I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.

What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that.

The sense in which I am using 'religiosity' has nothing much to do with theism. My perspective is anthropological/psychological in the sense I use that term.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions. — ENOAH

Reasonable.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions. — ENOAH

Not entirely onboard with this. Husserl was aiming to create a 'science of consciousness' that stood apart from empirical science (a new science) as he saw clearly that psychology was not really doing anything of note in terms of qualitive content falling back on empirical data, as it necessarily had to, being framed as a science grounded in objectivity.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind — ENOAH

I would look at this as an assumption of there being an 'essence' of religion. What strikes me is that religion (in its beginnings) is assumed to be an object. To echo Satre in regards to the 'nature of an object' what if religion is not an object at all? As in possessing no 'essence'.

I think we do have to be open to a lot of speculative thought here as we only know of religion through our modern lens and from where our modern schematic of religion came (the current Institutionalised edifices). From my own instigations I am convinced that the core of "religion" (or perhaps it is better to say religiosity) preexisted our current views, historic views (literally) and even societal views too. Undoubtedly there are numerous examples of religious rituals and such that expose known methodologies for inducing altered states of consciousness. eg. prayer, trance dancing, repetition, hyper-focused attention, hyperventilation and fasting - all intrinsic to religious passages of rite. Then there is memory and knowledge accumulation that predates written forms of data storage.

I think today the power of religiosity has been reduced to a shadow of its former self.

Since the existence of life is rationally meaningless, rationalism in this field always leads to existential nihilism. — Tarskian

No. Framing the line questioning as a reasonable one is faulty. The mistake is believing it is a rational question. It makes rational sense to distinguish between the kinds of question being asked and how they can be answered, whether or not they make any sense and if it requires an answer.

a) I do not think the question makes much sense rationally anyway. It just appears to be reasonable to ask about a 'reason for existence'.

b) You now have the task of stating what 'spiritual' means - other than saying opposed to the 'rational' which I was originally asking for to begin with.

I'm just saying religion at essence is more — ENOAH

I am still struggling to figure out 'essence' here. I am intrigued by the origins of religion, would that be relevant here?

Since there is no rational reason for the existence of life itself, the absence of a pacifier may very well turn into a problem. Life can be full of suffering. When the going gets tough, why do you even try to continue? In order to perpetuate something that rationally does not make sense to begin with? — Tarskian

I think I need to understand the use of 'rational' here too. If you are not being 'rational' then what are you being? Can you say anything worth listening to without articulating it rationally? If you choose aesthetic means to communicate you do so because it is rationally appropriate (if not it fails).

Surviving does not make sense while having children is simply cruel. — Tarskian

There is a whole other thread where you can argue that. Not here. Needless to say I disagree and fully understand the AN argumentation.

Do you reject religion and mysticism because they do not adhere strictly to reason? — ENOAH

I do not 'reject' them, just view them within their own jurisdiction.

If not that, then why do you reject religious or mystical "contributions" about consciousness outright (which is what you seem to be saying about the former, while relegating the latter to a pacifier, which I read as a useful fiction)? — ENOAH

I do not 'outright' as all experiences have something to contribute to concepts of human consciousness. I just emphasize that one should probably not hold to vague mystical concepts when trying to understand things with any reasonable kind of precision.

What if the best way to "access" consciousness is not the understanding but, like hunger and arousal, by "feeling-doing-being"? What if mysticism--admittedly, some hypothetical particular form--provided the methodology for such access? Would you deny it because it takes a path other than reason? — ENOAH

I am a little confused by what you are saying when you say 'reason'. Husserl does this, but he certainly has to use reason to do so (as do we all?).

Blind grappling for naught is just that.

While I'm not denying the usefulness of reason, is it not possible that on some matters, reason can only go so far before it reaches a bridge which reason cannot cross?ĺ guess, I was suggesting--poorly--that there might be "truths" notwithstanding all of the self serving myth, ritual and dogma. It would be an absurd irony if our strict adherence to reason, rather like a dogma, forever barred us from making headway on the very topic which continues to baffle us. — ENOAH

That makes no sense. If you are in the habit of making no sense that it is of no sense. Obviously?

Since we seem to have gone very far with reason--across the universe and down to subparticles--why is it we cannot understand consciousness? Is it possible that the latter requires some alternative methods of pursuit? — ENOAH

I think you are almost certainly using the term 'reason' to mean anything scientific here? Or so it seems? That may be the disjoint.

I'm not sure what you mean. — T Clark

We can leave that for a another day. Too much of a tangent.

People say that only what are called the "inner chapters," the first seven chapters, are authentic, but I found the rest of them very helpful too. — T Clark

I will have to give it go. Someone I know mentioned it a few years back in a very positive light - I actually bought the book for them when they asked me to buy them 'something interesting'. I have only read snippet of it a long time ago.

