I don't consider it realistic that there would be a law against procreation. — Antinatalist

Neither do I. I guess I was talking more about this moral judgement against procreation. People are going to continue procreating, no matter what we say about it. To them it still appears to be their best option, whether in compliance with the myth or in defiance of it. If we’re going to genuinely reduce suffering, then we need to account for this, and not ignore, isolate or exclude those who choose to procreate, for whatever reason.

So how is this not using people for a scheme again? This is again, LITERALLY defining an/the agenda, that is my whole theme in our discussion. You are doubling down on the fact that procreating is forcing others into a (political) agenda.. and you have thus defined it "benefit ..to existence".. Which has not justification other than STEAMROLLING COLLABORATION MUST BE HAD! But you don't care that this forced agenda violates and disrespects the dignity of the individual that must "benefit the value of existence".. Again, the political agenda. — schopenhauer1

No political agenda, just a perspective that I’m sharing. Take it or leave it, but stop representing it falsely as some political scheme or forced agenda. Ignorance or awareness - it’s all a choice, as is acting to benefit existence as a whole. If you only want to benefit yourself, go ahead, but don’t complain to me about suffering as if there’s nothing you can do about it. There is no dignity in complaining about what everyone is experiencing.

You are full blown HR defending the Boss now. — schopenhauer1

What Boss? Make your own choices, and stop pretending there’s some ‘Boss’ you can be pissed at for your situation. It’s all part of your little dystopian fantasy...

And somehow, the "AWARENESS THROUGH COLLABORATION" is a the big consolation prize.. — schopenhauer1

Again with the misrepresentation...no, awareness first. But, then you’d prefer if I was arguing for ‘blind collaboration leads to awareness’, because it fits in with your fantasy...

In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship?
— Possibility

Utopianism. Why do people need to be on the ship? All this amounts to is more of the same.. Work to survive, maintain comfort, and entertainment pursuits.. You're just talking the best processes to do this..That isn't addressing the very problem of being on the ship in the first place. Don't think about the ship.. think about fixing the holes better! But Schop's point is that the holes are inherent.. Dissatisfaction-game is inherent. — schopenhauer1

They don’t need to be on the ship - they ARE the ship, or they are the cargo and the ship is theirs to do with what they will. And I very clearly have NOT been arguing for survival, comfort or entertainment, so stop bringing them up. Of course think about the ship, but it’s basically scrap, so there’s no point wishing it wasn’t, because everybody’s is scrap. Instead, think about what you can do to look after the cargo (which, in case you were wondering, is the ‘dignity’ - value/potential - of the individual).

Do you have a reference for your speculation? I'm skeptical. A little evidence would help. — T Clark

Yes, if I had evidence, it wouldn’t be speculation...

Definition: degree of distinctness. A statement of the exact meaning of a word.

It may be possible that the leader wherever a spoken-only language occurs might be able to state an exact meaning of a word-concept (I can’t see how else such a ‘definition’ would exist), but surely this would be difficult to enforce in terms of using the concept in everyday language, and would only exist so long as those speaking remember and respect the original statement, and have no need to modify the concept’s use.

Meaning is usage. — T Clark

When a language is spoken only, the complete meaning of a concept commonly involves human performance: the speaker’s identity and relationship to the listener, volume, vocal inflection, hand and body gestures, objects, etc. A concept’s full meaning would not be encapsulated in vocabulary or grammar, such that it could be determined without use.

Not sure what evidence you’re expecting...

You use " relation of change" a few times, do you mind expanding that term as I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

In particular how you think conscious and non-conscious entities differ in terms of " relation of change." — PhilosophyRunner

Relation of change refers to the structure of variability in any relation between two entities. If two atoms reduce the distance between each other, there is a system to how either atom will vary, depending on the relative structure of each atom, the energy available and the relative point of ‘impact’. They might just ‘bounce’ off each other, or transfer electrons, share them as an integrated molecular structure, even break down. When we understand the internal structures involved, we can make confident predictions on what will occur.

A carbon atom has the most variably stable internal atomic structure. This means that any relation of change or variability between a carbon atom and another entity is the most complex of any single atom without compromising the integrity of the atomic system. This is what I mean by relation of change as ‘awareness’.

No entity has complete awareness of its internal system structure - only a sense of this variable relation. A living entity is a four-dimensional, temporarily stable system of structural change (growth, movement, interaction, etc). It doesn’t necessarily have any overall relation of change with its environment, and those with less integrated structures break down more easily in interactions. A sponge is an example of a living entity with no integration.

With four-dimensional integration, a living structure can use its relation of change (awareness) to inform the entire system - growth, movement, interaction, defences, reproduction, etc - without compromising the integrity of the living system. This is the lower limit of ‘consciousness’ (zero potential).

But a conscious entity is more than its living system - even though this is all that can be observed. It is a system of potential or predicted relation of change between this integrated, four-dimensional living structure and an ongoing, four-dimensional universe.

One of the key advantages of integrated living entities is DNA: a three-dimensional molecular blueprint of the living system’s most beneficial relations of structural/biochemical change, updated based on its own long-term interactions. Along with sexual reproduction, this is how living entities have evolved to maximise the complexity of their relations of change, without compromising the integrity of the system.

Taking its cue from the success of DNA, the conscious system also constructs a reasonably stable prediction of its most reliably potential relations of change/variability between the organism and its access to the universe that would maintain the integrity of the system’s conscious potential, allowing for more detailed, ongoing adjustments along the way to maximise this complexity.

