Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

Honestly, those are rare moments. You can pretend to sit like a Buddha, but you're gonna get up for that bag of chips. And no- I betcha can't eat just one. :lol:

3) The purpose of making moral claims is to increase moral behavior. — Pinprick

That doesn't seem right. The purpose of moral claims is to define what is moral. Increasing moral behavior is not entailed in all moral claims. Anyways, in this case an increase in moral behavior is a decrease in births.

6) Therefore, Antinatalism’s goal of increasing moral behavior becomes impossible, as neither people nor morality will continue to exist if Antinatalism is adhered to. — Pinprick

Again, this does not matter, because as you stated:

I’m not making the claim that morality must endure no matter what, as if it is some purpose or meaning of life. — Pinprick

So.. I don't know what you're getting at honestly.

It’s similar to coaching a team to do its best, but then not keeping score of the game. Doing your best becomes pointless, because the purpose of doing your best is to win the game. — Pinprick

Winning the game would be preventing all suffering. If no one existed, no one suffers.

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't. — unenlightened

Ah, but you are inadvertently hitting on my point! Humans, unlike other animals, and the rest of nature have goals, but as you state, they are arbitrary as to what goal, when, or even if to have goals. However, despite this humans do have goals. Specifically, they have goals as a society to produce and consume. Thus, despite the fact that really there doesn't need to be social goals, we do in fact "sleepwalk" into the goals that are already in place and implemented- that of producing and consuming. You may not have any particular "personal goals", but certainly the goals of daily life are following the dictates of the social goals of production and consumption. And certainly you betray the fact that when parents have children, that is a goal of some sort. To raise the child. Public necessity takes this child and enculturates in the laborers and consumers they need to be.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity. — unenlightened

Yes, where the moon can't help but absurdly go round and round, we can!

Another example of what I'm saying is looking at reporting on economic activity. To the public- businesses, managers, customers, researchers, reporters, etc. we are all just points of labor or consumption or labor or consumption statistics. Perhaps the ruse is that private life is nothing more but about distractions and blowing off steam in the confines of more labor and consumption in order to enter back into the fray of the labor market.

Your doing crossword puzzles, reading that novel, taking that vacation, going to bars and restaurants, going to that concert, travelling the world are all just ways to distract and blow of steam (and are just elaborate forms of consumption) so that you can go back to thinking about your daily consumption for living and laboring. If this is what we are once born into a society, why not just bypass making new units of labor and consumption and people who have to blow off steam to go back to labor and consumption?

And this goes back to the idea of the absurd. We are here to produce, consume, blow off steam (which amounts to more production and consumption), and repeat. I'm not saying there is a better way than what we have. I'm just saying it is an absurd repetition that is kept perpetuated over and over. We produce and consume and produce and consume so we can produce and consume.. What's the point? Why are we trying to make new people, shape them into more consumption and production? Besides the fact that this is using people, it is silly. Those that don't mind using people, might say that people's efforts towards consumption and production brings technology. And then I would just say, what's the point of science and technology in and of itself? Because you like reading about it and discussing it on a forum? It "benefits man" is only relative as the more technology we have, the more ways we find to produce and consume it, thus simply reiterating the cycle.

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America" — Athena

So what is this referencing?

In the US in 1958 those who control education changed and they changed the purpose of education, with huge social, economic, and political ramifications. — Athena

Are you talking about US government's programs to increase programs in math and science?

Could you clarify what you're asking? — BitconnectCarlos

Our own needs and wants creates demands of others, and vice versa. Social controls direct this need for survival into a socially defined way.

I was just answering another poster that we are not forcing others into these needs and wants nor the being forced into the survival social control game to begin with if we do not procreate (antinatalist argument). That's one of many benefits of not creating a new person. Of course the prevention of general suffering is the big idea here. This is just one more benefit- not forcing others into the goals of society.

Anyways, the question was, what is society trying to do here? Our goal as a society is to increase production and consumption. Thus, when we are born into the world, we are not just here to "pursue happiness" or any other self-interested act really. As far as the public is concerned, it is how much production and consumption we can provide. Not having children will prevent them from contributing to this goal of being laborers and consumers.

Yes. Or perhaps mere survival. Or perhaps non-survival. An antinatalist society works towards it own demise, no? A worthy goal surely? — unenlightened

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone.

Sometimes, perhaps always if one has the all-seeing eye of God. — unenlightened

Perhaps the goals are maximize production?

Bah. Empathy, conformity, coercion, human nature, and mainly, education. — unenlightened

Yep. So with these laws, education, exemplars, etc. what is society trying to get out of the individual?

Yes, no, maybe. — unenlightened

How so yes? How so no?

