What does "Whole" mean? What does it mean for the cosmos to "move towards" a concept?

but I seem unable to imagine that 'I' - the one doing the imagining - does not exist. — Bartricks

So you’re trying to imagine the experience of not existing? That’s an incoherent concept. Of course you would not be able to imagine that, that’s like trying to imagine a square circle. If your body doesn’t exist the “I” (probably) won’t exist but it pointless to try to imagine what that would “feel like”.

the simple fact is they often imagine — Bartricks

We have very different definitions of “imagine” then. If someone can imagine 3x18=58 then I would take it that person can have a crystal clear mental image of himself putting 18 sets of 3 things each next to each other and getting 58 things. I don’t think people can do that.

'Inconceivably false' and 'true by definition' are not the same — Bartricks

I can’t think of an example of something that is inconceivably false that is not true by definition or vice versa. Though that could just be a lack of imagination. Care to provide an example?

That's true of all words. So if 'necessarily true' just means 'true by definition' then 'necessarily true' doesn't tell us anything more about the nature of reality than just 'true' would. — Bartricks

Yes it does, because you can substitute the meanings of the words in. For example: a married bachelor cannot exist can be translated to: A married unmarried man cannot exist. Which is obviously true and will remain true regardless of whatever word you use to encapsulate “unmarried man”.

All I can do is imagine my body not existing. — Bartricks

Isn't that exactly what a "world without you in it" means? You either just lack imagination or you're being disingenuous

People would not make mistakes in mental arithmetic if they were incapable of imagining the sum equally something it did not, in fact equal. — Bartricks

When people make a mistake in arithmetic they are forgetting a definition or a rule somewhere. The fact that someone forgot a definition and got a wrong answer doesn't make that answer the truth. For example, one can forget the definition of bachelor for a moment but that doesn't mean married bachelors can exist

Anyway, it does seem from the above that you are now identifying 'necessarily true' with 'true by definition'. Is that right? — Bartricks

I literally just answered this. Yes. Though I don't think there is much point in moving on when we disagree on something as basic as "can you imagine 3x18 equalling 58"

we can easily imagine sums equalling numbers distinct from those they actually equal
— Bartricks

What we can imagine is someone making a calculation mistake. That's not the same as imagining that 3x18 = 58. Let's make it a bit simpler. 1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 = 2 is true no matter what because it's a definition. In the same way that "Married bachelors don't exist" is always true by definition.

You're saying something akin to: "One can forget the definition of bachelor for a moment and thus married bachelors can exist". In this case and the 3x18 case, it's not that someone can conceive of 3x18 =58 or of a married bachelor, it's that someone made a mistake. That's all you can imagine: someone making a mistake and forgetting the definitions.

In other words:
"1 + 1 = 2" is a necessary truth
"When I calculate 1 + 1 I get the sum of 2" is a contingent truth

Take your own existence. Can you imagine not existing? No.
— Bartricks

I can easily imagine a world in which I don't exist which makes me existing in this world a contingent truth. I cannot imagine the "experience of not existing" if that's what you're asking but that is not even a coherent concept. — khaled

I am arguing we cannot imagine 3x18 being 58 and that I CAN easily imagine a world in which I don't exist. You claimed the opposite in both cases.

Are you saying that what it means to say that a proposition is necessarily true is that it is true 'by definition'? — Bartricks

Yes. Example: There cannot be married bachelors.

How about the rest of my post? You know, where the bulk of the arguments against you lie. Don't just nitpick the last line and ignore everything else. Also:

A contingent truth means that even when you are convinced it is true right now you can imagine a situation where it isn't — khaled

Can be interpreted to mean whatever is conceivable is metaphysically possible not that they are one and the same.

3. As an other mind my existence is doubtful but by cogito ergo sum, I'm certain of my existence. — TheMadFool

Other to what? If you accept solipsism you are the ONLY mind. There is no "other"

I think that's all baloney and that it is grossly implausible that what we take to be the present is in fact the past. — Bartricks

Uhhh why do you think this? You've made a solid case for the opposite view. Can we agree that experiences arise when certain brain operations occur? Can we agree that those operations take time (though a minuscule amount of it)? If so how can you avoid the conclusion that everything experienced is a fraction of a fraction of a second behind what is actually happening.

everyone can say, truthfully, "cogito ergo sum". — TheMadFool

How do you know they are being truthful? How do you know they are thinking? That's the point of solipsism. If you already give that there are other minds that can truthfully say cogito ergo sum then, of course, it won't be compatible with solipsism

We can easily imagine sums equalling numbers distinct from those they actually equal — Bartricks

What we can imagine is someone making a calculation mistake. That's not the same as imagining that 3x18 = 58. Let's make it a bit simpler. 1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 = 2 is true no matter what because it's a definition. In the same way that "Married bachelors don't exist" is always true by definition.