Sorry - there’s a lot to unpack in there. Hope you can follow my thinking...

I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it. — Antinatalist

Agreed. But we need to recognise that we can only control ourselves. We can’t force others not to reproduce - that just adds to suffering, and then we’re compromising our efforts. Increasing awareness and connection brings others the information they need to recognise the inefficiency of procreation, given the potential of life. And collaboration brings this diverse potentiality together, with a reduction of suffering as our common focus of attention, effort and time we each have available.

I mean, the griping can be akin I guess to the "connection" and "awareness". It is collective recognition of the forced agenda, and being compassionate about the shared situation we all find ourselves in (connection). It is trying to not burden too much other people if at all possible, and doing things to alleviate other's burdens.. So there are ideas of reducing suffering, but in this context of the very fact of the burdens in the first place. It is the recognition that we are on a constantly leaking ship that needs to be fixed.. and yes, helping fix the holes, but WITH THE RECOGNITION that it is indeed a never-ending leaking ship that we are all forced onto, that others thought fit to bring more passengers onto to keep fixing the holes, and now burdening them with something to overcome. And with the recognition that this ship has a "maintenance routine" that no one asked for, and cannot accord to any individual's idea of how to run it. The ship (life) has a "situatedness" of physical/social reality that no passenger can alter, but must (even if unintentionally) contribute to. Only within that context is it getting at what is going on. — schopenhauer1

I don’t see it as a leaking ship. It’s a flawed system of perceived potential/capacity, sure - but it’s the only one in existence, it’s the best those before us could manage, and we’re here - so we can improve on it OR deal with it as it is (ie. maintenance), AND eventually die either way.

In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship?

"Potential of life" doesn't mean anything in the context of "fear of death". However, if you mean the "experiences of life that one may benefit from", I do not deny people can get benefit out of experiences. That doesn't mean THUS life... which supposedly you agree with. — schopenhauer1

I already predicted that it would mean nothing to you. Death is inevitable, so limiting your life further based on a fear of death is a waste of resources. It’s not necessarily about what benefit you might get out of life’s experiences, but about the benefit your life has on the overall value of existence.

How do you disagree that it's forced? In fact, you just agreed with Antinatalist here:
Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.
— Antinatalist

No argument with you there.
— Possibility

And my point is indeed that you can't go along and start praising the collaboration "reduction suffering scheme" without recognizing the forced aspect of its very existence. So no, I won't let you get away with moving forward with the new age talk until you recognize this. — schopenhauer1

I agree with Antinatalist that the initial situation is forced, but everything after that realisation is ours to determine. You just can’t get past your sense of entitlement - that you somehow deserve more than this. This is an awareness of the unrealised potential and value in your current existence - it’s NOT yours by right, but by your allocation of effort, attention and time. You don’t think that’s fair, and so you’re complaining - to anyone who will listen - that you expected the full value of existence delivered on arrival, and you deserve your money back. But this ‘money’, this value/potential, was never yours in the first place. It’s been gathered up, partially invested in your existence, in the naive and misguided hope that you’ll do more with it than they ever could, and your reply is ‘You invested it wrong - if you’d only left it all under the mattress, it’d be worth more.’

This idea that any unrealised value we perceive has no relation to existence is false.

You could make up any scheme you want... whatever political agenda/scheme you want. All forced. And THAT is where we must start in our ethics. No moving forward until that is properly put into the equation and context. That we are living out someone else's forced agenda, and the implications of this on everything, including reducing suffering. — schopenhauer1

I’m not denying the initial situation as forced, but I disagree that any scheme - whatever we do immediately after our awareness of this initial situation - can be forced. Only our ignorance, isolation and exclusion keeps us in compliance.

You want to manage like a business your way out.. The most middling of middle class answers to suffering. Suffering doesn't go away because we work as a "team" to get goals done. — schopenhauer1

No, I want people to increase awareness and share it before presuming any goals should get done. Stay ignorant, and you are bound by someone else’s agenda, and contributing to suffering.

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all. — Antinatalist

But there IS life, and it’s ours to do with what we will, regardless of what anyone says. If you want to waste it on griping, like Schop1, that’s your choice, as it is his. I’m only suggesting an alternative that I think fits with what you want to achieve: reduced suffering.

Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening. — Antinatalist

No argument with you there.

Gaslighting at its finest. So you think that fear of death is equivalent to THUS thinking it is okay to start life? Oh please try to justify that one.. Fear of death, your justification for life must be worth starting :lol:.Doesn't logically entail.

Also, this is COMPLETELY buying into the comply or die scenario.. You are LITERALLY saying, "If you don't like the agenda, then go kill yourself!". And then when we don't you say, "HA! SEE Life must be good!" Hogwash. — schopenhauer1

None of this is an accurate interpretation of my position. I am NOT arguing that it is okay to start life, and I have REPEATEDLY pointed this out to you, yet you keep throwing in this strawman. I have also NEVER suggested that anyone kill themselves, only that they recognise suicide as a potential, and have honest answers for why they won’t go there. Part of this process is to get over our fear of death - which is just buying into the agenda of survive, dominate and procreate. But you can’t see that. It’s like you cannot fathom an antinatalist who perceives the potential of life.

Right, so keep experimenting with more people till we "get it right" :roll:. But we won't get it right because behind all our actions is the "comply or die" gun to our heads. Keep surviving, and overcoming dissatisfaction.. Because STEAMROLLER COLLABORATION SCHEME THAT POSSIBILITY WANTS TO SEE CARRIED OUT!!! — schopenhauer1

Again, NOT arguing for procreation...

