This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill. — baker

Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)? — baker

It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids. The existence of contraceptives allow us to make that distinction. Since my wife went through the pain and effort to carry and give birth to our children, I thought that it only fair that I be the one that gets a vasectomy. While it wasn't entirely painless, it was far less invasive than my wife getting her tubes tied. Getting the vasectomy was one of the best things I did. Now I can enjoy sex with my wife without worrying about a pregnancy. Of course the tubes can always find their way back together, but that hasn't happened in 15 years and now my wife is post-menopausal so even if my tubes did reconnect, there would be no pregnancy.

If by some crazy fluke, my wife got pregnant, we would abort because for us, three is enough. We wouldn't wait until the third or second trimester, though. We would do it as soon as possible. We would terminate the pregnancy not just because we have the number of children that we want, but also because there is a higher risk of birth defects for women over 40. Would it be fair to the child and to us if we were forced to have a child with birth defects? Which would cause the most suffering?

Sure, going under a doctor's knife can have it's risks, but in today's modern world, that is a small risk, and I think that, as individuals, it is our own prerogative to make our own risk assessments.

That's been explained to you repeatedly: performative utterances. — Banno

No. Some of them make something the case.

But that is apparently beyond your comprehension. So be it. — Banno

Why so snarky? You've repeated yourself many times to many others on this forum, and I'm sure they have repeated themselves to you, and then you ignore what they said and end up repeating yourself without acknowledging what others have said.

Repeating myself here:
Commands don't make something the case if the person being commanded refuses to do what was commanded. Commands are shortcuts for expressing the utterer's wants and needs (just imagine "I want/need you to" preceding every command), not making something the case because the one being command can refuse.

Greeting someone isn't making something the case other than your intent to start a conversation because the one you greet might not greet you back.

You don't seem to comprehend that the listener or reader needs to participate in making it the case and there is a chance they might not, so just saying it doesn't make it the case.

There is no information inherent in nature. Information is always about something we define. A wavefunction contains no information, neither is there an "it from bit" computed beneath and displayed as matter. — Hillary

In making the argument that information is the relationship between cause and effect I am asserting that information is inherent in nature.

What do you mean by "wavefunction"? Are you talking about mathematical equation (a string of scribbles) or what the scribbles represent? If the former then the scribbles are the effect of some observation of what the scribbles represent. If the latter then what they represent may be uncaused - meaning that it would not be information as you say.

In saying that information is about something, effects can be about their causes. The crime scene is the effect and the criminal and their motive is the cause. The former is about the latter.

Tree rings are the effect of how the tree grows throughout the year, not something made-up in the mind of some observer. The mind does not project the age of the tree into the tree rings. The tree rings represent the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year. The tree rings are about the age of the tree because how the tree grows year in and year out produces the tree rings.

The idea that we're here merely to eat and shit is egregious. — baker

I don't know how you arrived at that from what I said. One of the ideas that I did propose was that we're here to initiate the next step of evolution. I also proposed the idea that asserting that you know why you are here is something akin to a delusion of grandeur.

I don't think we are here for anything. We are here because of many things (the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth, the evolution of humans and our parents having sex), but here for nothing. We each create our own purposes for ourselves, so if you don't want to be here just to eat and shit, then that is your prerogative. I don't want to be here to just eat and shit either, which is why I am here having a discussion with you and doing many other things besides just eating and shitting.

Paradoxically it may sound, but a phone with information on it actually weighs more than without. — Hillary

You need to provide some kind of evidence for this that shows that downloaded apps on your phone changes the mass of your phone or changes the Earth's force of gravity.

Adequacy of means to ends. — 180 Proof

Around and around we go.

You tell me. What makes something work vs. not work, or more reliable vs less reliable? — Harry Hindu

In saying that something works or is reliable is also saying it is adequate, so what makes something work vs. not work, reliable vs. unreliable or adequate vs. inadequate if it does contains some element of truth vs. false - as in it follows from what is the case vs. what is not the case?

Thanks for clarifying that for me, but I do hope you don't mean that in the literal sense. If I write "my phone weighs 500 gm" does my phone gain 500 gm? :chin: — Agent Smith

I said that weight is the relation between your phone's mass and the force of gravity on surface of the Earth. How does writing scribbles on this screen change that relation? It seems that to change that relation/information you'd have to add mass to the phone or change the force of gravity on the Earth. You could also go to the Moon and your phone would have a different weight.