The individual needs society which needs the individual. I believe that's what you're getting at. So we often talk about the free-rider using the system to their advantage without putting any input into it. Does it go the other way most of the time, where the system uses the individual? When someone is born, it is implied they will be a part of society's labor force. They will be stipulated for times to work and times to entertain themselves. They will be sanctioned as to what avenues this will be done. I'm not concerned what is lawful or unlawful, but simply that we are then pushed into markets and production based on our demands in general. This pushes us into certain ways of life. These ways of life are stipulated a certain way and organizes our life. What are we doing here then for this society? What does this society want from us? We are born, we produce to consume. Society deems this good. Why? Why more people to produce to consume? More people, more labor, more production, more consumption.

I cannot just leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. I would be AWOL and subject to arrest. Other people would lose their paychecks and means of buying food or their ability to save. If you lose your job many people wouldn't be able to afford groceries or daycare or car insurance etc. — BitconnectCarlos

It's still your choice. Yes,this is all social control. Society rewards what it wants out of the individual.

If you're at a point where you actually have that independence you need to ask yourself "what do you really want to do?" It's not always clear, and it's different for different people so I don't really prescribe. My dad is one example of that type of person - he has his own small business and he could retire and stop working but then he'd be kind of lost. He actually likes what he does and it keeps him occupied. I'm certainly not going to tell him that he needs to stop. His work has become a part of him, and I think that's fine. — BitconnectCarlos

So what are we trying to do here?

If Antinatalism entails “no humans” then it also entails no need for morality. Agree? If that is the case, then why make moral statements and judgements? Your argument for me to refrain from procreating is based on the belief that doing so is good. However, your argument also entails that morality is pointless or unnecessary. Therefore, what you consider to be good is irrelevant because morality is pointless or unnecessary. Put simply, you can’t tell me to behave morally and then go on to say that morality is unnecessary. I have no reason to behave morally if morality doesn’t matter. — Pinprick

Your little logic doesn't apply to what I'm saying, so I will not repeat myself. Morality is not pointless or unnecessary if there are humans around. The very basis of morality relies on being alive. If we are not here, then there is no basis for morality. That does not entail that we must be alive so morality can come into play. It just means when humans are around the logic: "Do not procreate" applies. End of story.

If a: Humans are around
then b: Humans should not procreate

Yes, but behavior is only a means to the end, which is life being good or tolerable. Life is what gives meaning to behavior. — Pinprick

The sentence "Life is what gives meaning to behavior" is vague and practically nonsensical. Antinatalism is about a specific applied ethical case- procreation. It has as its basis of value the asymmetry between suffering and good for something that can possibly exist but currently does not.

Why is this wrong? If the justification for this includes the goal of making life better in some way, then ending life refutes the justification. Having no life at all doesn’t make life better. — Pinprick

If someone does not exist, only in hypothetical, that hypothetical person literally needs NOTHING. However, it is the case that in time and state X, no new person (that could) is suffering. In other words, if no person exists, they don't need to exist to make their life better. In fact, they don't need anything. In fact, in most Buddhist and Schopenhaerian conceptions, suffering exists due to the very nature of our needs and desires (like being in a "better" state). Thus, no procreating people who need to be in a better state, solves or bypasses this. At the least, even without Buddhist/Schopenhauerian conceptions, you are preventing the need for someone to need in the first place.

It’s nihilistic in the sense that it’s consequence results in morality ceasing to exist. I understand that Antinatalists have values. But their values are irrelevant because they result in morality becoming extinct. — Pinprick

I don't know why you have this notion but humans don't exist so that morality can exist. Morality exists because humans exist. That is a huge difference. Humans don't owe any principle/idea/conception/rule of morality anything. To think so seems bizarre. To be crude, we are not some third-party, abstract principle's bitch.

Let me put it this way:

Fish swim, eat, hide, makes decisions based on some stimuli.

Birds do a more complex version of this.

Many mammals have a complex social structure but the social structure seems more based on innate capabilities. A chimp doesn't decide usually that it will/can start a whole set of new behaviors and start a break off type of society from scratch (that doesn't mean they can't break off from the group, I mean break off their behavior patterns).

But then there is humans. You can choose to leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. You can choose to do any number of things. You are radically free (as the existentialists might say) to do any choice you want. Yet we choose to do what we do.

Now these choices do not come from out of nowhere. We decide to keep working because we are enculturated through social controls and internalizing values from society. We think it will look bad. We lose status. We can't find other ways to survive.

Yes, indeed, there is an explantory gap. I'm not questioning that at all. I'm primarily concerned about where, in materialism or dualism, the explanation will be found and my argument suggests the explanation is located somewhere in materialism rather than dualism. — TheMadFool

That's great, now answer how.

I don't know how to explain this, but this is almost like a sub-division of the bigger question.

The more general question is: How do brain states have mental states?

The more specific questions are things like: Does that specific entity have an internal state or How do I know other people have internal states?