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential.
— Possibility

Yes, indeed it is. Awareness of YOUR potential maybe, but not forcing other people's. I mean you fit into the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model.. What you forget to include in your little scheme is that we are already put into a scheme where we have to collaborate. This is much of my point. You focus on the collaboration to meet goals (like a manager at a business, but for any aspect of life) and not the forced aspect of this collaboration. — schopenhauer1

Because I disagree that it’s forced. I’ve already explained this, and you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of the anything but ‘collaboration’, as if that’s all I’ve said...

You don't give a concrete example of what "transcend" means.. It's all bullshit hope-vision-imagery with no real "there" there. The only thing I can imagine in your imagined utopia is "collaboration" schemes of people somehow magically "conforming" to the group. This is to take away people's autonomy. If I do work and I think ALL work is meaningless, you're just going to give me some "collaboration" rhetoric.. And try to convince me that I am being a "rogue individual".. Again by focusing so much on collaboration you miss the "forced" aspect of this collaboration. We ALL know that we need to collaborate.. But a lot of times, IT JUST SUCKS!!! — schopenhauer1

You’re not even reading what I’ve written, just making shit up to argue against, and claiming that’s what I’d say...

I've given my examples besides the obvious of not procreating. In all aspects of being, there is a comply aspect to it.. So the question itself is always IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT. But you keep missing my point and trying to jump over it to simply "collaborate" without acknowledging background radiation (because we were forced into this situation and can't get out without overcoming fear of death). Unless you acknowledge that blindspot, your philosophy can't get beyond antinatalism. You have not integrated it. — schopenhauer1

Part of increasing awareness is acknowledging the sense that we were forced into this situation, but that we have the potential to ‘get out’ in a variety of ways. We don’t have to comply, but everyone dies eventually. Overcoming the fear of death is not as impossible as you might think. But you won’t achieve it by a passive, verbal rebellion against all aspects of being. Neither will you reduce suffering much this way. If this is your antinatalism, then count me out.

Is this your position? I can observe an ongoing relation of change between a plant (living organism) and its environment. Is the plant conscious? — PhilosophyRunner

Not really - sorry, I should have clarified this here, but my aim at this point was just to acknowledge three event structures. I don’t consider a plant to be an integrated event, even though we do classify it as a living organism. It’s made up of systems that appear to have an ongoing relational structure, but are not integrated such that any relation of change (awareness) can be said to occur across an overall system. Some of them come pretty close, though.

My position is that consciousness has an ongoing relation of change between an integrated event system and any differentiated event structure. I think this means consciousness is a five-dimensional system of value, in itself. But this is speculation based on the idea of an evolving geometry of integrated and non-integrated system structures in nature.

In order to specify position, velocity, etc, one needs to set up a frame of reference. But from a frame of reference we can specify what a distance is.

I don't think we can do the same to consciousness - as shown by your attempt that leads to more questions than answers. From my frame of reference, I cannot access your consciousness, only the external manifestation of it. — PhilosophyRunner

I’m not sure if we can, either. Measurement is defined by a reference point in spacetime, but if consciousness involves an ongoing relation of change between two spacetime events, then it has two relative frames of reference. I wish I could present this speculation in a way that quantum theoretical physicists might take seriously, because they work with mathematical representations of five-dimensional relations, but I know I’m a long way from that. Still, Rovelli’s descriptions of physical reality as consisting of interrelated events gives me hope.

And that is the problem I have. There is brain biology and chemistry that can be access from outside. There is body motion and behaviour that can be accessed from outside. But consciousness is often used to mean those, it is used to mean an internal state of awareness. And that internal state can't be measured directly as far as I know.

While distance is used to mean a physical attribute that can be measure from a frame of reference.

Now perhaps that internal consciousness state can be be entirely written in terms of the physical,, which solves the problem. Maybe, I don't know. — PhilosophyRunner

Either way, measurement isn’t going to cut it. I think we need to calculate predictions of events, in terms of structures of effort and attention over time.

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear. — Antinatalist

As I’ve said, I think it may get worse before it gets better, but I do think there will be a time in the future of humanity with far less violence than we have now, let alone have had in the past. I mentioned in my discussion with Agent Smith that I don’t imagine a total elimination of what we call ‘suffering’. But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives.

I don't want to be rude, but for me that sounds naive. But of course it is a good thing to try to reduce suffering (but not by any so called utilitarian way, though). — Antinatalist

I don’t think it’s rude - it’s a valid perspective. It sounds that way for two main reasons. Firstly, stated in this way, it seems too simple to be effective. But I never said it would be easy. It’s probably one of the hardest things to do to admit the role our own ignorance plays in perpetuating suffering, and seek to remedy it. Where do you even start? Secondly, the cultural myth or ‘agenda’ keeps telling us that our survival is important - but you and I both know that no-one’s life is more important than reducing suffering across the board. This is the real test of antinatalism - what usually keeps us from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is this fear for our own survival and sense of dominance. If we’re going to rebel against the ‘agenda’, then we need to be prepared to act against our own best interests for the sake of reducing suffering. I’m not suggesting we commit suicide - that’s a waste of this potential we’ve developed so far - but to put the rebellion before our own survival, get creative and make full use of our temporary and otherwise useless BEING to effect an ongoing reduction in suffering, long after our life ends.

So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering?