If information is the relation between cause and effect (weight as the effect of some mass influenced by the gravity of Earth), then changing the information in your smartphone would require a cause - as in you downloading an app. The installed app is the effect of prior causes - like the lines of code that were written by a programmer to use the electronics of your phone to produce new information depending on the input it receives. It is also the cause of new effects in that it computes input to outputs.

Information is everywhere. The goal in some mind is what amplifies (focuses the attention on) certain information over others. For instance, the scribbles that appear on this screen are the effect of some human having an idea and the intent to share it. The types of scribbles are determined by their idea, the language they learned and are using, their level of understanding of the language they are using, and many other causes. You, as the reader, have the goal of understanding their idea so are focused on that cause of the scribbles being on the screen. You are using the scribbles on the screen to get at their idea (the cause), just as you could use the scribbles on the screen to get at the language they are using and their level of understanding of the language they are using - if that were your goal - and just as the investigator using the evidence at the crime scene to get at the identity and motive of the criminal.

Information = change.
A by itself is nothing but A in relation to B? Now that’s information. Because they are either qualitatively or quantitatively different from each other in some form or another. Information is the property of contrast, for if something had no matter, no spatial dimension, no mass, was completely uniform in every way with no characteristic dividing it into any other category, it would have no means by which to interact - nothing that can be relative to itself.

“It takes two to tango” — Benj96

Yep, cause and effect are like A and B. Information is the relation between them, or more specifically a spatial-temporal relation between two events.

No set of traits can draw sharp boundaries that fit all analyses. E.g. if humans have 46 chromosomes, then men with XYY syndrome don't fit; evolutionary history: there's no sharp boundaries in species' emergence. — Relativist

This is simple to resolve. Instead of just two categories (man vs. woman or person vs. non-person), there could be three or more. Transitions between extremes would be a separate category. For instance, we don't say that black and white are the only colors. We recognize that there are many colors, not just two and the other colors are the transition between black and white (no colors vs. all colors).

That said, for most cases of criminal law, it's not problematic- there's no confusion or disagreement, no sorties fallacy. But there IS disagreement in terms of fetal development, and the problem isn't solvable by creating a definition. But that is exactly what anti-abortion advocates try to do. It's not fair for me to insist they drop their religion-based belief that a zygote is a human being with a soul, but neither should they force their view on others - particularly on those who may suffer. We should all accept there's disagreement that is honest and sincere in terms of identifying some point in fetal development as a dividing line. — Relativist

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? I don't see anything wrong with using a morning-after pill to abort a pregnancy because I don't see a zygote as a something that can be self-aware or suffer. The longer you wait, the more it becomes an issue. The only reason I can see for having a late-term abortion is because the woman's life is in danger.

That door is always open, unfortunately, and the risks aren't eliminated by pointing the evil-doers at a lexicon. — Relativist

Sure it is. The prosecutors read the statute that the offender has broken, and people are put in jail because of some words on some court documents. I think that the words of a statute prevent some people from doing evil things. For some the words don't matter as they will respect others or not regardless of what some law states. I'm interested in talking to those that can do the "right" thing even when not threatened with prison. Are you one of those people?

For vegans, yes. They are fine with killing plants for food, but not pigs, chickens and cows because they point to suffering, not necessarily personhood, as the reason to not kill some organism. — Harry Hindu

Facile anthropomorphism. Now Jains (re: ahimsa + fasting), at least, are 'consistent'. — 180 Proof

But that is what I'm asking, 180. At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them?

Even then it's a matter of degree. An adult with congenital insensitivity to pain, a foetus at 24 weeks old, and cockroaches aren't capable of suffering in the same way that I am. At what "strength" does it become an ethical concern? — Michael

Physical pain isn't the only type of suffering. I would imagine that the adult with congenital insensitivity to pain would still suffer from mental anguish of realizing that they could seriously injure themselves and not even know it.

24 week old fetuses and cockroaches don't have a concept of time, much less even a realist concept of an external world (object permanence), so they couldn't experience the mental anguish of some event in the future causing them harm. They would only exist in the present. I would also argue that a 24 week fetus's brain is much different than an adult cockroach. I think that the reactions of cockroaches to injury are instinctive in that there is no conscious awareness of this pain. So the question is at what point does a particular brain create a sensory-feedback loop of self-awareness.