So? The explanatory gap has to be explained by both camps. I don't necessarily agree with dualists either. In a way dualism seems to be bypassing all we know of empirical evidence. But this doesn't mean the materialists get a pass either. All is material yet the material can't explain how material is mental (in some circumstances). All we have is talk of emergence, illusion, integration, which just amounts to hidden dualism (which is essentially saying "magic" as far as I see).

So someone raised a question about qualia in stackexchange and this means the hard problem must be one only dualists care about? It is a problem all of these things must face if we want to explain the gap between physical and mental states. A functionalist or identity theorist is only going to say "When I see red, these brain states are occurring". So? How IS red THOSE brain states? How are body/brain states a subjective experience itself?

foundational to his dualist outlook which implies that the hard problem of consciousness entails dualism — TheMadFool

I don't think the problem entails dualism.

My reply to the above is not to deny that there's no explantory gap - there is. However, and this is my claim, this explantory gap doesn't entail dualism as Chamlers seems to believe. The fact that when the brain shuts off, qualia disappear and when the brain is reactivated, qualia return, clearly demonstrates both the necessity and sufficiency of brain states for qualia. If brain states are both sufficient and necessary for qualia, which entails that qualia have a physical basis, why entertain dualism? It's unnecessary and therefore unwarranted. — TheMadFool

I believe Chalmers is a kind of panpsychist, so more like a neutral monist, but he could have various positions at different times. Anyways, the main point here is that the explanatory gap needs to be explained. How is it that brain activity is mental activity? You say all is brain activity. That's fine.That's great. Now tell me how brain activity is mental activity.

Think of it like a mystery that needs solving. Someone has given qualia to conscious people. We know, with certainty, that Materialism did it for Materialism (brain states) is both sufficient and necessary for qualia. Why then should the investigators of this mystery about who gave qualia to conscious people have another suspect, Dualism? — TheMadFool

Because it is one way around the problem. It may not be the right way, but it is one way to solve it. Panpsychism is more subtle I think in that it the material aspect has an internal mental aspect as well on some level. Anyways, that is just one way to try to close the gap. There could be others perhaps. Many materialist arguments have a "hidden dualism" embedded in it, where the homunculus is posited by some "magic" integration of physical events, or as I stated in a previous thread, is illegally put in the equation without explanation as simply "illusion". Of course, no explanation is offered as to exactly what illusion is, other than the concretion of physical events over the course of time.

Good quote.

This explanatory gap you speak of is basically the claim that brain activity is insufficient for providing an explanation of subjective mental states. That's the bottom line of the hard problem of consciousness. — TheMadFool

But that is not. It is sufficient if we are explaining the causes of subjective mental states. It is not sufficient in explaining how neurons, bio/chemical/physical activity (more generally) are/is mental states. See the difference?

2. Brain activity absent (person is asleep) and all mental states are present, including subjective mental states — TheMadFool

First of all brain activity is happening, just different areas of the brain. But I'll overlook this point..

There's no need to hypothesize a non-physical mind substance at all. — TheMadFool

Hard questioners aren't necessarily doing that. Some may be dualists but not all.

However, upon playing with the switch a number of times, putting it on/off(waking/sleeping), C will notice that the bulb's state (presence/absence of mental states, including subjective mental states) correlates with the state of the switch and he'll realize that if there's an explanation for the bulb's state then it has to do with the on/off switch (brain activity/brain inactivity). C, due to his ignorance, doesn't know the explanation for the bulb's behavior (present/absent mental states, including subjective mental states) - the explanatory gap - but what he does know is that it must have something to do with the on/off switch (brain activity/inactivity). — TheMadFool

No one is questioning that brain activity correlates and is necessary and maybe even sufficient for understanding how consciousness operates. Rather, it is how mental states and brain states are one in the same. You keep moving from a metaphysical question (the hard question/ why it is that brain states are mental states too), to easier questions (how bio/chemical/physical processes cause or are correlated with mental states). That is a major difference.

Antinatalism only exists within the context of morality, but Antinatalism entails the ending of human life if carried out across the board, which then entails the end of morality, which is the very scaffolding holding up Antinatalism in the first place. It’s a snake swallowing it’s own tail. — Pinprick

Again, I see no problem. No humans = no need for morality. Humans are not around to see that morality gets enacted. Morality is enacted when humans are around.

But to prevent suffering by preventing life defeats the purpose of Antinatalism. If Antinatalism is a type of morality, then it necessarily includes the premise that life is worth living. — Pinprick

No that is not entailed in morality. Morality can be a set of many things that are regarded to how humans should act and treat each other. This argument states that it is wrong to create suffering on behalf of another person who will suffer throughout their whole life in unknown but often predictable ways. It also realizes that good is indeed a benefit, but only for people who already exist. It matters not for people who don't exist. What does matter is suffering is not occurring where it could have (see negative utilitarianism).