You speak as if you're 100% certain. Are you? Probably not. So, yeah. — Agent Smith

Of course not - I can only speak from my limited experience and knowledge, and all statements are open to dispute if you have an experience that contradicts. This is what discussions are for, aren’t they? To draw attention to possible errors?

Assuming thoughts can be reduced to an electric current as biologists claim (re neural action potential) and given that atoms, thought net neutral, possess charged particles (protons and electrons) and that too in motion, panpsychism doesn't seem that far-fetched an idea. We can play around with this rough outline of panpsychism's mechanism to refine it further. :chin:

Is lightning a thought? Are storm chasers aware of something we're not? I dunno! — Agent Smith

An electric current travels from one system to another, and is contingent upon both. You can’t isolate an electric current from the relational structure and call it ‘thought’.

Likewise, you can’t isolate an ongoing relation of change from both the organism and its environment, and call it ‘consciousness’. This is what panpsychism is proposing.

Consciousness refers to a particular relational structure of change (awareness) that occurs between an integrated event system and a differentiated event structure. Alternative relational structures of change occur between event structures, molecular and chemical structures, atomic systems, etc, but these are not referred to as ‘consciousness’ because it doesn’t occur between an integrated event system and a differentiated event structure.

What they do have in common is some kind of relational structure of change. I call it awareness. Some might be tempted to call it information, but that term describes the structure of change between our own integrated event system and our observation/measurement of the awareness; it is not the awareness itself, which is often a much simpler relational structure, and considered in terms of information as incomplete.

Assuming that everyone in the world is on a spectrum from the most cruel diabolical and evil human being to the most divinely graceful and saintly human and everything in between (by the assumption that some people are better -more moral/ kind/ loving than others).... my question is would we ever recognise them for who they are?
If we are all by and large imperfect beings how do we then recognise the truly evil (as we also have aspects of malice in ourselves) and similarly how would we ever appreciate a truly perfect being or the closest to it, if indeed they existed because our own failings are the only template by which we judge others. — Benj96

I think the view of good-evil as a ‘spectrum’ synonymous with perfect-imperfect is damaging - particularly in relation to behaviour and judgement of beings.

When we judge a person based on the morality of a single interaction, we deny their capacity for variable behaviour, their agency. But when we judge a person based on the morality of a pattern or trajectory of interpersonal behaviour, we still deny the variability of their intentions (ie. saintly/evil).

The way I see it, an apparently ‘saintly’ human remains capable of even the worst atrocities in different circumstances, and the most demonstrably cruel diabolical and ‘evil’ human being remains capable of love, kindness and even divine grace, given time, effort and attention. I think when we recognise and accept this range of potentiality within all humans, including ourselves, then we can not only appreciate those who strive for ‘saintly’ even if they fail, but also recognise what might lead someone to cruel behaviour, and what could prevent it. I find this more useful than moral judgement.

My understanding was that writing arose in agrarian empires that had the need for records and which could afford a scribe class. This started off ideographic (or indexical) and naturally evolved towards the more purely symbolic (or alphabetical) with use.

Nomadic folk had oral cultures and little need to keep written records. So they wouldn't have originated any written language system, and only have employed the more generalised symbolism of art, decoration and dress. — apokrisis

I don’t think I’m contradicting anything you’ve said here. I certainly don’t disagree. Some agrarian systems were established from or heavily influenced by nomadic cultures, such as Hebrew and Arabic. So not all of them developed ideographic language, as you say - some of them developed more indexical language systems, pointing to objects/concepts in a performative or actionable structure, rather than the flow of ideas in a static structure.

What you could lose by not getting the promotion is that your ego could be hurt and your hopes could be dashed, so there's that to lose. — HardWorker

What are you losing? The confidence that your ego is invincible or that hope alone enables? These are illusions, and losing them only increases your awareness of reality.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

But we cannot directly measure the dog's consciousness. We can measure behaviour, we can even measure neural correlates of consciousness.

While we can directly measure the position of planets and their motion, for example.

If I design an artificial dog that behaves exactly as a natural dog, is that artificial dog conscious? I don't think that is as easy question to answer.

Never mind dogs, I can never know how other people exactly sense the world. I can think of my own consciousness and extrapolate based on behaviour I see. But haven't we all had a time where we later found out that what we thought what person thought, was not actually what they thought. Neither of us can truly, precisely know what someone else is thinking. — PhilosophyRunner

Agreed. This is why I mentioned a dog’s consciousness. It shows that we cannot use the systems and structures we’ve relied on to this point in order to understand consciousness. We’re not going to be able to measure consciousness in the way that we measure the position of the planets.

How do you ‘measure’ behaviour? As with energy, are you measuring behaviour, or evidence of behaviour from your observational standpoint? And what is the value system you are employing to reduce a four-dimensional event such as behaviour to a single measurement value?

We measure the position of planets in relation to each other, but when we track their motion, that’s a relation of change between measurements. When we assume the position of the measuring device is constant, we just have to take these measurements and changing relations into account. But once we accept that the measuring device is also in motion, then we have to take into account how this moving reference point also changes our measurements and the relations of change between them. Plus, we can’t ignore that we’re also measuring in three dimensions, and on a large, spinning planet, over time. So it’s a little more complex than just ‘measurement’.

So, consider this complex solar system structure in motion approaching another complex solar system in motion, and imagine the increased complexity - this is kind of what you’re trying to ‘measure’ in terms of consciousness. Which value system would you use, where would you measure from, and how do you justify this measurement as indicative of the entire complexity?