There's no point where it "becomes" killing. As I've said before, there is no point where something that wasn't alive "becomes" alive; it's all a matter of degree. Like personhood, life isn't some binary state that something either has or doesn't have. — Michael

Then there are no extremes. You described both extremes as one being a person and one not being a person. If that isn't binary, then what is it?

Again, we can narrow down the transitionary period between not-person and person to the point where the time in between the two binary states is short enough to not make much of a difference.

No I don't. I just think he happens to be right. — Michael

Which is to say that you think that his words are infallible. Many people think Jesus was right. What is the difference?

Personhood, life, being a game -- none of these are some intrinsic property that things either have or don't have. The world is a chaotic place, and to help us navigate it we start using words like "person", "life", and "game". But such use isn't dictated by some strict formal system of logic; it's often imprecise and inconsistent. That's just the reality of language. — Michael

Yet you laid out the argument for the existence of extremes. How can extremes even exist if there aren't intrinsic properties that make one a person and one not a person. You keep conflating the transitionary period with the extremes. Is the world a chaotic place or is it orderly, or somewhere in between? You keep proving Witt wrong every time you make an argument for what is the case - as in the world is chaotic, and what Witt said, which means that you have no issues with understanding what Witt is vs. what Witt is not.

Pro-choicers please kindly inform pro-lifers that choice is so important to God's vision of humanity that he permits the most horrific atrocities to be committed (re free will & the problem of evil)! — Agent Smith

Being pro-life isn't necessarily religious. Maybe it's more of a pro-personhood, in that one can respect the rights of another person. The question is, what makes one a person that deserves these rights? And we don't even have to bring a government into this. God and government are irrelevant here. What type of rights do you, as an individual, recognize that other persons have? At what point do you, as an individual, recognize that a thing either deserves those rights and doesn't deserve those rights? At what point in your own development would you want others to recognize those rights for you?

You'd have to define "suffering."

Does suffering require a sense of self? If it's just the firing of nociceptors, then earth worms can suffer. — frank

Sure, I think suffering is the awareness of your own pain. I think there are animals, like earth worms, that don't possess that awareness. Their behaviors of running from the source of pain is instinctual. There is no "what it is like" for an earth worm, at least not in the way there is for a human. It's not just having a brain, but having a particular type of brain.

It means we construct useful categories, nothing more. — Banno

What does it mean to be useful if not that it carries some element of truth (as in what is the case)? All of your statements are about what is the case. Either we construct useful categories or we don't. You can use scribbles, "we", to refer to we. Are we just more scribbles, or are you using scribbles to refer to things that are not scribbles, like a group of humans?

Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives.
— 180 Proof — Harry Hindu

Yes. And there must be a reason for this. — Harry Hindu

More than that it works – why? — 180 Proof

You tell me. What makes something work vs. not work, or more reliable vs less reliable?

Substance? Sorry! File not found! — Agent Smith

:grin: Yes! Words are like variables in a computer language. They need to be defined to be used in the program. If not, then they can't be used until they are defined.

True, information isn't a substance like, for instance, clay or paper is. If it were matter, my pen drive should gain weight as I continually save files on it. No! Is information energy? Can I perform work with information? How many joules (of energy) is 8 bits of information? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Uh... wait. If there is no "file found" when using the scribble, "substance", then asserting that "information isn't a substance like..." would produce an error just the same. It seems that you would avoid using the term, "substance" altogether because it hasn't been defined.

Weight is information as in the relationship between an object's mass and the gravitational pull of the Earth. The information has no weight. Weight is the information.

Information is first and foremost structured. A pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks, but the same pile laid out to spell ‘this is a pile of rocks’ in structured by the act of laying it out, and is no longer just a pile of rocks. It conveys information — Wayfarer

A pile of rocks contains information in that the pile of rocks is the effect of some prior causes, just as re-arranging them is another cause and their new arrangement is the new effect - meaning that both are just different information - meaning that different causal processes went into creating them. Information is the relationship between cause and effect. There must be some reason as to how the pile of rocks got there for you to observe, just as there is a reason how the pile of rocks spells out, "this is a pile of rocks". The relationship between how the rocks are arranged and what caused that arrangement is information.

Poets should be arrested and put away for a million years...for rule-breaking at such scales and severity. Wouldn't you agree? Where's the language police when we need 'em? — Agent Smith

That's the difference between drawing a picture of an actual event and drawing a picture of a meaningless design. Both are pictures, but only one actually represents something. With one you can show others what was the case. With the other you hang on your wall to show others that you that you have enough resources to waste on trivial things, just like many philosophers have enough time on their hands, thanks to not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from or evading predators, to make art from words. There's a difference between being meaningful with words and being artful with words. Ask Banno and he thinks every use of words is an artful use, as in every use is a game.