You're saying something akin to: "One can forget the definition of bachelor for a moment and thus married bachelors can exist". In this case and the 3x18 case, it's not that someone can conceive of 3x18 =58 or of a married bachelor, it's that someone made a mistake. That's all you can imagine: someone making a mistake and forgetting the definitions.

In other words:
"1 + 1 = 2" is a necessary truth
"When I calculate 1 + 1 I get the sum of 2" is a contingent truth

Take your own existence. Can you imagine not existing? No. — Bartricks

I can easily imagine a world in which I don't exist which makes me existing in this world a contingent truth. I cannot imagine the "experience of not existing" if that's what you're asking but that is not even a coherent concept.

The very existence of this debate shows that metaphysical possibility is not considered to be one and the same as conceivability. — Bartricks

When did I say that?

yet at the same time be able to imagine that it equals 58 — Bartricks

I don't think anyone can imagine it being 58. We can believe it is 58 momentarily but that doesn't make it true. Once someone has discovered it is 54 he can't imagine a situation in which it is 58. A contingent truth means that even when you are convinced it is true right now you can imagine a situation where it isn't

I think most would consider it incoherent to deny the reality of either or both. — Bartricks

I don't think so but this doesn't matter

That is, I do not understand metaphysical possibility. — Bartricks

I don't either. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Care to elaborate?

But the vast bulk would accept that some truths are necessary and those that are not necessary are contingent. — Bartricks

That's not what I asked though. I don't think it is obvious that the vast bulk would say that this distinction is necessary to make. Saying that sounds to me as ridiculous as saying "You must solve this problem using the conservation of energy. You cannot solve it using Newton's laws even though it is possible to do so" to give a physics example.

I think no truth is necessarily true, but at the same time I do not think that it is true that a true proposition 'could be false'. — Bartricks

Care to elaborate? I think: "I am eating right now" is an example of a proposition that is true at the moment but could very well be false.

I think it's about "Stuff" before we distinguish it into "Physics", "Math", "Ethics" or anything else. Philosophy is just thought, it can be of any kind.

Who ever said it is necessary to distinguish between truths in terms of contingent and necessary?

, it won't make essential reference to the chromosomal structure of his cells. — Bartricks

True

So who should and should not be let into which toilet is an issue that isn't plausibly about chromosomes — Bartricks

As I said, these things are interconnected. Maybe in some possible future there will be a time where we can somehow divorce the chromosomal structure from the visual and behavioral aspect of a person. That’s not the case though. No the problem Isn’t about chromosomes per se but without changing the chromosomes there is no real solution.

So if one's sex is determined by chromosomes - either partly or entirely - then that debate isn't about sex, but something else. — Bartricks

Sure

Someone who looked exactly like a stereotypical woman but whose cells had the wrong chromosomal structure would be deemed a man and not permitted entry to that bathroom. Which, I am saying, is absurd. — Bartricks

Agreed. Those things are interconnected though. That's what I'm pointing out. You can't be indistinguishable from a woman/man visually without having the right chromosomal structure

But then those who satisfy the visual criteria should be admitted, regardless of their actual sex, surely? — Bartricks

Not just visual. If a guy puts on enough makeup and crossdresses to be indistinguishable from a woman I don't think he should be allowed do you?

The question then before (each of) us is how to negotiate the best path forward — jambaugh

Yes, but I see no answer in this post or others. Any path forward we negotiate risks being demolished by a new collective ethic. There won't be a "final answer", just many answers that seem final.

Why, for instance, should someone who is otherwise indistinguishable from a woman be stopped from using a female toilet? — Bartricks

I don't think many hold that position. I think most have a problem with people that vaguely somewhat resemble women asking to use women's bathrooms or vice versa.

Their cells don't have the right chromosomal structure? — Bartricks

Yes because this would have side effects such as: Making them very distinguishable from someone who was born female. If somehow you could fix the hormonal imbalances without changing the chromosomes, sure, but that sounds even harder to do.

People don't usually have a problem with changing sex. They have a problem with the current degree to which we can accomplish this feat and they see it as inadequate for being considered legitimate.

So we establish a central authority that has a monopoly on the production of NUGGITs. — jambaugh

Uh oh

How would this system kick-off though? You would need to rely on people mining gold to support this new system which they are completely unsure would work or not. I don't think nearly enough people would volunteer for that, given things like global warming are still happening.

That leaves considerable room for debate over exactly 'what' you need to change in order to transition from one sex to another — Bartricks

And that is exactly the problem. Strictly speaking, you'd have to change every cell in your body to include two X chromosomes instead of a Y and an X or vice versa. We cannot do that yet and that's why many people think current "sex change surgeries" insufficient

Does One Million Moms not have anything better to do than invite ridicule on themselves? — Teller

Yes

although a cow will die unless I radically alter my diet — Bartricks

Does this assume that you can be sure that by not eating meat you are saving the life of at least a few cows? If so I think the situation is radically different from matt's situation.

