There might be a few people here that were impacted by people doing drugs and people committing suicide but I think that’s still more rare than someone being affected by their SO cheating on them. — TheHedoMinimalist

Could you actually put some numbers on this for me, even if it's a guesstimate? ...also, are you going for raw counts here, or severity of the impacts?

The source of "thinking" is consciousness, but what is that? — Pop

Given that the processes behind thought do not appear to be consciously accessible, what does it mean to attribute the source of thinking to consciousness?

Let's try it this way. Imagine a machine performing this toy calculation:

...to compute (A+B)×C.

Let's consider two scenarios. In each scenario, there will be two cases. In case 1, we compute (2+3)×4, using A=2, B=3, and C=4. In case 2, we compute (3+3)×4, using A=3, B=3, C=4.

In scenario one, we will use a toy analog computer that works with continuous voltage. In case 1, we pump 2v into A, 3v into B, and 4v into C. Via this value encoding, and by definition of an adder, our computer's adder must then produce 5v at (A+B); and by definition of the multiplier must produce 20v at (A+B)×C. In case 2, we change the input at A to 3v. The result of doing this must then produce 6v at (A+B), and consequentially 24v at (A+B)×C.

In scenario two, we will use a toy binary computer. Binary computers only have 2-value symbols, so we'll have the inputs be strings of 5 symbols, and let's label the two values 0 and 1. So in case 1, we pump in the string 00010 into A, the string 00011 into B, and the string 00100 into C. Via this value encoding, and by definition of an adder, our computer's adder must then produce the string 00101 at A+B, and produce the string 10100 at (A+B)×C. In case 2, we change the input at A to the string 00011. The result of doing this must then produce the string 00110 at A+B, and the string 11000 at (A+B)×C.

For the machine to work in scenario one, it's insufficient that the input signals on A, B, and C are continuous values; and that the output signals on (A+B) and (A+B)×C are also continuous values. The components absolutely must be capable of distinguishing the input values to affect the output values as required by each computation.

If it turns out that the 2v versus 3v inputs into A don't affect the adder's output at all, then you can't possibly compute addition, or multiplication, or any function that depends on A (aka produces different results for 2 and 3). Likewise for scenario 2, it's insufficient that you are able to encode strings and send them to the adder; the adder absolutely must be able to distinguish all 2^5 values of the strings.

So back to the neuron case, it's firing at different rates, let's say. Okay. But the resulting signals go from neuron to neuron. For it to use 200Hz and 202Hz as distinct values in computations, it is absolutely necessary that there is something in the network that can distinguish those two values to produce different outputs; otherwise, the fact that they are continuous inputs is completely irrelevant.

Now, as I've sketched out before, there probably is indeed a significance here, as in the color perception case. But you cannot derive this simply from the fact that you found some analog inputs going into the neurons, and analog outputs coming out of them. If the neurons don't distinguish the values when reacting, the neurons can't compute using them. The processing of values is critical in a computer.

What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human — Prishon

So, am I typing on a digital computer? My QPSK cable modem uses a continuous signal.

But I have to say that Im on the side of Corvus still. — Prishon

Not sure what you mean by Corvus's side.

What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human brain. — Corvus

You have answered my question! — Prishon

Not really. Corvus is making a similar mistake that Hermeticus made in the first page of this topic; he's conflating analog and digital signals with analog and digital computation.

As a generic example, I offer the internet. In particular, I'm connected to the internet via a cable modem. The cable modem I use communicates using QPSK (quadrature phase shift keying); in this scheme, four symbols are communicated at once over a carrier wave (sine wave) by shifting the phase of the wave. QPSK signaling is digital; however, the carrier uses continuous values. The point being, you can't just assume that since you're measuring continuous values, you've got analog computation on your hands.

Neurons do indeed have continuous valued voltages, but they aren't wires or electric circuits... they're living cells. Neurons communicate using an all-or-nothing principle; they basically either fire or don't fire. A neuron that signals another neuron is firing, and in the act of firing, the neuron releases neurotransmitters along its axis to the next neuron. A neuron that isn't firing just isn't doing that, and in not doing that it does not send signals to the next neuron. These signals involve for the most part sodium and potasium ions, and it is the distribution of said ions that generate the electric charges you measure with probes.