We can say (language) things we cannot mean (logic). For instance: The apple is all red AND The apple is not all red! There, I said/wrote a frank contradiction but when I attempt to think it, I draw a complete blank (Zen koans, mushin no shin). — Agent Smith

Because you said one thing and then negated it with the second statement. Each statement on it's own means something, but both statements together mean nothing. Think of not saying anything as the state of 0. Saying something is a positive assertion, therefore 0+1 = 1. Negating what you just said is basically subtracting from what you just said, essentially 1-1=0, so you ended up not saying anything at all. You say something with the first statement and then negate what you said in the second. Your mind only draws a blank after the second statement.

You essentially made a string of meaningless scribbles. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? It is that the scribbles refer to what is the case. If you haven't referred to what is the case, then you essentially have just drawn scribbles on the screen, and didn't say anything at all.

Note that each assertion on their own are both positive assertions. You are asserting what is the case, either the apple is all red or it isn't. By using the second sentence, you negate what you just said. There would be no contradiction if both statements didn't share something in common, as in talking about the same apple and the same color, "red" in that is red or it isn't. There is no contradiction if you are talking about different apples in each sentence, or if you are talking about different colors in each statement. The apple is all red, and the apple is not all green are not contradictions.

In other words, what our our reasons for trusting reason? — Paulm12

For one, you wouldn't be able to communicate if not for reason. Using language is an endeavor in reason.

Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives. — 180 Proof

Yes. And there must be a reason for this.

You won't know until you try.

"Murder" is a legal term, so it comes murder if the law declares it to be murder. — Michael

Would it be better if I used the term, "kill"?

Because you seem to think that there is some set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify a thing as a person, but as Wittgenstein argued, this is a mistake. Instead, we just use the word "person" to refer to things that fit within a (vague) family resemblance, and that there are some things that clearly fit the use and some things that clearly don't, and then other things that sit within a grey area. — Michael

And you seem to think that Witt is a prophet of some sort whose words are infallible. You don't seem to have a problem discerning what Witt said vs. what Witt did not say.

It seems to me that maybe the issue is using the distinction between "person" and "non-person" is the issue. What if we were to point to "capable of suffering" vs "not capable of suffering" as the distinction?

Are you arguing that abortion is always wrong? — frank

Nope. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

What's the connection between our definition of "person" and whether or not abortion is OK? I didn't realise that how we use words is the measure of morality, — Michael

So when does abortion become murder if not by the way we define "person"?

I don't know what you mean here either. All I've said is that there is a very clear difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult. — Michael

Then I don't understand why you brought Wittgenstein into this discussion.

but then there are cases where there's no clear answer (and by this I don't just mean that we don't know which it is, but that there isn't a definite fact of the matter). — Michael

Yet you're saying that there is a clear-cut case between what is discernable vs. indiscernible.

Does "healthy adult" include other species other than humans?
— Harry Hindu

Possibly, if they're intelligent enough. I would think some advanced extra-terrestrial life would quality as persons. But dogs probably aren't (even if they're more intelligent and more self-aware than a newborn baby). — Michael

Then intelligence is another defining factor?

We put people in jail for animal abuse. It's okay to abuse a pig on a farm, but not a dog? Pigs are actually more intelligent than dogs. What about dolphins or apes?

Again, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations re. what is a game. If you're looking for some set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to qualify as a person then you're approaching the issue the wrong way. That's just not how things work in many cases. There are extremes where it's easy to say what is or isn't a person (a healthy adult is, a sperm isn't) and where it's easy to say what is or isn't a game (chess is, clouds aren't), but then there are cases where there's no clear answer (and by this I don't just mean that we don't know which it is, but that there isn't a definite fact of the matter). — Michael

Yet, those cases where it seems to be difficult to say one way or another are rare compared to the all the cases where it is easy to say. Depending on how we define "person" vs. "non-person" the transition between the two can be very brief or very long. What we are trying to do is narrow that window of transition. By doing this and then by giving the benefit of the doubt to the fetus during this transition, we only end up adding a small amount of time to when it is not okay to abort a life.