In matt's situation it is a choice between helping someone you haven't harmed or not helping them but in this one it is a question between killing a sentient being for your own pleasure or not. You can't just complain that "Changing your diet" is a harm, that's like a serial killer complaining that "Changing his hobby" is a harm. Sure it may be, but in both cases the person in question is the one that developed this habit at the expense of harming others. It would be immoral for them not to try and break it after they recognize the act as immoral.

In Matt's situation you had no part in causing the illnesss, but in the case for veganism you are clearly the cause that the cow was bred to be killed in the first place. With matt, your diet had nothing to do with his illness, with the cow your diet is the CAUSE it might be killed.

Let me reword it this way: Say you have a peculiar diet: Eating human kidneys. Your cannibal friends capture Matt and are about to extract his kidneys. Assume you are trying to turn a new leaf and you see cannibalism as immoral now. You can tell them not to extract his kidneys forcibly thus "making a change to your diet". Should you do so? In my mind: Obviously yes.

Now this isn't a case for veganism or vegetarianism because I believe both of those activities are just excues for people to feel better about themselves. Being a vegan or vegetarian won't realistically reduce the suffering of animals, it'll just increase food waste. Veganism has to be inforced, it can't simply be followed by a handful in a thousand and be expected to make any change.

I have no idea what "future real" or "growing block" mean

All point [3] says is 'If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment'. In the case of time ending, then there is an nth moment, so argument [3] does not apply to that scenario. — Devans99

You're right my bad

So the spotlight would have had to start somewhere, no doubt at the Big Bang — Devans99

If time is circular then why would the spotlight have started at the big bang? It could have started at any point.

If time is circular, events must be deterministic, because if they're not they wouldn't repeat given the same conditions, so time wouldn't be circular

So if time is circular (which implies its events are deterministic) the spotlight could have started anywhere and still gone through the same cycle

No, but you implied that if an act was obligatory, then we cannot say of it that it was good. — Bartricks

Yup

I am simply pointing out that I think many acts and omissions are good due to the fact they avert harm — Bartricks

And I don't think so. And this argument will go nowhere and is off topic and we should probably stop. I can't think of any real advantage or disadvantage to either belief. Both of them will get you to do what's obligatory by saying not doing it is bad and that's all I care about. Whether or not avoiding what's banned is good I don't care as long as you just avoid what's banned (like hurting others for instance)

but I am not thereby saying that all such acts are obligatory or not. — Bartricks

I didn't think you were

I think slightly different concepts are being conflated. An act can promote a good outcome without being obligatory, and an act can be obligatory without promoting a good outcome. — Bartricks

I didn't say a good act was obligatory.

Not harming people - where harming people was an option - will often (not always) be a good feature of an act or omission. But that is consistent with it being obligatory. And it is consistent with it not being obligatory. — Bartricks

And not harming people being a neutral option, aka not good nor bad, is also consistent with it being obligatory or not being obligatory. Which is why I don't see what significance this has.

So sometimes an act can promote a good outcome — Bartricks

I don't think the mugger getting mugged is a "good outcome" in the first place but ok. Who is that outcome good for?

Being condemned to live forever would be literally a fate worse than death — fishfry

How though? It's not like your memories will transfer between lives. You won't notice you're living the same life for the 20 billionth time. If your memories trasferred then you're by definition living different lives

2. Then there is no first moment
3. If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment
4. But we have moments (contradiction) — Devans99

I find this really iffy. I think 3 is straight up false though. If time ends somehow there will be an nth moment without an (n+1)th moment. Not only that but I find the use of "nth moment" problematic. There can be a moment but no nth moment. As in there can be a moment in time, but one that we cannot label with any number n, namely, if time is circular. If time is circular you can't label any point on it n without that labeling being arbitrary. However that doesn't actually mean there is no moments. You conflate not being able to count moments with them not existing at all

Huh. Interesting perspective. I just don't think of people that go through life merely not hurting others as "good". I think that's what's expected of everyone it's not really worthy of being called "good." I think there is a difference between "doing something that prevents harm" and "not harming others". An example of the former would be donating to charity, an example of the latter would be not shooting people. I think not procreating is an example of the latter not the former.

due to the harms one has averted. — Bartricks

So if I'm really angry at someone but still decide NOT to shoot them thereby averting harm I have done something good? I don't consider merely not doing harm as doing something good. "Look at how few people I've killed I'm so benign"

As for everything else: ok gotcha

I don't know man. You're the activist not me.