At this level, computation requires transmission of signals, not just having them. My QPSK cable modem uses its continuous signals to communicate 4 symbols, which are decoded/encoded into the 2-symbol values as they start to travel along my network (initially over ethernet). The continuous-valued-nature of the carrier wave is irrelevant, because what actually makes it across is the 4-state symbols. For an example the other way, Hermeticus showed a nice stereotypical square wave, which was presumed to carry the bits 101010 (I'll cut it off there; annoying doing six pairs)... but if I were to use a generic scheme that looked like that to carry digital signals, the wave might be carrying 110011001100; or maybe even just 111, depending on the exact times I'm supposed to be getting the signal out. Neural signaling is even messier, because it doesn't seem to follow nice clean clocks all of the time; how long between neural firings does it take for the neuron to represent three 0's in a row? What if it fires a fraction of a way into the fourth? How does it signal two 1's in a row?

Despite the discrete signaling of neurons, the fact that they fire at some frequency allows for the possibility that there is indeed something analog going on; only, not with the "voltage" as Corvus is oversimplifying it, but with the frequency. The general problem of how neurons communicate signals is referred to as neural coding.

We can sketch how things work by looking at particular areas. For example, the cones in your eyes generally transmit signals based on opsins absorbing photons. There's a particular probability that an opsin will absorb a photon and kick off the cascade, based on the opsin and the frequency of the photon. What this generally means is that if more light is present, more of those opsins will absorb it, and therefore there will be more cascades involving the cone signals. But again, this doesn't trigger continuous signals coming out; rather, it modulates the frequency at which the cones fire. Those signals come out of the cones and travel down through the optic nerve; so it must be true that at least at some points along the brain, the intensity of the signals the cone measured is encoded more or less in the firing rate of those signals. But note that even if this is an apt description of how color perception works at a signaling level, it's inadequate to establish how the brain works overall.

PDP-11 had processor in the form of LSI. — Corvus

Mea culpa; I meant to refer to the PDP-8 as having no microprocessor... the PDP-11 did have one. Then again, I note that you mutated this from "microprocessor" into "processor".

Oh. If anyone is lecturing than it's you. — Prishon

Oh, I am definitely lecturing!

When I get more time I'll fill in a few more details for that quote if you like.

I feel that it is important to clarify the concepts involved in the debate, — Corvus

That's fair. But so is my analogy.

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about — Corvus

I told you it didn't have a microprocessor.

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about in its specs and SW/OS it uses, but you have not given your replies at all. — Corvus

Not true. I told you a PDP-11 doesn't have a microprocessor, an OS is optional (gave you the term "bare metal"), and told you how I did the compiling for that 6800 I programmed. IOW, I am dismantling your arbitrary criteria.

Incidentally, again, the thread isn't about whether brains have silicon wafers in it. It's not asking whether brains run an operating system. It's not asking whether brains run on software written in programming languages. So all of these are fanciful distractions. There's nothing clarified here about how the brain works, and how it doesn't work, and how that might compare to what we call analog computers and what we call digital computers, to be found in these criteria that don't always apply to the things we call analog computers and digital computers anyway.

Why do you see it as lecturing? — Corvus

How is ranting on the importance of establishing clearer concepts, instead of, oh I don't know, actually trying to do that... not lecturing?

Which leads to the elephant in the room. Why is it so unclear to call the TR-10 an analog computer?

I think I have given out the clear reason why analogue devices are not computers with all the necessary conditions for being computer in one of the posts with the HW and SW specs. — Corvus

Nope. You basically said, all swans have white feathers. That thing has black feathers, so there's no way it's a swan.

Your definition is one of niche and habit; not generalized applicability. If we're going to discuss whether the brain is some form of analog computer, we're probably not going after whether it has a microprocessor in it; and despite your diatribes, philosophy isn't hanging in the balance over whether or not we count the brain as a non-computer because there's no silicon wafers in it. You are lacking all sense of proportion here.