A healthy fetus in the third trimester has lungs. Is there anything else?
— Harry Hindu

There are thousands of differences between an ovum and an adult human. I'm not going to list them all, and I don't understand the purpose of doing so. — Michael

But I wasn't talking about an ovum. I was talking about a fetus in the third trimester.

There are many differences; a healthy adult has lungs and a fertilised egg doesn't, a fertilised egg is about 100 microns in diameter and a healthy adult is quite a lot larger. — Michael

Okay. Now we're moving the conversation forward!

A healthy fetus in the third trimester has lungs. Is there anything else?

Does "healthy adult" include other species other than humans?

No I didn't. I offered a healthy adult as an example of a person. — Michael

You didn't say it was an example until now. Have any other examples? And after you give those examples, provide the traits that they share that qualifies them as a person.

So the victims of school shootings were not people?
— Harry Hindu

No, how did you some to that conclusion? — Michael

I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between. — Michael

You defined a person as a "healthy adult". Does this also mean that an adult with cancer is not a person?

Yes, there's a difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult. — Michael

You're repeating yourself. What are those differences?

I think a 24 week infant has about a 7% chance of survival even with high tech care. At 20 weeks, there's really no chance. — frank

How is that any different than what I said? If the preemie baby outside the womb still requires care to survive, how is that any different than the care they receive inside the womb?

Whatever you eat must be "killed" either before or during eating it. "Ethical problem"? — 180 Proof

For vegans, yes. They are fine with killing plants for food, but not pigs, chickens and cows because they point to suffering, not necessarily personhood, as the reason to not kill some organism.

What we do is declare that some time before the 20th week when the AC membrane in the lungs is too thick to function, the thingy is not a person. Somewhere around 25 weeks the membrane will work and the thingy can live outside the womb. — frank

What do you mean, "live outside the womb"? Newborns cannot live out side the womb for long on their own. They are still very much dependent on their mother for their survival. If the umbilical cord was severed inside the womb the fetus would survive about as long as if it were outside the womb and abandoned by it's mother. So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born?

I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between. — Michael

So the victims of school shootings were not people?

To even say that there are two extremes means that there must be a distinction between them, or else the extremes aren't extremes at all.

In some legal respects, a corporation is a person. What would need defining is: individual human person., but the fundamental problem is that it's a fuzzy concept - agreement on some specific set of traits would be virtually impossible. For example, I'd argue that a zygote clearly isn't an individual human person, because a zygote is a cell that can produce more than one person (monozyogtic twins, triplets, quadrupelets...), whereas many Christians disagree (a zygote has a soul; if it divides - God tosses in another soul...). So...it seems to me, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's inappropriate to force your opinion upon others. — Relativist

Yet we do force our opinion upon others by having laws that put you in jail if you kill people.

Asserting that there is no objective means of defining a person opens the door for anyone to define it how they want, and then use their own definitions to then kill and enslave others that they do not define as a "person".

It seems that most people here aren't even willing to give it a try, yet their behavior in other threads when it comes to discussions on the treatment of others and respecting the "identities" they assert seems to indicate that they have what defines a person all figured out and then try to impose that view on others.

I'm trying to make it easy by starting off with traits that we know make a thing a person. In talking about extremes, you are admitting that there are easily discernable traits that make one a person vs. not a person. If not, then the use of the term, "extremes", is meaningless.

Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:

Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu

If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person.

Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?
— Harry Hindu

I don't understand this question. — Michael

Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.

Let's say that instead of 5 traits, there are 6 traits. We now have an even number of traits, so it stands to reason that it is possible for some things to have three of these traits. I'm asking what that thing would look like, or if there are any examples of such a thing.

I'm aware that we would first have to agree on the traits and the number that define a thing as a person, and that would be our starting point, but for now I'm simply contemplating the possibilities.

We can see that at one extreme it's not a living person and at another extreme it is a living person, but in between it's just a matter of degree. — Michael

The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth.

Not much of a paradox when you are making a distinction between distinguishable and indistinguishable, nor does it answer any of my questions.


What about the potential of personhood? Does that matter?

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person. — frank

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?

Only if the implication is obvious, which it often isn’t in this discussion. So with the unicorn, it’s not implied. One often has to be explicit such as when you ask if the earth and moon exist without humans which explicitly excludes the implied reference of ‘relative to that which asked the question’. — noAxioms

We are talking about your proposition that "X exists" is a relation. What are the components of this relation if not X and the one making the statement about X existing? There is also the relation between some scribbles and the state-of-affairs it represents ,as in " "X exists" is a relation". I'm assuming that you are using scribbles to refer to a state-of-affairs (like "X exists" is a relation) and that state-of-affairs you are referring to is not more scribbles.

