is generally seen as just a result of the genetic lottery.

So, while sometimes harsh words can do more damage than a punch, I am generally more lenient to words because as long as you are a healthy human, you should generally be able to take it to a reasonable extent. It's fairer, of course not entirely fair, but it is fairer.

However, physical violence or killing is detrimental because you are removing ideas from the pool. To use the example of evolution from earlier, it's as if a group of deer had been evolving for thousands of years to become strong in their environment and then a space rock the size of a dime came down and pierced straight through one of their brains. All of that progress is lost, and even if the next winter was going to be cold and that deer had thin fur, it could have just as easily been the deer next to it with thick fur.

Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence?

As for this, I don't know. I tend to stay out of economic discussions because much like politics they just tend to brew trouble. I will say that generally, I lean towards, as a friend of mine once put it, "equal starting conditions and earned ending conditions." though I don't know how economically viable that is. As for how I think of it in terms of violence, it could be, but I might need more time to think about it. Right now I'm thinking that as long as you don't become a second class citizen due to your low economic status, then suffering from your poor financial decisions is usually ok. However, if it is meant to aggressively target people with certain ideas, then I would consider it in the same vein of physical violence, in terms of how you are essentially removing ideas from the pool.

I disagree here. I am NOT going to use words like intelligence in this case, because that is a whole 'nother mess. However, if we were to measure all humans by there ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field", 49% would be below average and therefor they likely DO NOT have the ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field" (those who are above average would be better at defending themselves). What about children? Or varying levels of upbringing and education? Is a level playing field even remotely possible? - I just noticed you did address the level playing field thing, so just ignore those last couple questions

First off, children are not fully grown and their brains are not fully developed, automatically disqualifying them from any sort of debate simply because they are so grossly underqualified.

As I said before, people with learning disabilities shouldn't be targeted until we can make their brains work more like the norm, so they're out as well.

I agree with your decision not to use words like intelligence. As it is now, we don't work on an even playing field and there are a lot of people with more power than you or I that may or may not agree with us. It isn't a battle we are fighting anyway.

You said that 49% can't defend themselves, and I think that sounds accurate. 26 percent of the global population is below 18, and most studies say that the brain isn't developed fully until 25, so I would round up to 30 to make it fair. Now we have 19%. A quick google search got me 10% of the population with learning disabilities from most sources. I think that there is more than 9% of the population that may not be able to defend themselves like that, however. I suppose that's where education comes in. Since you gave a percentage, I'll give one too. I'd say that the percentage of the population that has an above average IQ is 16%.

So, 40% are unqualified but could be with more research and/or time, 16% are overqualified, 9% are underqualified, and about roughly 35% can defend themselves against the lower and cower from the higher. This is the uneven field we have now. I think we can both agree that making the 16% stupider is not the answer, so to create an even playing field, we need the entire (eligible) human population to have roughly even critical thinking and speaking skills. Luckily, these things can be learned.

One negative to using these parameters to decided eligibility is discrimination. It isn't uncommon for countries to declare their dissidents mentally unstable and for them to be sent to the gulag. That is one reason I don't like only certain people (even if their qualifications are outstanding) holding power. Tyranny by the masses exists but is nearly impossible to create on an even playing field like what we discuss. After all, how do you push a boulder toward someone to crush them when they're pushing back just the same?

However, we are on a philosophy forum. That is who we are. How many of this type of conversation have you had with "normal" people? (sorry on the use of "normal", I can't think of the right word for the 99% of people who can't be bothered to put 5 minutes of thought into this sort of thing) You can see they are actually in pain as their ideas are challenged.
Personally, I only have 1 friend that enjoys critically analyzing their own worldview. Everyone else is just waiting for Fox News, or MSNBC, to validate their opinion. Sorry, bit of a rant. But hopefully the point is made that the vast majority of the population is very unlikely to "challenge everything they hold true." — ZhouBoTong

In sociology, it is noted that not only do majorities often look down on minorities but that the opposite is also often true. In this case, they likely think "why do I have to do the thinking?" or "I'm going to die one day and none of this will matter anyway." and we agree that they are short-sighted. But what makes us different from them? It can't be biological because both of my parents and my sibling are like that. It could be a mutation but I don't think evolution works that fast. I think it has to do with our situations. I have no idea what would cause such a thing, but throughout history, people have risen against the tide to question everything and have made great strides in their fields. I wonder what makes us this way? I think it merits study.