Instead of trying to measure consciousness, let’s look at the relational structure. Consciousness consists of an ongoing relation of change between a living organism and its environment. So, there are actually three interrelating events here. You can’t dismiss one without negating consciousness. And you can’t ‘measure’ one event and claim to be measuring any more than evidence of a perceived potential for consciousness.

You are talking about written language. There are, or at least were, societies without written language. It is my understanding those societies still had fully developed spoken languages. I don't think anyone knows when and how language first developed or whether earlier humans used language. — T Clark

I agree - no-one knows, but we can speculate based on their relation to socio-cultural systems - patterns in the way they think about and correlate ideas, concepts and objects. Societies without written language have life, affect and emotion surrounding their spoken language, similar to the oral traditions of early Anglo-Saxon, Greek and Roman cultures. For them, meaning IS use, and there would have been no need to incorporate a complete meaning of a concept in the language itself (ie. vocabulary and grammar), because human affect is never absent.

So any ‘concept’ in a spoken-only language would be undefined, and its meaning determined by use. It is only in written language that the ‘definition’ or ‘meaning’ of a concept becomes important at all.

How do we know about early language and how it developed. It was my understanding that all languages which have been encountered, no matter how primitive the society, have fully developed grammars and vocabularies. — T Clark

It is in evidence of their early use that we see the development. There are ideographic systems of languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, and Egyptian hieroglyphs that developed from a stationary, visual and official means of communication, and there are alphabetical and phonetic systems that developed more from the oral or performative communications of nomadic peoples.

The differences between these traditions developed very different conceptual systems. The Chinese developed an extremely logical syntax and grammar system, while their ‘vocabulary’ was less structured, with the same character sometimes communicating seemingly contradictory concepts, depending on its relational position in the text. Modern Chinese has developed stand-alone concepts by grouping characters together, but in traditional Chinese each character represented a non-conceptualised idea or quality of experience. There was no verbs or objects.

Nomadic people, less accustomed to trusting the permanence of structure, developed their language system by relating a subject to objects and sounds through action. Affect, energy and action was always a part of their communication system - so when they eventually developed more permanent symbols and systems, the structure of subject-action-object was a natural fit.

Do you think that antinatalists would be somehow more convincing if they will make more suicides? — Antinatalist

No - I think antinatalists would be more convincing if they recognised that it is their valuing life’s potentiality in itself that causes them to despair at such limited actualisation.

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good. — Antinatalist

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation.

So when these do occur, it doesn’t help to label the perpetrators ‘inhuman’ and exclude their being from the value of ‘human’ potential. Nor does it help to focus only on the suffering caused, and refuse to understand the structures and patterns of reduced perceptions of potential that would lead to it. It is ignorance, isolation and exclusion that lead to suffering, and we counteract and prevent suffering with increased awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s my view.

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential.

Allright, I try not to be. — Antinatalist

Don’t worry - he was referring to me, there.

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple. — Antinatalist

What is bad or not bad? You seem to be talking about your subjective experience as if it’s some objective moral position.

I appreciate you parsing your position in this way, because this aspect of antinatalism is the part I’m having trouble with. I don’t think the event of somebody suffering is necessarily ‘bad’ - and I’ve discussed this in more detail here with Agent Smith.

So, are you against procreation? — Antinatalist

I do support antinatalism as a practical, socially and environmentally conscious choice - but I’m not going to take a moral stand against procreation, for two reasons. Firstly, I’m a parent myself, so I can relate to both the ignorance that leads to it, and the understanding that comes from the experience. I don’t regret my choice, and I know that without the experience, I would not have understood how naive I was. But I’ve been careful to ensure that my children are aware of better alternatives. We need a cultural paradigm shift away from the myth of ‘human purpose’ and towards creative collaboration, rather than moral judgement with an impossible alternative. Read my responses to Agent Smith for more details on this.

Secondly, I’m not against life, being or suffering, while it appears that most antinatalists are. So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this.

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.
— Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer. — Antinatalist

What is that ‘being’ who does not exist, if they do not exist? If they do not suffer, what is their significance for you? How are they ‘real’ enough for you to talk about in this way?

But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to. — Antinatalist

I recognise that procreation is to deliberately create a life that isn’t necessary. I do think the motivation behind that decision is usually and to a large extent self-serving, and based on an ignorant notion that it gives their own existence ‘purpose’ to determine the course of someone else’s life when they are most vulnerable, with little regard for the purpose of that life in itself. So I’m with you there. It’s not ‘purpose’ they’re drawn to, but power, and a vicarious sense of potential/value. Most people fail so dismally at parenting because the reality doesn’t reach their expectations in this sense. To be a parent is to gradually relinquish any control you thought you had over to someone else, and to watch your best efforts take on a life of their own, rendering you effectively redundant. Once this realisation kicks in, most will either fight to dominate, or give up early and abandon the child to school and society.

But this is ignorance, not immorality. We’re still pushing this ancient cultural myth that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate collectively, and to strive for independence, autonomy and influence individually - it’s no wonder we’re so disappointed with life! We’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot all this time.

You can’t just say ‘don’t do it’, though. And it certainly doesn’t help to say ‘don’t exist’. I think there is an alternative to procreation in recognising the variability of our own potential, and focusing on that, instead of creating a new set of limitations in being. It starts with dismantling this cultural myth.