Yea, but then one gets careless and says something like “I exist” which is tautologically meaningless (per Rovelli). My ontology is pretty straight-up Rovelli’s relational view, so most of what I’m repeatedly explaining is that. — noAxioms

Why would "I exist" be any different than "X exist"? You said that "X exists in relation to me". What does the scribble, "X exists in relation to me" refer to, or are you just making scribbles on the screen that don't refer to anything (in other words you aren't saying anything at all)? Are you trying to communicate a truth of reality - something that is true whether I am aware of or agree with it or not? What is your intent in putting these scribble on this screen if not to communicate some state-of-affairs, or some truth about reality?

It isn’t in relation to you, at least not in the Y-measures-X sort of relation. Both you and the unicorn measure Steve (the stegosaurus, remember him?), so you’re related to each other (a bi-directional relation) in that sense. Bryce DeWitt (coiner of term ‘MWI’) would have said that you and the unicorn exist on Earth in separate worlds with Steve being in the common history of both, neither existence being more preferred than the other, but MWI doesn’t define existence as a function of measurement. Only collapse interpretations do. — noAxioms

What is the difference between the relations between Steve and the unicorn and me and the unicorn? I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that the unicorn and I exist on Earth in separate worlds. Are "collapse interpretations" a state-of-affairs? If not, then what are you referring to when you use the scribbles, "collapse interpretations"?

Well, language references concepts, and thus it’s about the concept’s relation to some physical entity or not. I mean, I might talk about how a lion takes down its prey, but I’ve not identified a specific lion, so the comment pretty much associates the word ‘lion’ with the lion concept and little more. — noAxioms

I depends on what you intend to communicate. You couldn't talk about how a lion takes down its prey without watching a specific lion. If you haven't seen a specific lion take down its prey and are just going by what you have heard, is what you heard or read about a specific lion or an abstract one? How do you know how a lion takes down its prey? If abstract lions have no relation with specific lions, then what leads you to make statements about how lions take down their prey? What are you actually saying, or talking about? What is it that you want me to know or understand when reading your scribbles? Do you want me to know what specific lions do or what abstract lions do?

Sure, why not? The name refers to a concept, and like the distant star, doesn’t correspond to anything that I’ve measured. — noAxioms

What is a concept and what is the I that holds it and talks about it? If you can talk about concepts like you can talk about specific lions, then what is the difference between the two if not some measurement?

The latter doesn’t seem a possible outcome of Earth evolution any more than does Harry Potter’s abilities. — noAxioms

What is possible is just another abstraction which is different than what is actual. I'm not interested in what is possible, only in what is actual so maybe we should stick to lions and not unicorns because you could be wrong about what is possible, no? If not, then what you call "possible" is actually "actual".

I’m talking about the mug but must necessarily utilize shared concepts to do so. The existence of the construct that I’ve happened to qualify with the word ‘mug’ is dependent on my measuring it, not on my concept or awareness or naming of it. — noAxioms

You only need to use shared concepts if I wasn't there sitting across from you measuring the mug with you. It would be redundant for you to say "the mug is in front of me" because the existence of the construct of the room with with you and the mug is dependent upon my measurement of the room which includes the mug being in front of you. If the mug is in front of both of us then are we measuring the same mug? If we both say, "the mug is in front of me" are we talking about the same relation or the same mug?

Measurement is about decoherence and has zero to do with awareness. People/conscious entities are not special in this regard. I’ve said this repeatedly. — noAxioms

Strange. How can you talk about measurements or decoherence that you are not aware of? If you aren't aware of some measurement or decoherence, then those measurements and decoherence that you are not aware of that you are talking about can only be abstractions, yet you keep saying that you are not talking about abstractions.

Is awareness a relation? If so, then in what way is the relations of awareness and existence different?
Awareness is a relation which seems to relate epistemological states to sensory input. It has nothing to do with the sort of existence I’m describing. — noAxioms

But that is what I'm asking: what is the difference between the relation of awareness and the relation of existence?

A worldline seems to be an identity, which in turn seems to be an abstraction only. — noAxioms

You've used the word, "worldline" at least a dozen times just on this page alone while at the same time asserting that you are not talking about abstractions. So, every time you've use the word to support something else you've said, what you said is based on an abstraction.