Many inauthentic texts are useful. The Hermetica is one I found to be an intriguing read. Even though it has been shown to be a 'fake' of sorts it still has some interesting lines of thought in it.

Again, we're social animals; we like each other; we want to be around each other. But there is no requirement that this be so. And I've tried to make it clear that Taoism rejects consideration of "the order of the societal whole" as a proper guide to behavior. — T Clark

Strictly speaking this is only true beyond a certain point in juvenile development. We require nurturing. I do find a lot of eastern mysticism has a habit of being interpreted as things happening in a Void of sorts.

btw how does Chuang Tzu differ from Lao Tzu? I've only read the latter extensively.

I have no idea what your question is asking if I am brutally honest. Plain speech and less fluff would be nice.

The whole of the linguistic turn sent people running down roads that many have yet to return from. Husserl saw this and pointed it out. Heidegger - I believe - made the journey back ten times harder.

I do not understand what you are saying, and therefore cannot agree with it.

I am not keen on religious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness, nor am I inclined to side with mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts (albeit somewhat essential in its role on mental stability).

The path to woo woo is the way. The destination of woo woo is delusion/madness.

I have said for a long time that ethics is unethical and morality immoral ... it is only recently that I have started to wade through the jargon to find what the accepted terminology is for outlining this better.

I am more inclined towards meta ethics. Emotivism is a useful term for part of how I see things - hence placing Moral Views effectively outside of direct philosophical scope.

Note that language itself is the very Being in question. — Constance

I have my doubts here. Heidegger and Husserl parted ways because Heidegger hyper-focused in on hermeneutical form of phenomenology. Husserl was still reaching for the unreachable (and stated as much). The task is endless.

I do not believe in the existence of objective categories, this includes moral or aesthetic values. — Ourora Aureis

Can you expand on this? especially in reference to aesthetics. Are you stating that aesthetics are merely an expression of the natural condition just as morals are, or something more nuanced?

A reaction to this would be ethical egoism, the ethical framework I follow. It declares that we ought to act according to our values, not the value judgements of others. In this way it seems similar to the idea of personal morality you hold. — Ourora Aureis

This is a hard gap to cross as there are effectively no moral values we can hold outside of social framework. Perhaps all morals are, are instantiated social necessities that communicate shared values systems. Outside of society morals are naught. Of course we are always partially attached through social means because it is nature to be social.

My understanding of morals doesn’t really fit in with those generally discussed here. — T Clark

I think it is more or less about feeling your around how other apply value to certain judgements in certain contexts compared to others. It is then about unpicking the rational claims laid out or, often enough, revealing that there are none whatsoever.

Of course, this is further complicated when those espousing certain moral themes are so entrenched in them (or opposed to moral views) that they are effectively no longer doing anything I would call 'philosophical'. We can still attempt to point this out and find out where they took the wrong path and/or whether there is simply a misunderstanding in the concepts laid out.

The terminology in this area is just as obtuse (if not more so) as every other field of philosophical inspection.

The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either. — Fire Ologist

Well, not really because you exist.

I think we have to insist any AN statement adheres to their moral stance regarding nonidentity of possible future people, as well as their moral claim that no suffering is good and no pleasure is neutral.

It is a utilitarian position in essence, so when questioning the AN this should also be kept in mind and pointed out where we feel necessary.

Wikileaks is a hamster, no?

Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists. — Fire Ologist

You can guarantee less suffering by not bringing someone into the world. This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. Much like our responsibility for considering the kind of world we leave behind for future generations (which we speculate about quite often without arguing about their non-existence).

I think I see what you are asking.

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer.

Below this isasymmetry argument. The absence of pain is Good whilst the absence of pleasure is Neutral.

There is no factual basis for this claim though as far as I can see.

That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief. — Outlander

I think this more or less aligned with the Right of the living to bring life into existence.

I am not completely sure I follow this? Can you explain better please?

Not to my understanding.

Existing = Suffering < Neutral < Pleasure
Not Existing = No Suffering/Neutral/ No Pleasure

Only the latter guarantees No Suffering.

Obviously because ANs exist they are prone to argue against bringing life into the world.

From this there is the argumentation of having the Right to bring people into existence. Then we enter into the non-identity problem and metaphysics.

Of course there is much more nuance to it than this but this is the basic frame work. Its proponents will vary depending on other moral stances (including items like moral absolutism, moral naturalism and logical positivism).

Well, you kind of have to understand that position as framed in isolation. ANs are not against existence per se, but there is certainly a disjoint if we project their views as a universal law (which none really seem to do).

It is a moral preference. Of course, if said person believes in moral absolutes then the matter is quite different.

As a means of exploring the responsibility of being a parent I regard the AN position as worthy of serious attention.

Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering? — Fire Ologist

Because the AN basically believes that not suffering trumps not existing. It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. It is not a factual claim to state that something is better than something else. It is also not a factual claim that suffering is bad unless you have outlined some specific example of the kind of suffering being offered up for discussion.

The arguments for and against the AN position are dependent upon personal views, experiences and metaphysic (The non-identity of possible people is an example of the kind of metaphysics argument used by ANs).

I think it is fair to say that it is an extreme kind of negative utilitarianism if taken as universal law, as the end goal drives towards something like net zero suffering (so net zero existence).

In a more favourable light it is act utilitarianism hyper-focused on a specific aspect of the human experience.

Death is an event that can shape the future. the live has more meaning on the future than your death, but nevertheless your impact will echo into the future in some minute form or another.

It is more a question of asking if life has meaning. If you believe you create meaning then you are more than likely stating that life has meaning beyond its cessation.

And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life. — Fire Ologist

It is a useful to consider antinatalism if you are planning to have children. The reason being it requires you to look at your inner motives and understand the kind of responsibility you are taking on.

Other than that, it is fairly limited in my view for the reasons you articulated (and many more).

@Constance

I would enjoy to here what is meant by Religion and Religious here too?

I think it pays to distinguish what we are talking about and it what kind of historical timeframe too. Religion today is taken to mean a whole range of things sometimes and I am more concerned with common aspects that extend and persist rather than focusing in on any one particular instance or interpretation.

One may experience something so alien to common sense and deeply profound that it requires metaphysics to give an account of it, but to make the claim that the world as it is in all its mundanity itself possesses the basis for religious possibility, this is the idea here; that in the common lies the uncommon metaethical foundation for ethics and religion. — Constance

I am on board with this, simple because if we refer to any totality it is the current totality we know. We cannot think beyond and to say 'beyond' is merely an empty statement that is only actually applicable to different known areas of experience. If you get what I mean? Often the terms used are done so in overextension. An heuristic outside of its useful functionality.

Here, I want to show that this other world really is this one. — Constance

And mysterious ;) Reality is often more surprising than fiction.

So here is a question that lies at the center of the idea of the OP: what if ethics were apodictic, like logic? This is what you could call an apriori question, looking into the essence of what is there in the world and determining what must be the case given what is the case. Logic reveals apodicticity, or an emphatic or unyielding nature. Entirely intellectually coercive. I claim that ethics has this at its core. — Constance

I am not entirely clear what you are stating here. Can you be more specific about this hypothetical IF?

If you are asking where ethics/morals come from - with the assumption of some essence - much like Kant asked about what can be known prior to experience, I am not sure how this could be so. In terms of experience I think Husserl is the best landmark to orientate from given what I have found.

Of course, this is right. It ALWAYS depends on the flexibility of the words we are using. When you start the car in the morning, are you "thinking" about starting the car, or is it just rote action? But you certainly CAN think about it. I think when a person enters an environment of familiarity, like a classroom or someone's kitchen, there is, implicit in all one sees, the discursive possibility that lies "at the ready," as when one asks me suddenly, doesn't that chef's knife look like what you have at home? I see it, and language is there, "ready to hand". For us, not cows and goats, but for us, there is language everywhere and in everything. — Constance

I personally like to frame our intentionality as a form of questioning. What is 'given' is outside the frame of awareness. I like to frame Apodictic as that which we are not consciously attending to (it is a negative sense of being I guess? Hard to express).

For the record I do not view religion as a mere vehicle for ethics. I think the uses of it (especially in terms
of its prehistorical origins) were more far reaching and inclusive of much of human day-to-day experience.

Note: This topic looks like it is right up my street. I am ready for disappointment though as these kinds of discussions rarely go down the kind of path I was hoping for.

Why do you assume there is any relation between "sentience" and "morality"? — 180 Proof

I do not. This was a speculative statement. I did state sentience is not massively important to what I was focusing on here.

Well, the latter (re: pragmatics) afaik is a subset of the former (re: semantics). — 180 Proof

My mistake. What I meant was Moral in terms of Empirically validated - or something along those lines. I forget what family of Morality it is in philosophical jargon. Moral Absolutism I believe? Hopefully you can appreciate the confusion :D

I see no massive issue with equating them in this context (it is not really relevant as I am talking about something that is essentially capable of neither). I do not confuse them though ;)

to learn how to develop its own "objectives" and comply with those operational goals in order to function at or above the level of human metacognitive performance (e.g. normative eusociality³). — 180 Proof

and

We are (e.g. as I have proposed ↪180 Proof), and I expect AGI will learn from our least maladaptive attempts to "say what is and is not moral"³. — 180 Proof

These two points roughly outline my concerns - or rather, the unknown space between them. If we are talking about a capacity above and beyond human comprehension then such a system may see that is valid to extend morals and create its own to work by - all in a non-sentient state.