If it is stating that one cannot live a good life, because there’s no such thing as a good life due to the inevitable experience of suffering, then it is essentially Nihilistic. It denies morality. Therefore, it cannot validly make moral claims about what is good, or how we should live. — Pinprick

No, it does not deny morality. Unlike nihilism (which does not believe in any values), pessimism/antinatalism puts a premium on prevention of unnecessary suffering which is actually a compassionate stance. In the case of procreation, the least suffering you can cause for a future person is to not have that possible future person.

I can agree with this, but if Antinatalism’s premise is that causing suffering for someone else is always bad, then that entails much more than preventing birth. It would also entail being against many different medical procedures; vaccines/shots, foul tasting medicine, exams that cause discomfort, etc. Or does it hold the position that it is ok to directly cause suffering if by doing so more intense suffering is prevented or lessened? — Pinprick

Yes, the second one. ONCE BORN, then things change. The whole logic changes actually. The decision prior to someone's birth is an asymmetry in respect to preventing suffering for a future person (which is always a good thing), and preventing good experiences for a future person (which is neither good nor bad because there is no actual person to be deprived of the good experiences). The asymmetry here always is skewed towards the prevention of suffering, meaning non-birth of the future person.

Holding a moral view that results in ending morality seems contradictory. The justification for the view directly appeals to morality, but also indirectly destroys the preconditions for morality. — Pinprick

I addressed this above. The preconditions for morality only hold when people exist. If no people exist, no morality needs to exist either. Once there are enough people for morality to matter, then it comes into effect. In other words, the minute a person can affect another person to cause them suffering, then this rule would matter. In a world where no one is ever tortured ever, the rule "do not torture people" might not matter. Once there is a world where torture takes place, this rule matters. If people never suffered, this rule would not matter as well. As long as suffering exists, this rule matters. If it doesn't, like in the case of no people, this rule would not matter.

Firstly, thanks for the clarification. What you say makes sense but the hard problem of consciousness characterized as being about an explanatory gap is, essentially, to claim that physical brain activity is not sufficient in providing an explanation of subjective mental experiences but if we recognize the fact that when we wake up from sleep, reactivated brain activity corresponding to a return of subjective mental experiences, we'll come to the realization that the explanatory gap you speak of has more to do with our ignorance than anything even remotely linkable to the many versions of dualism that are doing the rounds. — TheMadFool

Well, yeah, you are just reiterating the point of the hard questioners.. Why/what/how is it that bio/chemical/physical processes of the brain-body are also experiential/mental states as well. That explanatory gap is not explained by the functions of sleep and awake states. That just says what we know already- that consciousness can have sleep and awake states. It in no way points towards an answer to that explanatory gap. Saying that "brain activity corresponds with mental experiences" is already understood and agreed upon. That is not the issue though so you are making a case for the wrong problem.

I myself fall into the Voluntarist camp. The Will and emotions come before intellect/your idea of concepts. The Will is an unconscious urge and/or innate energy force in consciousness and/or the universe. — 3017amen

Very Schopenhaurian of you! :grin:

I see here that you started a whole new thread so I'm going to answer you in here.

As I understand it, the hard problem of consciosuness claims that there exist subjective mental experiences (qualia) that can't be explained in physical terms, herein meant the brain. In other words, (physical) brain activity is not sufficient to explain subjective mind experiences. — TheMadFool

This is not necessarily a true characterization of the hard question of consciousness. The hard question recognizes that brain states correlate and are necessary for mental states, and one may even be a complete materialist (there is nothing more than physical processes). However, the hard question is pointing to the fact that there is an unexplainable phenomena (i.e. the "explanatory gap") for how or why it is that brain states are correlated with mental states. It is the difference between causing an event and being an event. We know that biological/chemical/physical activity causes mental states, but what is not explained is why this particular set of bio/chemical/physical events are mental states.

When a person sleeps, brain activity ceases in relevant respects and this person stops having any and all subjective mind experiences. This implies that brain activity is necessary for subjective mind experiences.

As a person awakens, brain activity resumes, and all subjective mind experiences are restored. What this means is that brain activity is sufficient for subjective mind experiences. — TheMadFool

This is irrelevant based on what I said above between the difference between "causing" and "being" a mental state. No one positing the hard question is denying brain states cause mental states.

1. Brain activity is necessary for subjective mind experiences — TheMadFool

This the hard questioners agree with.

2. Brain activity is sufficient for subjective mind experiences — TheMadFool

Most materialist hard questioners may agree with this. That isn't necessarily the issue either.

3. Brain activity is both sufficient and necessary for subjective mind experiences (1 & 2) — TheMadFool

Same thing repeated yep.