I don't expect you trust me. Never said that. — Corvus

You're lecturing me, virtually calling me a clueless wiki-zombie, despite my explicitly giving you my criteria for rejecting your definitions. Which still apply.

It is a principle in philosophical dIscussion. If one reject that, then there is no point. — Corvus

But you're not doing any philosophy here. You were directly asked what was so confusing about calling the TR-10 an analog computer. Instead of replying, and giving an argument, you chose to lecture me on how trusting random blokes on the internet yada yada yada, yada yada yada. In other words, you went on a tirade, which is not an argument.

If you're serious about clearer concepts, get to it. If you're just going to lecture me on how mindless you think I am, I've got more important things to do than tease your fantasies of me. You don't accomplish anything meaningful by patronizing me.

But do you think the brain is an analogue unit? — Prishon

The brain is the brain. It's probably not useful to think of the brain as a digital computer or as an analog computer.

Computers must have, — Corvus

The PDP-11 did not have a microprocessor.

For SW, it must have the OS for the central instruction processing and ROM (booting) — Corvus

Nope. The OS is absolutely unnecessary. Usually this is referred to as bare metal.

And computers must be able to process data, and take new instructions via the programming languages. — Corvus

Also unnecessary. I recall using the hex keypad to punch machine code into the 6800. Yeah, I did actually write a program first, but I did the compiling, not the 6800.

Now which analogue device is equipped with above components and capabilities? — Corvus

Irrelevant. This is yet another round of barking out requirements that are absolutely not requirements, then pretending you have a gotcha.

My point is that rather than accepting the concepts and ideas from the Wiki or other internet sites just because they have typed up and uploaded unto there, — Corvus

Philosophy forum is an internet site, you are a "they", and I don't accept your ideas just because you typed it up here.

but why not try come to the knowledge by discussing and arguing for the clearer concepts and conclusion with the philosophical and logical discourse. — Corvus

If you are after "clearer concepts", let's start with what's so unclear about calling the TR-10 an analog computer.

The meanings and concepts reveal in this process seem far clearer and logical than some unknown bloke written out and put them on the net. — Corvus

You're giving me the wrong lecture. I'm not buying what some unknown bloke (Corvus) wrote out and put them on the net (philosophy forum). Why should I trust you?

The most significant difference between analogue device and computer — Corvus

You're begging the question here.

the computers have microprocessors equipped in. — Corvus

Not all of them.

What microprocessor did TR-10 have? — Corvus

None. The TR-10 includes interchangeable plug-in components including coefficient setting potentiometers, integrator networks, function switches, comparators, function generators, reference panels, tie point panels, multipliers, and operational amplifiers, as described in the operations manual.

Is there a point to this game or are you just going to indefinitely annoy me? You mentioned something in just the last post about confusion. Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you.

Normally I go with the dictionary definitions on most concepts, but wiki? I don't trust wiki sorry. — Corvus

I judge wikipedia's definition the same way I judge yours. Wikipedia's definition is good by this criteria. Yours is wanting.

And in my profession, I have dealt with myriads of analogue devices — Corvus

Everyone deals with myriads of analog devices. I interact with SSD's all of the time in my profession. This has nothing to do with your definition.

For computers, they must be able to store, retrieve, compute and search for data, and process them into useful and organised form of information. — Corvus

Then (a) what would you call a TR-10? (b) Given everyone else calls the TR-10 an analog computer, why should I care what you call a TR-10?

OK, if you are desperate, you can call an ancient abacus a computer. — Corvus

Second time... the TR-10 was commercially sold as an analog computer. That goes in the established usage bucket, not the desperate relabeling bucket.

But due to the misuse and widening of the concepts, you will find that the confusions will never go away in the discussions and even in real life. — Corvus

What confusions? The biggest confusion here is your weird claim that to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer, followed by denying that what everyone else calls an analog computer is an analog computer. If that's the confusion you're talking about, I have another idea of how to resolve it.

At the end of the day, there is the TR-10. We call things like the TR-10 analog computers. There's nothing here to be confused about, and outside this brief lesson on linguistics, there's not really anything interesting here.