If it can create its own objectives then it can possibly supplant previously set parameters (morality we dictated) by extending it in some seemingly subtle way that could effectively bypass it. How and why I have no idea - but that is the point of something working far, far beyond our capacity to understand - because we will not understand it.

As for this:

More approaches come from explicitly combining two or three of the approaches which you've mentioned in various ways. In my case, 'becoming a better person' is cultivated by 'acting in ways which prevent or reduce adverse consequences' to oneself and others (i.e. 'virtues' as positive feedback loops of 'negative utilitarian / consequentialist' practices). None of the basic approaches to ethics seems to do all the work which each respectively sets out to do, which is why (inspired by D. Parfit) I think they can be conceived of in combinations which compensate for each other's limitations. — 180 Proof

This is likely the best kind of thing we can come up with. I was more or less referring to Moral Realism not Moral Naturalism in what I said.

As we have seen throughout the history of human cultures, and cultures present today, there is most certainly a degree of moral relativism. Herein lies the obvious problem of what to teach AGI what is or is not right/good when in a decade or two we may well think our current thoughts on Morality are actually wrong/bad. If AGI is not sentient and sentience is required for Morality then surely you can see the conundrum here? If Morality does not require sentience then Moral Realism is correct, which would lead to the further problem of extracting what is correct (the Real Morality) from fallacies that pose universal truths.

I grant that there are a hell of a lot of IFs and BUTs involved in this field of speculation, but nevertheless the extraordinary - and partly unintelligible - potential existential threat posed by the occurrence of AGI warrants some serious attention.

Current we have widely differing estimations of when AGI will be a reality. Some say in 5 years whilst others say in 75 years. What I do know is that this estimate has dropped quite dramatically from the seemingly impossible to a realistic proposition.

I can't think of any reason why AGI would ignore, or fail to comply with, eusocializing norms (i.e. morals) whether, in fact, we consider them "truths" or "fictions". — 180 Proof

My point was more or less regarding the problems involved down the line if we are wrong and AGI still carries on carrying on out of our intelligible sight grounded in such morals.

What I may think or you may think are not massively important compared to what actually is. Given our state of ignorance this is a major problem when setting up the grounding for a powerful system that is in some way guided by what we give it ... maybe it would just bumble along like we do, but I fear the primary problem there would be our state of awareness and AGI's lack of awareness (hence why I would prefer a conscious AGI than not).

I can't think of any reason why AGI would ignore, or fail to comply with, eusocializing norms (i.e. morals) whether, in fact, we consider them "truths" or "fictions". — 180 Proof

I can, military objectives or other profit based objectives instituted by human beings. Compliance would be goal orientated not ethically orientated in some scenarios such as these. Again though, an 'ethical goal' is a goal nevertheless .. who is to say what is or is not moral? We cannot agree on these things now as far as I can see.

In terms of Cosmological perspectives this might spark some interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6s_O0_6Ehs

Do you believe we need language to think? As in this here written language?

I thoughts on the whole matter of religion is varied and widespread. Could you perhaps give me a summation what has happened over the 9 pages as I am late to the party.

I think it could be best to start by looking at differing cosmological perspectives both now and historically, then extrapolating further back into prehistory.

I think Mircea Eliade did some stellar scholarship on religions and religiosity in general.

I am not convinced this is a Moral Truth. I do believe some kind of utilitarian approach is likely the best approximation (in terms of human existence). I would argue that mere existence may be horrific though, so more factors would need to be accounted for.

a) Yes. After that it is speculative. I do not expect self-awareness honestly, but do see an extreme need for some scheme of ethical safeguards.

For b) and c) that is following the route of trying to get AI>AGI to help develop understanding of consciousness in order to provide AGI with a consciousness/awareness. I think that is a HIGHLY speculative solution though.

That said, it is probably just as speculative to propose that Moral Facts can be found (if they exist at all).

This clarification is very helpful. AGI can independently use its algorithms to teach itself routines not programmed into it? — ucarr

AI can already do this to a degree. At the moment we give them the algorithms to train with and learn more efficient pathways - far quicker than we can due to computational power.

It is proposed that AGI will learn in a similar manner to humans only several magnitudes faster in all subject matters 24/7.

At the risk of simplification, I take your meaning here to be concern about a powerful computing machine that possesses none of the restraints of a moral compass. — ucarr

Pretty much. Because if we cannot understand how and why it is doing what it is doing how can we safeguard against it leading to harm (possibly an existential threat).

Just think about how people are already using AI to harvest data and manipulate the sociopolitical sphere. Think of basic human desires and wants projected into models that have no compunction and that can operate beyond any comprehensible scope.