Ergo,

4. There is no hard problem of consciousness. — TheMadFool

This is not necessarily true. Hard questioners are asking why/how it is that mental states are (metaphysically speaking one and the same) as this particular set of physical events. Just saying brain states are necessary and sufficient does not explain this.

An illusion is a real thing that is misinterpreted as something else. A mirage is a real thing - a product of the refraction of light and how it is perceived by a brain with light-sensitive sensory organs. The image is then interpreted based on past (stored) experiences. It is incorrectly interpreted as a pool of water because it looks like a stored memory of a pool of water. When you realize that it isn't a pool of water, the perception doesn't disappear into a puff of smoke. It still exists, but is just interpreted differently - as refracting light, not a pool of water. The "illusion" becomes a real effect of real causes and is what one would expect to see give the proper explanation. — Harry Hindu

Right, but the hard question is asking what actually "is" this interpreting to begin with. A misrepresentation, is still a presentation, whether it has misplaced causes or not. A mirage exists against the backdrop of consciousness. What is the backdrop of consciousness itself? If you say neurons/physics, then you have went from one to the other without explanation, except the placeholder "It's an illusion!".

I get that my suffering is irrelevant if I, as someone contemplating parenthood, choose to not have children on the basis of Antinatalism. However, if I adopt Antinatalism as an ideology, it seems to entail that I believe that people should not have children. Meaning other people. This is where I get stuck on how you can actually hold Antinatalism as an ideology without implying to the rest of the world that they shouldn’t have children. I know people who have chosen to not have children, and their reasons are whatever they are. It is a personal choice, and as such, remains private. But by making your personal choice public and espousing it as an ideology, it is implied that you judge other’s choices to have or not have children as either “good” or “bad.” In this way, suppose you are successful in convincing me that I shouldn’t have children even though I want to. Wouldn’t you at least be partly responsible for whatever suffering I endure as a result of this decision? — Pinprick

Yes, it is like veganism. It is a choice, and one can convince others of its merits. But the point is that it is not forced, just influencing and making a case. The other person can see the merit in the argument and follow it or not.

Obviously, if they think that the case is relevant enough to follow-through with it, they believe they are indeed causing someone else's lifetime of possible instances of suffering if they procreated. Clearly, they agree and follow the antinatalist argument, they think it is more important to prevent suffering than to cause conditions of suffering for another (even if it seems against their own initial wants).

At the end of the day, if you are caused pain by not causing (the conditions for) pain in someone else, the other person's right not to be caused suffering wins out. A very extreme example of this is a sociopath who gets joy from causing others pain. Should he be accommodated because his pain is so great by suppressing his true passions? Of course not. Let's make it less stark. Should a religious nut who thinks causing suffering and death for others is the righteous thing to do be allowed to act on those impulses because not doing so causes them the suffering of not being able to do those acts? Of course not.

I also agree with this, but it’s also true that procreation is necessary for morality itself to continue. Therefore, to be against procreation entails being against morality, at least as a side effect. IOW’s if the moral statement “Thou shalt not procreate” is applied universally via Kant’s Categorical Imperative, then the elimination of morality will logically follow in time. — Pinprick

If no one is around to suffer, then morality doesn't matter. Morality only matters for those already existing. I don't see anything contradictory there. Humans don't exist to keep morality going, morality exists only when multiple humans and sentient life comes in the picture.

What people might mean when they say, "the mind is an illusion", could be when some of us switch meaning 2 for 1: we gather all the abilities of the brain under one banner and we call it "mind" and that's all there is to mind - it's just a convenient label for the myriad things a brain can do but lacks any kind of ontological import at all. — TheMadFool

Mental states are the internal aspect of what is going on in an individual subject. So, if you see an object, it's the feeling, thinking, sensation, and all the subjective things going on with an individual. The brain processes are the neurons firing, the neurotransmitters transporting, electro-chemical reactions happening, synapses, blood supply, etc. etc.

So the hard question of consciousness is not whether or not brain processes cause and are associated with mental states, it is why it is that brain states have mental (subjective "what it's like to feel/think" states) that correlate with the brain states. Thus we have all our theories in Philosophy of Mind.. Dualism (there is an irrevocable split in either substance or property between material and mental states), Materialism (everything is just brain states.. and hence mental states have to be explained somehow.. here is the "illusion" idea coming from people like Dennett), and Pansychism (somehow physical reality has a mental aspect to it). The problem is much more complicated than you are making it seem.

The problem with the Materialist conceptions is they keep pointing back to the brain states, but never quite figure out how mental states are brain states. Why would materials like neurons and chemicals have mental properties ("what it feels like" internal states)? The problem here is they will then make the move to say that mind "emerges" from material events. Again, what exactly then is "emerging"? This "feels like" is not the same as neurons, materials, chemicals, etc. If you just make the move from processes of the physical to mind without that explanatory gap being explained, you still have not explained the very thing that needs to be explained. You are making an illegal move, declaring "checkmate!" without actually doing so.