After all of this, however, I think it's worth noting that evolution does not work toward a specific goal, only toward strength in an organism's current environment. Perhaps when it comes to the climate that is the human social structure, we are weak and will be killed by the strong. I just hope that their ambition for quick strength doesn't collapse on them and the rest of us. That could be fatal. On the other hand, we could be the strong ones, and it's up to us to build the future responsibly.

I think that the others can be won over, but only if we can justify it to them. One mistake I see often is appearing as a savior or hero. You seem too intelligent for that, however. I would recommend trying to level with others, showing them they don't have to be a super genius to understand at least a little of the world around them. We are more or less the same after all, we all are, the only place we really differ wildly is in our minds. Let us build up those as our ancestors built up their finger strength and agility, however, instead of going one generation at a time, we can go much, much faster.

My view has always been this: If you are objectively correct, you can prove it. If you can't, you aren't. I don't think governments or any authority for that matter should have a say in the words that can come out of people's mouths, simply because for one, that is a huge amount of power you are putting in already untrustworthy people, (That wasn't a jab at any party in particular, more all of them) and two, it stifles a sort of evolution of the general consensus.

What I mean by "evolution of the general consensus" is this. Let's take something (relatively) harmless as an example. While untrue, a lot of the time commercials will tell you that a product has 20% fewer calories or is a fat-free option. Usually, they can make these claims either because they downsized the product or used substitutes for certain ingredients that do the same thing. These products are not more healthy for you, and will most likely just cost more, however, the general consensus is that these products are better for you.

The corporations that make these products make a lot of money through these admittedly pretty scummy business practices, so they have a large interest in keeping the public uninformed. The government only helps these corporations by doing studies that make these options look good by extension, (reports on obesity rates, for example) and educating elementary school children about how fats and sugars can be bad in excessive amounts, and so they grow up to make the connection that they should buy these "healthy" products for their health. So, the obesity rate stays the same, corporations get more money for less product, and since the government only had good things to say about these scummy businesses and their activities, the general consensus is that they are good, even though really nothing has changed.

So, since the people with all the power decided that these new products are good, and no one can talk about how bad they are since the government put in a good word for them, we are stuck at an impasse. You may think that this is silly, but try to tell your mother that her fat-free Yoplait yogurt isn't actually better for her and you would have a very hard time convincing her.

So, I think that the job of a government should be to allow all people (even if they are not generally agreed with) to speak. Violence should not be tolerated under any circumstances, no matter the side, (even if they are generally agreed with). At least to me, telling a group of people that they can't talk, even if their beliefs are scientifically inaccurate, is just subjugation. Sure they are wrong, but you should have to prove that first, or getting rid of the ignorant can easily be used as an excuse of the simply ambitious.

Besides, if you're really right, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you can't defend yourself on an even playing field then you deserve to lose.

I understand that we don't always have an even playing field, but perhaps that should be a goal we strive for. Letting everyone say what they want no matter how rude or outlandish may hurt a lot of feelings, but that will just make our ideologies stronger, compared to cowering behind legislation and hoping that our ideas don't get outpaced by the people living in the shadows. For the sake of everything we hold to be true, we need to challenge everything we hold to be true, because if those ideas don't hold up when they are really challenged, we get to die with them.

I absolutely love the discussion and very much appreciate what you are saying. It is my inadequacy that is the problem. I have been doing this for years and still, struggle to answer questions. — Athena

And so we all come to the same conclusion eventually. We enjoy the journey but the destination is disappointing. Or maybe we haven't reached the destination yet.

The only constant theme there seems to be is that our minds restrict us in terms of our knowledge of the universe. If only we could become more.

I know I will have left a lot of points left undiscussed doing this, but I really can't keep this up. I am leaving for a trip soon and won't be able to use the internet while I'm gone, and the scope of our discussion seems to have reached critical mass. Someday we will pick this up again, but for now, I have to say farewell.

bad and beneficial can go together. — DiegoT

I think this is true within context. Within the context of the modern world where many of the resources in the new world are being put to use to grow the world economically, I think we can maybe justify some atrocity. However, within the context of an old world that only valued science slightly more than a new world, I think that no one really has a claim to be doing things for the benefit of the other side.

The video game analogy is interesting. It sort of implies that mechanisms of the universe exist in such a way that, at least in our current form, we can not experience. I'll think on that.

