fetuses are persons — TheMadFool

Fetuses physically resemble human people, just like the moon sometimes looks like a face but it's really just a hunk of rock.

A human != a person.

Well if you add up all the suffering of 7 billion people over long periods of time it would be more than the nuke eventually. Especially considering that as we keep growing in number all of us individually suffer more. — khaled

This is assuming life continues to exist as it does, and that nature does not take a different course.

besides I only brought up that point to show how ridiculous negative utilitarianism can be — khaled

Fair enough.

With NU I can’t justify NOT nuking the entire world of you get the chance much less not killing children. — khaled

If you nuke the planet, you guarantee a certain amount of suffering with the hope that it will prevent some greater amount of suffering in the future. But you can't ever be sure it will, since you're gone. Oh well, what's done is done, I guess.

But anyway, all of this assumes a whole lot about humanity, e.g. that it has a manifest destiny to save the world, as if humans are masters of the world and not simply a product (or an abberration) of it. Instead of letting nature run its course and aligning their will with that of nature's, humans must undergo this Promethean effort to wrestle nature into alignment with their will.

A rationalization of what?

I largely base my ethical groundwork around the basis of negative utilitarianism, in minimising potential net suffering. — JacobPhilosophy

Do you really? Do you actually live your life according to these principles?

So the entire content of the RNC was: Trump Is The Best. — Wayfarer

Correction: "America is the best, and nobody has done more to protect and advance it than President Trump."

:vomit:

I was thinking that even after we get a vaccine (if we get a vaccine), it might be a good idea to continue to wear a mask when in indoor public areas, as a courtesy to other people. Like how you wash your hands after using the restroom, or cough into your sleeve. It's easy enough to wear a mask, and doing so could prevent other people from getting sick. This could become part of expected basic hygiene.

I imagine if pathogens were visible to the naked eye, we would all be more concerned about not spreading them. But because they are microscopic and invisible, we don't worry - out of sight, out of mind.

That comic reminds me of the covers of the classic Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools, aka the "Dragon Book", back when compiler design was still a lively, active field, which accurately described how designing a compiler could feel like:







Unfortunately, the newest version went off in a totally different direction for whatever reason:



There's also another classic "Dinosaur Book" for operating systems that has fortunately held on to its traditional cover art, most of the time. Fun stuff.

The World in Your Head: A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious Experience by Steven Lehar

My thinking on this is that "nothing" is a non-sense term. "Nothing" - the absence of things; yet there is still something left over, that "background context" that differentiates "nothing" from "something".

The question isn't "why is there something rather than nothing?" but "why is this something rather than another?", which is a question for science. There always is something.

An aside, and maybe this is better suited as a separate thread as suggested, but have you read David Gamez?, and if so do you have thoughts on his dialogue over primary/secondary qualities?

oh my god this is beyond stupid

I owe my life to music.

Primary properties it seems enter into discussion in a quite different way to Secondary properties - the simplest way to set this out is to say that the later is More subjective. — Banno

David Gamez in What We Can Never Know provides three common reasons - and refutations - of Lockean primary/secondary properties:

• Primary qualities are more stable than secondary qualities, so therefore ideas about them resemble how things actually are. This is a non-sequitur, since all this shows is that primary qualities are more stable than secondary.
• Primary qualities tend to be perceived by many senses (e.g. shape with sight, sound, touch), while secondary senses are perceived only by one sense (e.g. color with sight), so therefore ideas about primary qualities resemble how things actually are. Once more this is a non-sequitur, and even undermined by physics, which postulates objective features of the world that are not perceived by any senses at all (e.g. radiation, magnetic fields, etc).
• Secondary qualities are can be experienced differently by different people, while primary qualities tend to be experienced the same way across people. Again, a non-sequitur, as while this may show that secondary qualities are not objective features of the world, this is not an argument for the resemblance of ideas about primary qualities to reality, since there could be an invariant connection between how a phenomenon is and how it is modeled in our minds, which prevents it from being modeled in any other way.

Later, Gamez pace Mackie claims that Locke believed in the primary/secondary quality distinction not because of these arguments, but because of the empirical success of atomism + mechanism. Science is successful due to measurement and the mapping of a manipulation of abstract symbols back to reality, but this does not tell us whether our ideas of primary qualities resemble the way the world is.

Take Boyle's theorem, PV=k. Pressure is found by finding a ratio of the effect an object has on a glass tube of mercury, while volume is found by comparing the dimension of an object to a given standard. But pressure could be found based on the sound of the gas, and volume its color, as long as they map to the same numbers. Both methods would give the same predictions.