As I said, the "integrated experience" is all the brain functions taken together and the word "mind" is just a label, perhaps for convenience of discourse, applied to it but, fortunately or not, the word "mind", the claim goes, doesn't have ontic significance in that it refers to something immaterial that exists apart from the brain. — TheMadFool

What are brain functions taken together then? At some point there is "something" that we currently refer to as mind, and at some point not.. You are simply restating the error with not recognizing the hard problem at this point.

"Feels" like it is real is just an underhanded way of saying it seems like it is real, and all we have to go on is how things seem. And it seems a nefarious thing to say to me, that the mind is an illusion. That's something a serial killer would say. — neonspectraltoast

Ha, I can understand that sentiment. It just seems to me positing a duality in different terms (illusion/real). The illusion itself has to be explained other than being a "seeming" event. What's funny is people keep saying that we are making Descartes' error over and over.. But no one seems to really qualify that. Not talking in terms of mind/body pretty much reduces to pansychism, but this doesn't seem intuitive or scientific.

Likewise, the mind is simply a name for the many things a brain does and lacks an existence beyond the brain itself. — TheMadFool

So what is this integrated experience we feel in any given time? If you say "brain states" how are they the same? That's simply the hard question, not necessarily a claim that the mind is illusion, but in the same realm of discourse I guess.

No, there is a there, there.

Wtf is happening to these forums that are being invaded by these non dualist parrots? — personalself

Wow, you brought back one of my oldie but goody threads. Yes, the non-accounting for things like qualia and the primary experiences themselves is never accounted for. It is greedy emergentism if you will. You posit the very thing that you are trying to explain. Illusion is still something.

If we don't have any control, then how do we have control to limit our desires? — Harry Hindu

Again, this is about us not having control of our own birth (obviously), rather that is in the parent's control.

It seems to me that the idea isn't to limit one's desires, but to change one's desires - from wanting to have children to not wanting to have children. — Harry Hindu

Well, if we are discussing antinatalism strictly, the only thing that matters is to prevent suffering by not having a new person. Schopenhauer's idea about Will was more about denying the will-to-live through asceticism.

Said more simply, properties that are pointed out by parents (or other speakers) or those that are functionally relevant in everyday activities will bind to core affect to represent anger in that instance. As instances of anger accumulate, and information is integrated across instances, a simulator for anger develops, and conceptual knowledge about anger accrues. The resulting conceptual system is a distributed collection of modality- specific memories captured across all instances of a category. These establish the conceptual content for the basic-level category anger and can be retrieved for later simulations of anger. — Feldman Barrett, 'Solving

@Possibility

I guess a central question to this, and something @Hanover sort of touched on is the difference between affectivity and emotion. How is she using these terms differently? It seems a bit shoe-horned like there is indeed some core (innate?) reaction going on, and emotion is how to take this innate reaction and apply it to various contexts and situations by learning and socio-cultural cues. But then, this leaves affectivity itself to be explained, doesn't it? I guess this might be answered more clearly in understanding what her definition of affectivity is, and how that arises versus emotion. If it is more "innate" then, wouldn't that itself point to emotions automatically mapping to certain situations, that would almost "force it's hand" to always be used in certain contexts? In that case, the affectivity is pushing the learning, and not the other way around. Again, I could be mistaken based on her definition of affectivity.

"As an animal’s integrated physiological state changes constantly throughout the day, its immediate past determines the aspects of the sensory world that concern the animal in the present, which in turn influences what its niche will contain in the immediate future. This observation prompts an important insight: neurons do not lie dormant until stimulated by the outside world, denoted as stimulus->response. Ample evidence shows that ongoing brain activity influences how the brain processes incoming sensory information and that neurons fire intrinsically within large networks without any need for external stimuli. The implications of these insights are profound: namely, it is very unlikely that perception, cognition, and emotion are localized in dedicated brain systems, with perception triggering emotions that battle with cognition to control behavior. This means classical accounts of emotion, which rely on this S->R narrative, are highly doubtful" (Barrett, "The Theory of Constructed Emotion", my bolding). — StreetlightX

How early does she think that emotions are constructed? Is it something that is learned very young and then is relatively fixed, or in her view, is it something that we continually construct as we encounter new situations and compare it to what we have seen, causing rough patterns around emotional response?