All computer is digital device by my 1st order definition. — Corvus

Well that rules out analog computers (as well as quantum computers), but it doesn't sound like it's talking the same language as people who use terms like "analog computers" (including you) and "quantum computers".

Give us your definition of what "analogue" and "computer" is. — Corvus

It's given in the links already provided to you. Here's a definition for "computer":

A computer is a machine that can be programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations automatically. — Wikipedia, Computers

Here's a definition for "analog computer":

An analog computer or analogue computer is a type of computer that uses the continuously variable aspects of physical phenomena such as electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic quantities to model the problem being solved. — Wikipedia, Analog computer

...and as for the standalone definition of analog, it's a red herring. Analog computer is a compound term with meaning and referents. The usage of the compound term establishes the meaning of it.

For a decent definition of computer in modern times, computers must be able to store, search, compute, and recover data for its minimum functions. — Corvus

You've got this entire exercise backwards. Terms get their meaning from established usage. Per the established usage, the TR-10 is referred to as an analog computer, not a meter, and not a vintage recording machine. The quality of your definition comes from its ability to describe the established usage... so it's kind of futile for you to argue that because you define "analog computer" as a square circle, the TR-10 is not one. The absolute best you could do with this argument is to argue that an analog computer doesn't match your definition of a computer, which is uninteresting.

Per linguistic standards, insofar as your definition does not fit the established usage, its your definition that's wrong. And by wrong, what I specifically mean is that it fails to describe the established usage of the term. It's fine to have local, arbitrary definitions, but if that's what you mean when you say this:

I am not sure if analogue computer has ever existed. Every computer ever existed in history is all digital from my knowledge.
Can you list some examples of analogue computers? — Corvus

...then all you're saying is you have not seen a square circle. So what?

It sounds like the time when nobody knew what computers was, or was for. — Corvus

No idea what you're talking about, but:

The PACE TR-10 was developed in 1959.
The ALGOL computer language was originally developed in 1958.
The first computer science degree program was in 1953.
The Association for Computer Machinery was founded in 1947.
The ENIAC was from 1943.

Really it looks like too grossly far fetched definition of computer from the modern definition we are familiar with in any shape form or meanings. — Corvus

Which modern definition exactly? The most popular kind of computers are digital computers, but to say you have never heard of an analog computer in the history of human kind, where analog computer means digital computer, is a bit weird and meaningless. To "philosophically" only count a computer as a computer if it is a digital computer is a bit ridiculous.

Was it using the punch cards for the data storage? — Corvus

No.

I suppose you could call a horse cart as car, saying that it has wheels, moves and take you from A to B. — Corvus

That would be changing the standard usage of terms. But that's not what's going on here. The TR-10 was commercially sold as an analog computer, as you can clearly see from the operator manual cover. That would make you the one changing the standard usage of the terms.

If anyone comes with the picture of the old electronic analogue meters or vintage recording machines, and call them analogue computers, — Corvus

Cute narrative, but that is not what happened. I linked to a museum manifest and a wikipedia article. I've yet to call anything an analog computer... I linked to other people calling things analog computers.

But I'll be happy to do that:

This is a picture of an analog computer. More precisely, it's a picture of a picture of one; that picture being from the operating manual of a TR-10.

That was my point mate. — Corvus

Sorry, I'm lost. First you were saying to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer. Then I gave you a listing of them (a museum manifest), and you said those were not computers, "just" electric devices. I then linked you to wiki articles, and you mumbled something about teen nerds. So I said there's nothing debate... and that was your point?

Do you have something interesting to say or not?

Goos examples of reasons not to trust anything you see on the internet sites.
Could have been written by the teen nerds. — Corvus

There's nothing to debate here.

They are just electrical devices, not computers. — Corvus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

So, no we cannot see the human brain as computer. — Corvus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

I am not sure if analogue computer has ever existed. Every computer ever existed in history is all digital from my knowledge.

Can you list some examples of analogue computers? (if there had been any in real world) — Corvus

https://www.analogcomputermuseum.org/

I find the "brain as computer" metaphor as useful as everyone else. — Bitter Crank

I often like to remind people that before "computer" was a type of machine you bought with a keyboard and monitor, it was a job title.