Perhaps we shouldn't be aiming for the abolishment of pain/suffering. Instead, let's try to reduce their intensity, their unpleasantness, their foolifying power - like how syringe needles are small, sharp and bevelled to make them less painful, not painless. — Agent Smith

:up:

Leprosy has long been considered a divine punishment and people seem to be certain that it's an illness in need of a cure. Congenital Insensitivty to Pain (CIP) is also classified as a malady. However, I'm sure there's a comic out there that lists CIP as a superpower, to be used by the so-afflicted for good. — Agent Smith

I read a YA novel a few years back called ‘Carve the Mark’ by Veronica Roth, which explores the notion of suffering in a fantasy world where each character has a ‘currentgift’ - a unique aspect of their character, or ‘superpower’, if you will. I’ll drop in here some notes I’d made at the time:

Fear, pain, humiliation and loss feature heavily in this book. What is most apparent is that none of the characters are free from any of it. Many will go to great lengths to avoid these experiences, to pretend they can be free of them, that they should be free of them, but it's impossible, even in this fictional solar system.
Vas, a man whose currentgift is to feel no pain, lives an empty life - he is wielded as a weapon, a tool, and finds no other purpose in life than that. Without an experience of pain, he has no way to appreciate the joys in life. He has become an object, empty of life. Vas' juxtaposition with Cyra, who is constantly in pain and must learn to live with it, also accentuates the life she embodies - she experiences so much more, and can find beauty and joy where others cannot (or will not). Because Cyra is forced to accept pain as a consistent part of life, because it is impossible for her to avoid, she is able to live more fully than others.
To the rest of us, who spend our lives trying to avoid or eradicate pain, a life like Cyra's would seem pointless. To see it as her gift is almost impossible. That is how we feel when we hear the phrase 'life is pain' - because how can a life of pain be a gift? But what Cyra realises is that her gift is her ability to absorb pain, to cope with it. Her gift is the courage to live with pain, to love, show compassion, experience life, even, perhaps, to ultimately forgive and bring peace - not in eliminating, in spite of or even despite the pain she feels and cannot avoid, but because of it. —

The rise in depression, anxiety and even ASD in our youth can be seen as an indication of neural evolution - towards a more variable system of mind or conceptual configuration. From a medical perspective, these are ‘disorders’, but I think there might be method in the madness, as it were.

Nictoine, to my knowledge, is a neurochemical with effects on our in-built reward system and hence the physical dependence that characterizes addiction to nicotine. — Agent Smith

Hmm - an analogy for transhumanism....? Just a thought...

This idea is probably a component of the Transhumanism manifesto, the movement being, by and large, focused on the abolishment of suffering. — Agent Smith

I’ll admit I’m a little sceptical of transhumanism - mainly because I recognise the essential structure of what we call ‘suffering’ in every aspect of existence and cosmic evolution, including atomic structure, abiogenesis, etc. The idea of abolishment of suffering, while it appears noble and compassionate towards humanity, presents a narrow understanding of what suffering is and how it contributes to cosmic evolution as a whole. I have a feeling the aim is to eliminate the human experience of suffering, and that it is prepared to compromise actual abolishment for an illusion. I’ll reserve my judgement at this stage, but if that’s the case, then I’m not okay with that.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the purpose/function of nicotine in the human body?

In some schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is said that Buddha's actual spoken words (i.e. all of the content preserved in the Buddhist scriptures) are only baubles or toys to attract the ignorant. His actual meaning is forever unspoken and communicated in silence. (This is the gist of the legendary origin of Zen Buddhism in the Flower Sermon.) — Wayfarer

Both Buddhism and Christianity require the relation of scripture to the context of a single, exemplary life for their actual meaning.

Early language was ideographic: consisting of logical signs for qualitative ideas; any emotional aspect or affect was considered evident in the human element of an exchange. Meaning is usage, and value is subjective.

Conceptual language developed later, enabling users to define their intended meaning to an extent without relying on the human element. Affect was increasingly incorporated into the language itself, often as a tool for manipulation, and ‘official’ or dictionary definitions became necessary to determine meaning from usage that often includes cultural perceptions of value or potential. Language took on a ‘life’ of its own, evolved in interaction with humanity, its meaning increasingly indeterminate and subjective.

It is this ‘official value’ attributed to names and concepts that Laozi cautioned against in the Tao Te Ching. His view was that our most stable and simplistic understanding of the world consisted of recognising our own affected relation to a consistently logical structure of qualitative ideas.

In all three traditions, meaning is use and the value/significance of a concept is subjective. A definition may be a suitable starting point for discussion, but it’s not the truth of language, whose meaning comes to life through perspective and interaction.

You’re not doing your intelligence any favours here.
— Possibility
Another example. If someone would point out that your concept of men and women doesn't do your intelligence any favors, well that would be bigotry/disrespectful, right? I haven't seen stoicHoneyBadger identify as an idiot yet, have you? — Harry Hindu

I haven’t called him an idiot. And I wasn’t referring to his concept of men and women, but to his self-acclaimed authority to answer for most men, and his feeble attempt at a character attack based on sexual orientation. Ignorance and ad hominem arguments seem to me a lack of demonstrated intelligence. The question wasn’t ‘does he have intelligence?’, but rather ‘is he using what intelligence he has here?’

While we are a necessary part of consciousness - it doesn't exist without us.

Hence I suggest we are less able to observe consciousness objectively, than we are able to observe the solar system objectively. — PhilosophyRunner

I would dispute that. We once considered ourselves essential and central to the cosmos, just as we now consider ourselves essential and central to consciousness. It exists because we exist. If we are ever going to understand consciousness, we need to consider the possibility that alternative forms of consciousness exist that are nothing like our own.