Ouch,that thinking is the problem today! And we come to this by leaving moral training to the church and leaving the masses to believe they have God's truth, although they disagree with each other about what that truth is. This is nuts and it will destroy us. — Athena

What is the difference between the masses thinking they have the truth of God and disagreeing on exactly what that is, and scientists thinking they have the truth of logic and disagreeing on exactly what that is? As you said-

Our good manners is based on the fact that we can not be absolutely sure we are correct. Being like a 10 year child who can only deal with absolutes is not a desirable trait for adults. We have to live with paradox and opposing rights (this is right and so is that right, but we have choose) and other difficult choices. — Athena

So, to restate what I said before, Religion is almost certainly wrong and I agree with that, but I don't think we should be so hasty to adopt the next great thing in entirety and ignore the dead ends that can leave us with. (String theory, unexplained phenomena, the 99% of the universe we have never seen or explored) Doesn't logical thinking kind of backfire when what we came to logically turns out to be a paradox? In other words, a logical solution could not possibly solve some questions we ask, therefore logical thinking may be very powerful, but not powerful enough to explain everything and certainly doesn't always provide absolutes. I agree with you to an extent that logic and reason are the best we have at the moment in terms of explaining our world, but people may have very different things to say about logic and reason in the future and may think of us as just as ignorant as we think of those dark age peasants.

Speaking of the dark ages, saying that Rome adopting Christianity was the cause would be a bit of a stretch. Generally, the position historians take is one that follows this line of thinking, "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times". Many factors went into the collapse of Rome, and I think most would attribute it to size and corruption (that was present in the government of Rome far before Christ was even born) as well as enemies on the borders seeing opportunities. Even so, it was probably more complex than that. One of the world's most powerful empires ever doesn't fall for just one reason.

NO, We WERE NOT MILITARIST! :cry: — Athena

I think the majority of human societies throughout all of history have been militaristic. Say what you will about the enlightenment and how those European nations started to slowly encourage thought, but they still had wars and still forcefully took control of lesser off nations as colonies as late as the world wars. Even now, lots of businesses have factories and plantations in poor areas of the world that used to be colonies used for those things anyway, and they pay very little and rule with an iron fist. As for America, I think that Native Americans and Mexicans who lived in the Southwest and colonists from other European powers would disagree in your thought about America being more pacifist than militarist. Manifest Destiny is sort of just militaristic conquest said politely so people don't feel bad for stealing land. Of course, I don't believe in absolutes, especially morally, so I don't have a position on whether that was right or wrong, but I think I can classify it as militaristic.

Not until Eisenhower and the Korean war did the US determine to maintain military power. — Athena

This is true, but more out of necessity than greed. If America did not have a competitive military, Russia would have and would have steamrolled through America. Greed was certainly there and is a driving factor now, but if they hadn't of done that, I feel confident in saying that we would be speaking Russian right now. Make of that what you will, I don't like to bring politics into discussions online. All I'm saying is that it's hard to make agreements with a very large, very fanatic nation with a very large military if you can't at the very least make sure that when negotiations fall through, you can defend yourself.

Democracy is rule by reason. Liberty is about living with rule by reason. — Athena

Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

These are copy and paste definitions. I know that definitions are kind of shaky on things like this but I suppose whatever people say it is the most is a good place to start.

Democracy seems to be rule by the people in some capacity. I think we can both agree that the people of any nation (and the human mind itself) are very easily deceived. The average person does not decide who they want to be president or what laws to pass on just reason, and sometimes no reason at all. When people go to vote, a lot of complex reactions are happening in their brain and I'd be willing to bet most of them have something to do with emotion. A people can value reason all they want, but unless they modify their own brains in order to only see reason, they will also have emotions and that will skew the result. Personally, I'm not against genetic modification of any kind, but I don't think artists would be very happy about you removing their children's emotions.

Liberty seems to have very little to do with rules, especially those by reason. Liberty seems to be the opposite of rules in a sense. If you live by reason, that is totally fine, but telling people what to think is inherently authoritarian, even if you're "right". (Right in quotation marks because we have both already established that speaking that absolute is troubling.) It is also just as authoritarian even if what is right changes with what the evidence is, If anything, that would be more authoritarian because you are then not only telling outsiders what to think but also forcibly changing what your own people think.

I am overwhelmed by the challenge I face in these forums. — Athena

I never had any intention of being cruel. I just wish to have a pleasant discussion about life with strangers on the internet. I have to say that most of your points have been interesting if not flawed (Just like everyone else's, including mine I'm sure.) and I do look forward to further discussion on this. If someone is actually belittling you, I can't do anything to stop it, but I would like to treat you as an equal if not a superior. (I saw in another post of yours that you used to live in Hollywood in the 50's. You have obviously had a lot more life experience than a lot of people here and are a very important asset in a discussion.) So if you take anything away from this, just know that at least I am not deliberately trying to deny things you hold as truths, but challenge them just as you should mine and just as everyone else should to everyone else in the most respectful manner possible.