There is thus a strange optimism here. In other words, it is in death that we achieve that which we are always striving for, and while alive only evanescentally attain: being in-itself, full positivity, full coincidence with who and what one is/has been. However, this is not necessarily to say death is preferable, even if it is inevitable, and even if the for-itself as a project is always a failure. Without wanting to sound like a self-help book, it is also true in the existentialist sense that it is only within the experience of failure that we also find the real seeds of success, of transfiguration, of being something while also not being that something after all. — Umbra

I've never read Being and Nothingness, but have read snippets and the novel Nausea by Sartre. I'm aware mainly of his ideas of "radical freedom" and have posted about it several times. The existentialism I am interested in most is the idea of Sisyphus condemned to push the rock endlessly. It is the repetitious absurd nature of our human condition of being motivated by survival, comfort, and entertainment and then how this condition leads to the epiphenomena of political-economic systems. I said earlier:

1) The sun goes up and down, round and round.
2) You go to bed and get up again and again.
3) You eat and shit over and over.
4) You read your book, watch your movie, do your exercise, talk to your friend, again, again, again
5) You make it a point to travel to "new" (to you) places again and again and again
6) You seek out relationships over and over and over
7) You go to work each day again and again and again
8) You do stuff for maintenance like laundry, dishes, over and over
9) You take that millionth walk/run around the block or on your treadmill

It doesn't matter how many "novel" things you do to stay ahead of the curb, it's all repetitive actions to fulfill our primal motivations of survival, comfort-seeking, entertainment. But this is just repetitive actions that fill time and provide the absurdity I talk about. It's all been done to the umpteenth time by billions and billions of people over and over. There is no need to keep repeating the repetition again and again and again... — schopenhauer1

Also related, is because of our demands we force others to labor, and they force us to labor. This forces coordination, control, etc. Doing otherwise is not even an option, but just because this is our condition, does not mean it is good. A world with hospitals, doctors, and experts in disease prevention is a good thing. A world with certain technologies alleviates certain discomforts, safety, and increases survival. Even in hunting-gathering societies, the group relies on the talents and demands of the others, to make things work. However, this relying on other people creates the conditions that one must labor in the first place. It is a catch-22. There is no way out of the need for labor, but labor is what is needed due to our individual demands combining (into social institutions). Thus our individual demands makes us pawns in a greater system that arises from the agreements needed to coordinate them.

Antinatalism is the ultimate rebellion against being used as a pawn. Prevention of birth is preventing people from controlling others and being controlled- which is inevitable in society and birth and the demands of being human. If it is inevitable, it is also preventable- simply don't have future people born into this situation to begin with. The freedom from being enslaved by the demands of others- of being a point of "added value" to a third-party system (the economy). One is commodified, but one cannot be anything else. There is no political system that "frees" one out of this situation. The only way out was to never enter (not be born).

What is interesting is the idea of "communal pessimism". Maybe the virus will teach us that life brings about more suffering than people realize. Maybe the virus will teach us that we are pawns in a game much greater than ourselves, and unnecessarily and unwittingly are playing it. The game is our own "wills" (our needs for survival, comforts, and entertainments), which causes us to be "pawns" (the epiphenomenal institutions that arise because of our needs) that make us data points and laborers in a third-party system. We can walk hand-in-hand to prevent future people from being thrown into the human and social conditions. They will not experience the absurd repetition of surviving, needing to be more comfortable, find entertainment/meaning. In essence, they will be prevented from dissatisfaction that is the core of human nature. We cannot just be happy being, as our survival, comfort, and boredom drives us to pursue what we pursue. In other words, our dissatisfaction drives us.

Ok, but I’m just not convinced that the intermittent suffering of the child for 80+ years would be greater than the intermittent suffering of two people (both parents) for, let’s say 50-60 years. And to me I think it is at least conceivable that two people who desperately want to have children but can’t would intermittently suffer for the remainder of their lives as a consequence. — Pinprick

No, but that's not my argument, which suffering will be greater. My argument is that the parents' suffering is irrelevant as it is causing suffering for someone else. This is no longer about one's own pain, but causing someone else pain.

1. This checks out fine if you are only practicing this in your personal life, but if you are advocating for, or in any way trying to prevent other people who want to have children from doing so, then you are causing them to needlessly suffer. I’m not saying you are or aren’t trying to do this, I don’t know. — Pinprick

Well, I'm not. I'm advocating that people don't cause the conditions for other people to suffer. I am not forcing them to do so. And again, the "needless suffering" of unrequited parenting is irrelevant when it is tied to causing the conditions for someone else's suffering.