A dog’s strongest sense is smell, followed by hearing, and they are very much social animals, more so than they are logical. Consciousness for a dog structures experience according to social value, smell and sound. Your dog can sniff you as you walk in the door and get a detailed sense of where you’ve been and who you’ve been with. They defer to your sense of timing and your eyesight and they learn to trust your commands, but they trust their own sense of smell above all.

We cannot assume that dog consciousness is less than our own, except by our own standards. In many ways they have a better sense of the world than we do.

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.) — Antinatalist

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.

What's your opinion of the following?

1. In life there's potential for suffering and joy.

2. It's impossible, at the moment, to ensure the actualization of joy sans suffering.

3. On the whole, suffering > joy. Ask a person whether s/he wants their pain taken away from, or more joy be added to, their life? I bet they'd want the former (pain taken away).

Ergo,

4. Antinatalism. — Agent Smith

This is what I mean by reducing potentiality to a binary value, eg. Suffering = bad; joy = good. Being is not a matter of simply choosing between suffering or joy as good or bad. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this argument.

What is suffering?
There is a tendency to describe suffering as ‘anything that feels bad’, but it’s more complex than that.

Suffering refers to experiences of pain, humility and loss/lack. Objectively speaking, pain is what we feel when an event requires more/less attention and effort than we’ve allocated. When we touch a hot stove and burn our hand, the pain tells the body that the attention and effort we predicted did not account for the repair work to our skin that we now require. And when we run until our legs hurt, the pain tells the body that effort and attention needs to be directed to these muscles at a faster rate.

Loss/lack is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and attention than we’ve allocated. And humility is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and effort than we’ve allocated.

So, the body needs to be informed of these prediction errors, so that we make the necessary changes in future predictions, in order to prevent further suffering. If we don’t find a way to make these changes, we’ll continue to suffer.

1. In life, there is potential for good suffering and bad suffering, as well as good joy and bad joy.

When a driver has been aggressively tailgating, dangerously overtaking and speeding past you on the road, and then further along you pass him/her pulled over by the police, is that a case of bad joy or good suffering?

If we’re honest with ourselves, sometimes we feel joy in perceiving another’s suffering, other times we suffer in perceiving another’s joy. Sometimes we’re prepared to endure short-term suffering for long-term joy, other times we pursue short-term joy despite long-term suffering. When you try to reduce suffering-joy to one value, your conclusion is necessarily subjective and temporally defined.

2. It is impossible to actualise any event, good or bad, without a sufficient distribution of attention, effort and time.

When we get this distribution correct, we minimise suffering. Understanding our own limitations and building awareness, connection and collaboration with other sources of time, effort and attention increases the potential to reduce suffering overall.

3. On the whole, the relationship between suffering and joy is irreducilble to a linear relation, except subjectively and in the moment. It would be highly inaccurate to make a moral judgement of all potential being based on this.

4. I believe that antinatalism IS the objective answer to so many issues in the world. But I also understand that the same subjective, in the moment evaluation of potential being as ‘mostly suffering’ can, in another set of circumstances, evaluate potential being as ‘mostly joy’. So I disagree with arguing antinatalism on moral grounds. It achieves nothing except more suffering.

The Godhead seems to be described as a three-in-one relationship between three different personalities, all of which participate in the same divine identity.

However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet the Trinity feels more like a pantheon, or maybe a relationship hierarchy or some sort.

My argument against the logic of the Trinity looks something like this

1.A monotheistic God is one distinct being
2.The Trinity is three distinct beings
3.God cannot be both one and three distinct beings
4.Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory — tryhard

The way I see it, it is describing them as ‘beings’ that leads to contradiction. The Trinity refers to three aspects of our potential relation to ‘God’:

1. Father: this is the concept of infinite possibility, and its relation to us.
2. Son: this is the concept of our human potentiality in relation to infinite possibility.
3. Spirit: this is the concept of the relation itself.

Christianity has spent far too much time trying to reify these concepts, trying to make ‘God’ appear more substantial. There’s no need. There is an interchangeable symmetry of logic, quality and energy in this triadic relation.

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide. — Antinatalist

Then you’re reading it through a lens. A fourteen year old certainly has this capability. Someone under the age of ten usually lacks a sufficient self-concept to make such a decision based on a preference for non-being. Either way, it wouldn’t be an intellectual decision based on awareness of an individual self - the kind you’re claiming we should be entitled to before we’re even born.

So, when it arises as an option, what prevents you from taking it? It is this question I’d like an honest answer to. Instead, I’m accused of gaslighting, while my position is misrepresented and distorted. I support antinatalism, but not this opinion that existence sucks.

My attitude is not ‘go kill yourself then’ - I think there is a gap in understanding (or just blatant ignorance) when someone argues so strongly for non-being as a preferred option, but not for actual beings. And then denies the existence of potential structures that enable actual, self-conscious beings to choose beyond a reductionist binary structure of ‘comply or die’, even as they claim to make a third choice of ‘rebellion by griping’.

The potential to suffer? — Agent Smith

Sure, but there’s more to potentiality in relation to being than a binary value, or even a linear continuum. Intentionality is an integrated, four-dimensional relation of effort and attention. You can’t reduce that accurately to ‘the potential to suffer’ - not without ignoring or excluding a whole lot of information. This is what is happening here.

I think you are just looking at the world through some feminist lens, trying to find things to feel offended about. — stoicHoneyBadger

Sure, slap that ‘feminist’ label on and dismiss my perspective as emotional. Looks like you’re reaching for your last resort there. Having trouble formulating a reasoned response, are we?