Do my senses communicate me "00100100" or "10101010"? — Hermeticus

Cute picture. So, your digital picture shows 101010101010?
Or does it show 110011001100110011001100?
Or is it 111000111000111000111000111000111000?

Or are you making unwarranted assumptions?

This! — Hermeticus

...not quite. Neurons do indeed tend to "fire" or "not", but they quite often fire at frequencies which can increase and decrease. Furthermore, neural firings are affected by their local chemistries, and there's a lot of chemistry going on in the brain. Said chemistries often work at the level of individual gates on the neurons affecting the relative concentration of ions across the cell barrier. It's overly simplistic to conclude that neurons must be digital just because they fire all or none.

The amount of energy it has isn’t related to the distance it travels. — Benj96

I think you're emphasizing the wrong thing. The significance of the photon traveling large distances on a cosmic scale is not that the distance is large per se, but rather that there is a red shift due to the expansion of space, as you note here:

But the Hubble constant is based on the idea that the wavelength (distance) per unit time is increasing because the space that must be travelled through per unit time is expanding. — Benj96

But now we get to this:

What I’m saying is I don’t think redshift (decrease in frequency) of a photon necessarily means the energy of the photon must be lost. — Benj96

Why not? What's wrong with this argument that the energy of the photon must be lost?: E=hf. h is a constant. f is going down. Therefore, E is going down.

Well I know a photon cannot lose energy unless it interacts with a particle. — Benj96

This just implies that the lost energy isn't going to particles that the photon interacts with. Okay. So where is it going?

Incidentally, the mainstream view of this is that energy conservation is not guaranteed on cosmic scales. One way to look at this is that conservation of energy isn't fundamental, but rather, is a consequence of a case of Noether's Theorem as it applies to time translation symmetry. Locally, time translation symmetry holds, and therefore conservation laws implied by it holds. Cosmically, it does not hold, and therefore conservation laws implied by it do not hold. All of this suggests that Noether's Theorem is more fundamental than COE; COE is simply a local consequence of it, and wrt this thread, well, whatever things you want it to suggest (I shall not speculate on the theology of Noether's Theorem, but, it seems you're hanging your hat on a few misconceptions of energy and COE).

The space through which the frequency is travelling is stretching therefore the frequency appears to decrease - red shift. As for the energy of the photon I’m not sure if it has necessarily diminished — Benj96

So you're not sure if E=hf?

"who pressed the button" — Corvus

Isn't that a "leading question"?

And of course if you refer to everything as energy then truly it cannot be destroyed just converted to heat or light or sound or maybe a different form of matter. — Benj96

Photons are packets of energy. The energy in a photon is directly proportional to its frequency; E=hf. Given that, here's my question. When a photon travels large distances on a cosmic scale and red shifts, where does that energy the photon originally had go?

No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Both the broken eggs and the omelette are consequences.

God's actions brought about the consequences.

Which includes both the omelette and the breaking of eggs.

If good and bad can only be judged by the end result, the suffering is not actually bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not consequentialism. This is:

Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Your definition doesn't say that good and bad can only be judged by the end result. It says that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.

Consider the following:

Slicing into my body with a knife is bad. A thug on the street that does this while mugging me is committing an evil. A surgeon OTOH doing the same thing to remove a cancerous growth is doing something good. A surgeon serial killer who kills 30 people and saves 50 lives definitely does bad things.

All of the statements made in this paragraph are consistent with consequentialism... the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. Quite a few of those statements blatantly contradict the notion that good and bad can only be judged by the end result. "Slicing into my body with a knife is bad" is judging something without an end result. "A surgeon serial killer who kills 30 people and saves 50 lives definitely does bad things" is judging people by some means other than the end result. But every moral judgment in that paragraph is judging moral actions based on their consequences; killings of victims are actions with more harm than benefit, stabbing and mugging is more harm than benefit, and removing a cancerous growth is more benefit than harm.

Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not quite; you still have this mixed up. A theory might have a proponent. The proponent would believe the theory is true; and give arguments for the theory. But an argument is just an argument. Arguments aren't true or false; they're sound or unsound; or valid or invalid.

You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, about that?