The non-sensory matter that is the hypothetical source of signals and phenomenal matter belong to different worlds and we have no evidence at all for any resemblance between them. [...] Ideas of space, time, matter and motion accurately predict the transformations of our ideas, but within virtual reality we have no reason to believe that our idea of space resembles physical space, that our idea of time resembles physical time, that our idea of solidity resembles physical solidity, or that our idea of motion resembles objective physical motion. From the standpoint of human knowledge we have to treat the real world as if it had a completely non-sensory nature. — Gamez

e.g. it is unimaginable, in that Kantian way.

Good book imo, maybe you'll like it.

I go back and forth on this a lot. One thing I've come up with is that "meaning", as understood even within the confines of this idea of life having meaning only in the present, is a concept that stems from some sort of metaphysical "meta-meaning" situation. We thought life had meaning in relation to an afterlife, but now we've amended that, and, using the same language, we say that life only has meaning in the now. And then it gets twisted up with some concepts borrowed from Hinduism or Buddhism. — Noble Dust

Interesting. I have had the thought that the "meaning in the now" is second-rate in comparison to some ultimate transcendent purpose, kind of like salvaging whatever we can.

On the other hand, I have also thought that meaning derived from the future is "horizontal", while meaning derived from the present is "vertical". The present has depth, the future has breadth. The present is real, the only real, but is fleeting. The future is never real, but always eternal. Whatever we don't have now, we can project into the future. The present slips through our fingers, and the future is a mirage. Neither one is exactly what we want or need; any search for meaning necessarily falls short. This is the burden of time-consciousness.

I'm a little drunk right now so idk if that made sense.

It has meaning now.

Sure. To (some) pessimists, living is the postponement of death - a procrastination of the inevitable, a patient preparation. Death is something to be done right - with courage and dignity.

Joining the party late, so pardon me if this was already discussed (and please point me to where it was).

Many people at my workplace are restless from stay-at-home, and have begun to very vocally express their skepticism about the severity of the pandemic. As far as I can tell, the underlying points include:

• Most people who get COVID-19 will recover (so what's the big deal?),
• Influenza kills more people than COVID-19 does, and influenza already has a vaccine (so what's the big deal?),
• There are known and effective treatments for COVID-19 (so this is all just hysteria).
• Many of those who are counted as deaths from COVID-19 actually died from something else, but happened to have COVID-19 in them when they died (so the statistics are exaggerated).
• The damages to the economy due to the quarantine will hurt more people than the pandemic will (education, recession, etc),
• The state does not have the right to control the behavior of the population in the way it has been doing, and that doing so is a slippery slope into tyranny.

I am not so dumb as to express my opinions at work and risk alienating myself from people I have to work with every day, but my views on this are:

• Tens-of-thousands of people could still be alive if we had acted quicker, and enforced the shutdown earlier. These deaths can be directly attributed to negligence.
• We should be glad COVID-19 is not as bad as influenza, and be glad that influenza has a vaccine. Deaths are still deaths.
• WHO would disagree.
• I cannot say I have an opinion on this one, only that I trust the word of an epidemiologist over the word of a programmer smh.
• If damages to the economy hurt more people than the response to COVID-19, the blame is not to be placed on the response, but to those who hoard a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and refuse to distribute it to those who need it most. Furthermore the pandemic is made worse because of this wealth inequality.
• LOL at this point.

What do y'all think?

More riddles...

Circulation and respiration require the brain to function, and vice-versa. The human body is a system after all.

The cessation of circulation, respiration, and brain activity (which includes consciousness).

It's not complicated, I don't think. What's the difference between a normal leg and a broken leg? One is whole, the other fractured. One holds weight, the other doesn't.

What's the difference between a living body and a dead body? A dead body by the definition of clinical death does not circulate blood or breathe. The same body can be alive one minute and dead the next, because of a change in its components.

What's the difference between a dead body and a living body? — TheMadFool

What's the difference between a broken dishwasher and a functional dishwasher?

A dead body is one that is not alive, ya know, doing stuff that living things do.

It can't be the body since the body is, in death, as it was in life. — TheMadFool

Nah, a dead body is not the same as a living body, it's no longer alive.

This begs the question. You have to already assume the mind and body are separate things in order to be able to subtract the body from the mind.

The brain before death = 1.5 Kg.
The brain after death = 1.5 Kg.

The brain when awake = 1.5 Kg.
The brain when asleep = 1.5 Kg.

There is no problem when the mind is part of the brain. Sometimes the brain is online, and sometimes it is not.