This seems like a moral argument since it pertains to how people should conduct their life. However, morality itself is aimed at determining what type of life is good, among other things. Antinatalism seems to entail the denial of morality since it denies that life itself is good. Therefore it appears contradictory for a moral nihilist(?) to proceed to make moral arguments. IOW, if you do not value life, or think that life has any value, then how can you logically make an argument that appeals to values at all? If you do not value life, then how can you say you care how people are treated? — Pinprick

You're characterization that antinatalism is considered moral nihilism is a wrong premise. Antinatalism isn't indifferent to morality. Rather, antinatalism values prevention of needless suffering for other people, especially in the case of birth, as there is no downside of an actual person losing out on the goods of life (as no one existed prior to birth to be deprived of this). It is true that procreation is the necessary condition for people to suffer. It is true that all lives have some suffering. It is true that prevention of birth will prevent suffering from occurring which is always a good thing since, preventing "good" experiences from occurring is only instrumental- that is to say, it only matters if the person was already born to be deprived of said goods. This is only the case after someone is born, not prior. Thus it is always best to not procreate. And again, the suffering of the parents is irrelevant as their suffering is tied to creating the conditions for someone else's suffering. I can do a thought experiment or scenario on this, but I'm sure you can think of examples yourself where someone gets joy that is contingent on the inevitable suffering of others. Again, I am not saying the parents are malicious, as they simply don't see it that way. But most things that drive certain beliefs are based on perspectives, perhaps that are not fully considered or only informed by what is prominent in the culture (and the belief to have children is highly enculturated in all societies).

Regarding antinatalism, couldn’t it be argued that attempting to prohibit people from having children creates additional suffering on those of us who would prefer or enjoy having a child? It see to me that the suffering that two people that want to be parents would experience potentially could be greater than the suffering one person could potentially experience as a result of being born, because the total amount of suffering would have to include the sum of the two people that want children (and perhaps the suffering of people who want grandchildren, nieces/nephews, etc.). I know that people that learn they are infertile, as well as expectant parents that have had miscarriages, can go to some pretty grim places emotionally and mentally as a result of not being able to have children or losing them. Also, it seems that antinatalism disregards the pleasure that one person can provide to several other people. — Pinprick

1) I've definitely heard this argument before and my general response is that if it causes other people's suffering, one that will continually appear throughout possibly 80+ years of another person's life, then this consideration overrides one's own suffering for not being able to do an action that causes someone else's suffering.

2) Also, all things being considered, if you cannot get consent (like the situation prior to birth), then the least harm one causes for another person would be the optimal choice. No actual person is losing out on not existing.

What this all comes down to is that when you are doing something to someone else that leads to inevitable and unnecessary suffering, then any other consideration for one's own reasons for doing this are secondary or should not even be in the equation.

Regarding pessimism, it seems that the entire philosophy is predicated on the fact that life is absurd due to the repetition of chasing goals to temporarily alleviate our suffering, such as you have described. I don’t dispute this, but have you considered whether or not life would be better or worse if our needs for survival, maintenance, and entertainment were completely and permanently satiated? I think this scenario would be even less tolerable, because then we wouldn’t even possess the absurd repetition that we claim is so bad. — Pinprick

Yes, this is the boredom Schopenhauer discussed- he thought there was a pendulum between the human need for goals and boredom. And he makes a great point that if living itself satisfied us, we would be happy just being and not wanting. Clearly, due to survival, comfort, and entertainment needs (as I like to parse out our desires), we cannot do this, even in principle.

Therefore isn’t it better to accept fate, a la Nietzsche, and will both the pleasures and sufferings that life necessarily consists of? — Pinprick

No, if there is anything I'm definitely opposed to it is the philosophies of acceptance. That is about every major philosophy's goal- to accept this situation. I say rebel. We can rebel communally. We all know we are in this situation, and we all agree to stop it for future generations. This may also translate to more compassion in regards to how our demands cause each other to labor and not be free. It can never be different, but at least we will know it.

Then the "theory" contradicts the OP. — Harry Hindu

The efficacy of Will manifests in desires, for example, the desire to have children. I believe Schop's idea is to limit one's desires (i.e. asceticism). On a milder note, antinatalists would focus on the ability that we have to not to procreate, specifically.

This is just another way of stating the problem of free will, which isn't new. What you are basically saying is that "control" is meaningless. I have no idea what you mean by "the Will" unless you mean God, or solipsism. — Harry Hindu

Well, I did explain it was in Schopenhauerian terms. So you can look up Schopenhauer's theory of Will i you want. The OP mentions him as well.

What is more interesting, is that if no one has control, then what about morality? Morality is based on the idea that you do control your actions and that you could have chosen otherwise. You can't say that the act of procreating is good or evil, if no one has control over their actions, to then say that we shouldn't be procreating because it is evil. At best, it would be "natural". — Harry Hindu

No, you misinterpret the theory then. The parent has control not to have the child. The person born has control over not creating the next generation.

I've had a few threads on the evolution and origin of language. There are so many various theories and many of them start from different starting points.

Terrence Deacon starts at physics, and how semiotics comes from constraints in physical processes like entropy and thermodynamics. Chomsky starts at linguistics itself, positing a UG that came about from a "leap" from a very brief genetic change that allowed for the mental function of "Merge". Others start at the neuroscience. Even others start at anthropology. Others start at comparative animal studies in communication. It's almost like you get different conclusions based on where you are starting.

Do listen to this dialog. — Zeus

Yeah similar themes.