I think the Problem of Evil persists, bearing in mind the flipside - the eternal suffering in hell (which is never just punishment for finite offences), and also non-human animals that will not experience the eternal good of heaven to make up for their suffering; and many non-human animals have horrendous lives. — Down The Rabbit Hole

...this is one of your times you said the POE persists. But POE, the argument, never mentions hell; it just appeals to the omni's.

A) So if our existence "results in more benefit than harm" that's good, not bad, and if it results in infinitely more benefit than harm, it is infinitely good. B) In either case there is no bad for an omnibenevolent god to care about. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The "so" in A doesn't belong. This is not consequentialism; existence is not an action. B does not follow from A.

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — Down The Rabbit Hole

Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action.

This is one thing you keep confusing. Consequentialism isn't about denying that harm is bad; it's about judging actions. Under consequentialism, a surgeon isn't doing something bad by operating, because despite the harm the surgeon causes, there's an overall good. The harm is still bad; the benefits are still good; the consequentialist simply doesn't judge the action as bad. The action is judged as good because there's more benefit than harm resulting from it.

AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting. — Down The Rabbit Hole

It doesn't matter that it's not the same. Insofar as there are differences, they are irrelevant to your argument that there is no bad if overall there is more benefit than harm. Consequentialists, by the way, would judge each killing of this serial killer is bad; because each of those actions cause more harm than good. It would not magically say bad doesn't exist because a net 20 lives were saved. As far as what you're arguing, consequentialism does indeed say this. Omelettes = lives saved, broken eggs = victims. It's not a perfect analogy, since you actually use those broken eggs to make an omelette. But you're not arguing that dependency; you're simply arguing bad does not exist if overall there's more benefit than harm (in stark contrast to consequentialism, which argues that an action is moral if it results in more benefit than harm).

It means it's no surprise that you insist The Problem of Evil is (as a matter of fact) a problem as opposed to leaving it more humbly as an argument that there is a problem. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What are you talking about? The argument that there is a problem is the problem of evil. Incidentally, if there's a definition of humility, I'm pretty sure it applies no more to the random internet guy that solved a 2000+ year old problem by not solving it than it does to the other random internet guy that doesn't buy this because he hasn't heard a real solution.

The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Right and wrong here are moral judgments. And consequentialism generally works by judging an action as being good if it results in more benefit than harm; or bad if it results in more harm than benefit.

If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That does not follow. In fact, the very fact that harm is compared to benefit in consequentialism is a recognition that harm is bad and benefit is good.

The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're advancing severe misunderstandings of consequentialism.

It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

...if we applied this criteria to humans, nobody would ever accept it. A serial killer who kills 30 people, who works as a doctor to save 50 people, we would judge as a person who does bad things. We would be insane to call such a guy omnibenevolent. Nevertheless, overall, this person saved a net 20 lives. Your argument, however, demands I recognize those 30 murders as not being bad given that a net 20 lives were saved. This is an absurd argument.

Says you, a proponent of The Problem of Evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's meaningless.

Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's a fair definition. But look at it. Consequentialism is defined as a position on the morality of actions; i.e., it is dealing with moral good and moral evils.

If God is a consequentialist, the broken eggs won't be bad, the omelettes are all that can be good or bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Wrong. Consequentialism would be judging the morality of an action, not a product. The action would be making an omelette. Methinks you're confusing moral evils with natural evils or "benefit" or something. (Incidentally, the problem of evil applies to both moral and natural evils).

Metaphorically, breaking eggs would be called a harm in consequentialist analysis. Producing an omelette would be a benefit. And there's still a question of why there needs to be any harm at all, which you are completely dodging. An all powerful being need not break eggs to make an omelette. So why do any eggs ever get broken? That's the problem of evil, and that's the question you're dodging, not answering.

That's the exact disagreement we have been having: whether good or bad only apply to the consequences. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, the exact disagreement we have is whether or not you solved the problem of evil. "Good" and "bad", being just words, can be redefined to be anything you like, but defining away a problem is not solving it.

Yes, those that advocate The Problem of Evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

There's a mismatch here. To advocate is to recommend or support a position. The Problem of Evil is a problem, not a position.