As per Laozi, simplifying Taoism, we're supposed to emulate the nonliving: go with the flow ( :heart: ); only dead fish go with the flow, one remarked.

The point then is to die or act dead, let the chips fall where they may (wu wei, actionless action). Momma nature knows best! Trust in her experience (4.5 billion years), have faith in her wisdom (she is the Tao, mother of the myriad things). — Agent Smith

Just to clarify, wu wei is to act as if dead - to deliberately and consciously align our ideas and logic with that of the universe, striving to understand and be aware of the energy that flows through it all, ourselves included. Laozi is not advocating a blind faith here, but a fully conscious one.

The fact that you are so sure you do is just patriarchy at work.
— Possibility

And what's wrong with that? — stoicHoneyBadger

Aside from myopic, ignorant and destructive...

I do not see decadence, i.e. loosing standards, as a positive thing, rather as a potentially deadly illness of a civilization.

Of course girls need to have a good character, etc., but in general traits see as positive in a man and in a woman are very different. — stoicHoneyBadger

Valuing the intelligence, strength and experience of women as much as men is not decadence or a ‘deadly illness’. I’m fully aware that men and women in general are not the same. But in general, positive traits are positive traits, whether in a man or a woman. Aside from patriarchal references to violence and dominance, your OP list of traits is equally applicable to women, and many posters here have said so.

So why do you continue to insist on different treatment, and quibble about girls needing to adhere to some ‘standard’ of feminine attractiveness in order to get dates? And what on earth is ‘a good character’, if not open-mindedness, courage, self-control and creative thinking? Sounds like you’re stuck in the 19th century, to me. Time to re-evaluate your axioms.

Well, such 'warning bells' of caution are well made.
I think we must globally unite, no more countries, no currencies, no rich, no imbalances of power or cults of personality/celebrity. I am just struggling a little as to how I can best go about making all that happen......now!.....that's all.
I don't advocate for putting interplanetary existence on the back seat. I want to supercharge the efforts towards it but I also want to supercharge all efforts towards a far better stewardship of Earth.
I think we must do both or else.........I do think we may go the way of the Dino's. — universeness

I don’t think we’ll ‘save’ most of humanity, to be honest - but we’re far too adaptable and resourceful to go the way of the dinosaurs, even if we stay. So, if only a small percentage of humans will emerge from this, what kind of legacy do we want to leave as a whole? Those with enough wealth/power/influence to wrangle a ticket out of here, or those with enough wisdom to collaborate with the planet as well as each other? I know which one I’d vote for...

I am sure I can answer for most men. If you prefer dudes, or at least girls that look like dudes, well, that's up to you. — stoicHoneyBadger

Ahh! The classic ‘men = most men’ defense, and then trying to cast dispersions on my sexual orientation. Seriously, it’s almost a caricature!

I don’t think you have any authority to answer for most men. No one does. The fact that you are so sure you do is just patriarchy at work. You’re not doing your intelligence any favours here.

And I do prefer dudes, actually. Most women do. :wink:

To each his own I suppose. It's either literalism or flights of fancy. In other words, it's either incoherence, allegedly, or fantasy. They say...all roads lead to Rome. We're free! Yippee! — Agent Smith

Well, I’d say it’s either a ‘literal’ modern interpretation of a translation of a translation of a transcription of a verbal tradition - or it’s a contextual understanding of an ancient cultural record. But you go ahead...

Pursuit of profundity has risk, sometimes serious risk, but I so agree with this. If we as a species do not even achieve the ability for some of us to exist beyond this planetary nest then I dont think we can claim to have done so much better than the dinosaurs did. Ok, we moulded/affected the planet much more than they did but we have no more protection from extinction than they did, and we never will have unless we become at least an interplanetary species. We should just have stayed in the caves and forests and enjoyed the pretty flora and treated any pesky philosophers and scientists amongst us as dangerous enemies that must be eliminated. We could always excuse ourselves by claiming but that's what our god(s) want. I will stop this line now in-case I enter rant mode. :smile: — universeness

To be honest, I think this interplanetary pursuit must take a back seat to understanding how we can collaborate with the ecosystem we have, rather than mould/affect it in pursuit of our own short-sighted demands - otherwise we’re no better than locusts moving on to strip another location of its resources. That’s my two cents, anyway.

Well, I do prioritise it but others regularly demonstrate to me the folly of ever assuming you are the smartest person in the room. Even forms of intelligence and specialisation of field are quite myriad.
Someone who seems pretty vacant on one topic may be almost an expert at something I know little about. — universeness

:up:

If I have nothing in my wallet, then there are zero dollars. That's not a limit, that's a fact. — SolarWind

And the fact is you do NOT have a number of dollars. You have reached the limit of your wallet’s potential for dollars, its lowest value. The potential exists - you have the wallet: an empty set defined by its limits.

There are two ways to describe a lack of consciousness: with the wallet, or without it. With the wallet, a capacity or potential for dollars exists (unconscious). Without it, there is no indication of potential (non-conscious).

But what you’re looking for here is evidence of consciousness, not what consciousness is. Consciousness is the value/potential, the number. The evidence is the dollars or the wallet, without which the number is just a number.

Two sets of questions arise. Firstly, what does a wallet look like, and how is it constructed? Secondly, once we have a wallet, how do we get dollars to fill it?

There is no contradiction between possibility and jump point. The possibility for superconductivity results from the material, below a certain temperature superconductivity suddenly occurs. — SolarWind

Sounds like potential to me.