I already pointed out that a subject has a mental life while an object doesn't. Aside from that what is the difference?

I don't know. Discover a new source of energy so efficient people can't ignore it?

If you have kids, they're going to be just bland, mindless 'more of the sames'. You'll think they're special. They're not. They're not going to discover the cure for cancer; they're not going to write great literature. They're going to be utterly uninspiring moral banalities. You know, like virtually everyone so far. And in living their lives they're going to do more harm than good. You know it, I know it, we all know it. — Bartricks

The problem with this line of thinking is that the other guy can just say "No I don't" and call you a pessimist. That's why we both agreed to stay as far away as possible form "empirical" arguments. He didn't say "Life is beutiful" and I didn't say "Life is shit"

not procreating is a 'neutral act'. It is a positively good act. — Bartricks

How so? Assuming having children is wrong because it harms someone then not having children can't be good simply because it doesn't harm someone. Unless you think that not having children actually benefits someone more than it harms the parents that want said children

I think the duality is mostly the result of confusion. Try to define "object". Now try to define "subject". I find that I can't actually find a difference between them. They both seem to be words that we invoke to point to a certain actor. Subject has the connotation that said actor is conscious/ has a mental life, while object doesn't have that connotation. That's really the only difference I can think of.

Like, I agree with you, but posting about it here does absolutely nothing

Your OP depends on the above difference but your last post sweeps it aside. — TheMadFool

No? Both the OP and the last post don't recognize the difference as legitimate

it makes little difference to the fact of the matter which is that not having children is a lesser evil than having children and that's working within the boundaries of comparable suffering you set out in your OP. — TheMadFool

Good point. I'll point that out if I talk to him again

??????

The objection boils down to saying that "inaction" is just as much an action as any other. — khaled

From the OP. That's what I've been saying all along.

The difference between action and inaction is critical to your argument because having children is an action and not having children is an inaction. — TheMadFool

Did you just completely ignore my point? What is an "action" and what is an "inaction" depend on each other. So if I define "abstaining" (not having children) as the "action" then having children is an inaction. That's the point. There is no difference between action and inaction. Inaction is just another kind of action.

I used the legal analogy to provide you insight on where our moral intuitions stand on the issue of action vs inaction — TheMadFool

That doesn't matter when you haven't addressed the argument that there is no difference between action and inaction

One performs an action with intention right? — TheMadFool

Not necessarily. Where did you get this? If I accidentally shoot someone, I have indeed committed an action called "shooting"

These two are inconsistent. If it is wrong to have or not have children then we have already committed a moral error if either option obtains and premise 2 (we have not committed a moral blunder) has to be false. — TheMadFool

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Your argument (1-5) is this part:

If it is wrong to have or not have children then we have already committed a moral error if either option obtains — TheMadFool

Where is this "internal inconsistency" or "something wrong" you keep hinting at. Sidenote: We both seem to not recognize that we are in agreement often, I think that's happening again

According to you, having children is immoral AND not having children is immoral. If you think in terms of not having committed an immoral act then you'll need to put a third option on the table. What is it? Bear in mind having children or not having children is a tautology and to negate that, as you must, would entail a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Indeed. I am not the one that's suggesting an inconsistency here.

Manslaughter is a lesser crime than murder. Doesn't this indicate that one is held wholly responsible for one's actions but not so for one's inactions? — TheMadFool

Non sequitor. You can't go from "the law says this" to "Therefore it is immoral". The law also says that suicide is illegal, does that make it immoral?

Ultimately, it boils down to the moral nature of action vs inaction — TheMadFool

That's the intersting part about this. The OP says "The myth of inaction" for a reason. There is no such thing as inaction. Inaction is simply defined as "not doing X" but X can be anything. So having children can be considered inaction when the verb "abstain" is used. You are "not abstaining" when having children, aka a kind of inaction. It all depends on what X is. That's the point my interlocutor made. I'm not sure I fully agree but it does sound convincing. The more you think about it the harder you will find it to tell the difference between "action" and "inaction"

However, for the person who refuses to have children to be morally culpable things are a bit complicated for s/he must know that his child will benefit humanity in a big way — TheMadFool

I don't think so. It's not that he must "know" but have good reason to believe their child will do more good than bad. In moral decisions perfect knowledge is almost never the case, you have to work with what you have. This would imply that a highly intelligent and rich person with a good moral compass WOULD be culpable for not having children (according to my interlocutor) since we can surmise that that person's child IS likely going to help humanity. You don't need "knowledge" you just need a good guess. Similar to how someone can't point a gun at you and pull the trigger, then after you're dead say "I did nothing wrong. After all I didn't KNOW the act would kill him, the gun could have malfunctioned"

Requiring perfect knowledge to access the morality of an act will mean we never get to decide anything ever.