What I am saying is that an omnibenevolent being may not care about whether a particular instance should be labelled as "bad" if overall nobody experiences net-suffering. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What I'm trying to convey to you is that this "being", that being an English word, that you are adding the English adjective "omnibenevolent" to, does not have the "all-good" property as we human English speakers use the terms if said being allows for evil unnecessarily.

Maybe god is a consequentialist, that only cares about the result. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not equivalent to what you're proposing, but it doesn't work either. If God's just breaking eggs to make omelettes, the problem would be why it would be necessary to break eggs. If God doesn't care about the broken eggs, God's not omnibenevolent. If God has to break the eggs to make the omelette, God's not omnipotent.

I'm saying nothing different than this, btw: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"

Maybe that's what it boils down to: you think things are bad, even if the consequences are not? Maybe it's my consequentialism clashing with your moral principles? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Obviously not; see above. Maybe you're just wrong?

I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means.

If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, it doesn't matter. Assume infinite puppy births, but one puppy murder. Why was there a puppy murder? If the gods allowed it, they are not omnibenevolent. If the gods couldn't prevent it, they are not omnipotent. If the gods didn't know, they are not omniscient. Note that the infinite puppy birth assumption here is completely irrelevant to the problem.

In the grand scheme of things none of it is really bad or evil as people are not left worse off. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, in your OP you explicitly have a mathematical model of how this works. Translating your above claim into its mathematical analog, you're trying to pitch to me that in the infinite sum, none of the terms are really negative, as the sum is positive. I find that mathematical translation dubious. So if your claim doesn't work in your own analog, why should anyone be compelled to agree with it?

To be honest, neither of us really knows if an all-good god would care about technical "evils". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Sorry, I don't see the honesty you're referring to. If a being has the power to prevent evil, but does not exercise that power, said being is ipso facto, definitionally, disqualified from holding the label omnibenevolent.

From my perspective, you're asking me to simultaneously forgo all qualifications I hold for the label omnibenevolent, and to apply that term anyway to a god for some reason. That ask is a non-starter. As for addressing the problem of evil, this is more reminiscent of just pretending there isn't a problem than solving it.

I think where we disagree is you would call things bad or evil even if the subjects that experience them are not left worse off in the grand scheme of things? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Almost. It's not quite a matter of what I personally would consider bad or evil; this is more what the problem is. The whole point of the problem of evil is to resolve why there are evils in the world at all, given that this is evident, and given that there's a being alleged to have the three omni's.

I think where we disagree is you would call things bad or evil even if the subjects that experience them are not left worse off in the grand scheme of things? — Down The Rabbit Hole

This doesn't make sense.

-157 + infinite good = infinite good — Down The Rabbit Hole

Analogously here, evil is negative. Good is positive. The sum is positive, and that's what you're arguing. But to say that the 157 here isn't evil is analogous to saying that the term there is positive, because the sum is infinite. That makes no sense to me; what gives? Even in your form, those 157 thingies are surely things that have to be made up for, right? Given this model, is this not correct?:

-157 + 156 = -1 = slight evil
-157 + 157 = 0 = neutral
-157 + 158 = 1 = slight good

I don't see how you can say that the evil is "made up for" and also that the evil "doesn't exist", and claim that you're using logic and math here.

This is what I mean by practical badness, badness that leaves the subjects that experience it worse off, as opposed to technical badness, a "badness" that is made up for. — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's not convincing to me. This logic wouldn't work with raw mathematical concepts. I can't just say that -157 is "practially negative" because the sum -157 + 156 is negative, but -157 is "technically negative" because the sum -157 + 158 = 1 is positive. I see no difference in the -157 in the two equations; -157 is -157 is -157, and it's negative.

The analogy of making it illegal to drunk drive after drinking vs vaccine mandates. — Tuckwilliger

Because wouldn't forcing someone to get the vaccine and accept the cons of the vaccine be different from forcing someone to not take the benefits of driving home. — Tuckwilliger

Hopefully this makes sense. — Tuckwilliger

What you're saying makes sense, but it seems weird to point out. There are a lot of non-analogies between these two things; you're just pointing out a particular one.