An exchange of scribbles is communication, not a worldline. I’m talking about sets of physical system states, not the concept of them. Sure, you potentially are not human, but some physical process is generating your end of this discourse, not just my concept of these posts. Said process, if not human, I suppose would have a less clearly bounded worldline than would a human one.
— noAxioms

Concept and abstraction are synonyms. You just described a worldline as an abstraction and then now say it's not a concept. These "physical systems states" seems to be what I've been talking about when I use the phrase, "state-of-affairs" and "what is the case". And your use of the phrase, "some physical process is generating your ends of this discourse" is what I mean when I use the term "causation". This discussion is having of problem of moving forward because you seem intent on moving goalposts and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I don't see the world as convoluted or as complex as you seem to be describing it. At the end of all this scribble-making I am no closer to understanding your position than I was at the beginning.

Let me put it this way. What prevents the sum of two and two from being four in the absence of anything to quantify? You have to demonstrate that the postulate above (the one I’m rejecting) is necessary, else I’m free to reject it. I’m not making a claim other than the negative claim of the necessity of the postulate. — noAxioms

I'm saying that the absence of anything to quantify is what prevents the sum of two and two from being four. I'm also saying that the absence of categories is what prevents quantities of anything from existing. In rejecting it you are making a positive claim that there are ways of demonstrating two and two being four independent of categories and the quantity of members that form that category. I've asked you several times now what that would look like. To reject it means that you must have some other idea of what "four being the sum of two and two" is. What do you mean by the scribble "two" and "four", if not some quantity of similar objects the define a category? You used the word, "sum". What do you mean by that if not conclusion of adding quantities? In using the terms, "two" "four" and "sum" you're making a positive assertion about something. What is it?

I've been among the left for the 49 years of Roe vs. Wade and I have NEVER witnessed abortion being "celebrated" or considered a "badge of honor".

Aborting a fetus may be considered a personal medical decision, but it is not a casual, pleasant procedure. Most women apparently consider it a difficult decision--far more fraught than other medical procedures. — Bitter Crank

There seems to be two types of leftists (and right-wingers) nowadays - the moderates and the extremists. The extremists didn't exist 49 years ago.

That was my point in saying that most Americans don't see it as a black and white issue where abortions are to be banned outright, or celebrated as a joyful thing to brag about (as in wearing a "I had an abortion" or "I :heart: abortion" t-shirts). Most of the behavior of both extremes seem more to piss the other side off than to make any reasonable arguments on this topic. They just become more extreme as each side attempts to out-perform the other with preposterous actions and statements, and doing this over a period of decades has led us to where we are today.

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all." — frank

Saying it doesn't normalize it. Many people doing it without consulting others (like god or government) is what normalizes it.

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all.

The question of whether abortion is murder or not hinges on whether one considers a everything from a just-fertilized egg on to a blastocyst on to a fetus with a beating heart but not much more than a neural tube for a brain on to a barely viable fetus, on to an entirely viable fetus is a "person" in the way a healthy new-born is a person.

The fetus-fetish folks think a just-fertilized egg is owed as much legal protection as a two-year od, Hence, the expected moves to outlaw 'day after' pills.

Many people do not grant personhood to a non-viable fetus; some grant personhood to a fully viable (7-9 month) fetus. — Bitter Crank

It's not just about personhood. As I stated before, vegans point to suffering as the reasons that we shouldn't abort the lives of animals. If animals can suffer, then it's not really about defining personhood, but suffering and what organisms are capable of experiencing it.

1. The planet and its plants and animals don't exist for humans to eat it up. — baker

You seem to be implying that you know the purpose of this planet and its plants and animals. Then what does the planet and its plants and animals exist for? In saying such things you seem to be implying that there was some plan for the planet and its plants and animals and it wasn't for humans to eat it up.

This also seems to imply that the state of the planet when humans evolved is the end-goal, or purpose (of the universe, god, or what?) when the planet has changed enormously before humans evolved with most animals species becoming extinct without any human involvement at all. The changes that humans have brought about since their appearance on this planet could just as well be the purpose of the planet and its plants and animals. It seems to me that extinction, or change, is the norm in this universe, so why is it that we consider ourselves and our actions "unnatural", or that the planet is suppose to remain in the state we found it, when humans are the outcomes of natural processes? After all, the purpose could just as well be that AI is the next evolutionary step and that humans, as well as all other life, will then become the energy sources for AI (the Matrix).