For example, drunk driving is already illegal. But making drunk driving illegal is not really forcing people not to drive drunk; rather, you're "threatening" people with legal consequences not to drive drunk. Likewise, it's not a given that vaccination mandates are equivalent to force-vaccinating people; maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it depends on what you do to mandate vaccination.

If I drive drunk, a cop might see me swerving all over the road. They could pull me over and make me take a breathalyzer. If I'm over a legal limit I could face consequences, from a ticket to license suspension to jail time. If I'm not vaccinated, it's kind of undefined how I'm detected by the authorities, or what happens. Without outlining this it's kind of hard to compare, but I think jumping straight to forced vaccinations is premature.

There are also different risks and concerns between the two. A drunk driver primarily is feared at higher risk of getting into an accident. Generally, after an accident, your car quickly comes to a stop; whatever damage is done in coming to the stop is the concern, and that might be severe, but you have one vehicle doing that damage. With COVID there are at least two concerns... spreading it per se, and saturating hospitals.

You are effectively saying things are intrinsically bad — Down The Rabbit Hole

Nope. Reread my posts. I'm abstracting out what bad means greatly. "Puppy murder" and "puppy births" are essentially metasyntactic variables.

I'm not relying on any sort of evil being intrinsic. The POE abstractly is simply what Epicurus was talking about in that translated quote I gave earlier, which I'll repeat here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? — Epicurus

I'm directly replying to your notion that the logic and the math supports you. Your logic and math is given in the first post. Evil here is simply being treated as a thing that comes in units; Johnny's 4 apples is your 157 evils as in this:

-157 + infinite good = infinite good — Down The Rabbit Hole

Good here is being treated per your op as another thing that also comes in units; Johnny's infinite oranges (as in that same equation). You're so called logic and math is the absurdity that because:
-4 + infinity = infinity
...it follows that Johnny has no apples. And it obviously does not follow that Johnny has no apples.

Is this not your logic and math?

I think when most people give standard examples of The Problem of Evil, they are talking about the practical badness as opposed to a technical "badness". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Googling for "practical badness" and "technical badness" gives me 287 hits. I'm 99% sure these are personal terms you just made up. Care to define them?

As for "most people", it doesn't stick. There are a lot of people in this thread who think you're in the wrong. Epicurus's presentation of the POE is canonical and sounds nothing like what you are describing. We're discussing the problem Epicurus raised over 2 millennia ago.

To summarize
...insofar as your presentation of the POE:

-157 + infinite good = infinite good — Down The Rabbit Hole

...does not map to what Epicurus is talking about:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? — Epicurus

...it is not talking about the problem of evil.

As for those 157 anythings-in-your-157-term-in-your-equation-in-your-op, each of those things is an Epicurusian "evil", as in "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?".

As long as you accept that good can make up for the bad, for example a better life can make up for all the hard work in getting there, it's just a question of how much, and the infinite good of the afterlife will always make up for any finite suffering. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not even close. In fact, if I accept your criteria, there is literally no limit to the amount of evil a being could commit while you're still calling the being omnibenevolent:

-999999999999999 + infinite good = ..... — Down The Rabbit Hole

-10^15 + infinite = ...
-10^15 - 1 + infinite = ...
...
-1 + 2 + -1 + 2 + -1 + 2 + ... = ...

And it's absurd. An all truthful being apparently can tell lies using this formula. An all spotless being can have spots. An all x being can have arbitrarily large non-x. No mathematician would accept this. All x doesn't mean an infinite amount of x; it means there is no non-x.

We don't have logic and math here supporting your theory; we simply have a confused poster distracting himself with a sum into thinking that things he concede exists don't. If Johnny has four apples, and you give him an infinite number of oranges, Johnny still has four apples.

-10 + infinite good = infinite good
-157 + infinite good = infinite good
-258958 + infinite good = infinite good
-999999999999999 + infinite good = ..... — Down The Rabbit Hole

=
all good, except for those 10 times = not all good
all good, except for those 157 times = not all good
all good, except for those 258958 times = not all good
all good, except for those 999999999999999 times = not all good