The solution to the mysterious mind-body psuedo-problem is not to separate mind and matter, but to redefine what matter/mind are so one becomes the other.

What are "bad reasons" for suicide, versus "rational reasons"? — Noble Dust

IDK, I think a large part of it depends on how long someone has considered it for. Is it a spurt of the moment thing that they're liable to fuck up, or is it a decision based off serious reflection and planning?

In other words, are they an amateur, or a master?

Are they sure?

"Opting out" being a metonymy for suicide? Or no? Correct me if I'm wrong. — Noble Dust

I dislike the term "committing suicide", it sounds like a crime. "Opting out" is more humane.

I'm wondering where you're getting all the moral imperatives from. — Isaac

The same place anyone else gets moral imperatives from, their own reasoning.

Well you're free to ignore whatever you please.

Some people kill themselves for bad reasons, and they ought to be offered help if possible. At the same time, other people kill themselves for completely rational reasons, and so helping them doesn't make any sense.

Making that distinction can be hard, which is why you should offer help. But it's not your place to interfere with someone's destiny. Ideally there would be ways to opt out that aren't so makeshift and clandestine. Just like how there should be ways of having abortions without coat hangers.

What can be done to normalize it? — Anthony Kennedy

Dialogue.

Why 'should' they? — Isaac

Because over a million people attempt suicide every year, and countless more think about it every day.

Should we be "sensitive" enough to realize when someone doesn't "want" a helping hand and let them end it? — Noble Dust

Yes, people should be more acquainted and comfortable with suicide. It shouldn't be this "other".

Suicide is threatening to the established order of things. God, it'd be nice to live in a world where people freely discussed how much they hate life without repercussions, where life is widely seen as a huge pain in the neck, and suicide (opting-out) is as acceptable as abortion and homosexuality. Instead we have all this repression and insincere fake-it-till-you-make-it bullshit.

Well to be sure, both feeling that one's life is useless and attempting suicide are pretty shitty. You should reach out a helping hand to those who might need it, but also give someone the dignity to determine their fate as they see fit.

There were some romantic German Weltschmerz philosophers who discussed suicide - Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, Mainlander, etc. Might be worth looking into. If I remember correctly, Mainlander thought suicide was the path to salvation.

Also check out Cioran and Leopardi.

Yeah, I think having good moral sense is similar to having good common sense, mathematical sense, or any kind of intuitive knowledge. Those who lack it have something messed up in their heads, i.e. psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. 2+5 is 7, going up takes more effort than going down, and hurting people is wrong.

I mean only what's also called "moral universalism", which is just the claim that, for any particular event, in its full context, there is some moral evaluation of that event in that context that it is correct for everyone to make, i.e. that the correct moral evaluation doesn't change depending on who is making it. — Pfhorrest

The correct moral evaluation does change depending on who is making it, given how they are. A child is not responsible for things an adult is. All things being equal though (an imaginary abstraction), I would say I believe that morality applies universally.

I remember a few years ago admiring W. D. Ross' theory of prima facie duties. It seemed to fit better than any other moral theory I had read. There are a plurality of goods and duties, like beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, self-improvement, gratitude and fidelity. These are objective things that give us reasons to perform actions but often contradict each other. So while the right thing to do exists, it is not always clear what it is.

Well the goal of evolution is to survive and reproduce, no? If we actively avoid procreating, we will become extinct, not because we were unfit for survival, but because we believed it right to do so. — JacobPhilosophy

That just means we are not fit for survival. Survival isn't important if you think about it enough.

The issue is if you try to convince others they should not. Even worse would be acting in such a way that people were forced to not procreate, or punished for doing so. Which I don’t think anyone here has advocated for, but it seems a logical conclusion to me. If procreating is bad, then one should prevent it whenever possible. Just like if murder is bad, one should prevent it whenever possible. — Pinprick

Nah I don't think this follows. Just because someone is doing something bad does not mean I have any moral duty to get involved to stop them. I didn't ask to be here, and I hate cleaning up messes other people make. I have enough to worry about in my own life, so I mind my own business and let others do their thing.

But surely I am justified in trying to convince people that doing something is wrong, if I believe it is wrong? I should have the freedom to discuss my opinion, and others should have the freedom to disagree or ignore me if they choose. Maybe anti-natalism will gain traction and become more than an obscure internet thing.

Vive la révolution anti-vie!... :scream:

...for first world countries to get the fuck out. — Banno

:ok:

Personally, I don’t like strict negative utilitarianism. — Pinprick

So for me, there’s more to consider than just potential suffering. — Pinprick

So it’s too difficult to know, and I’d rather not base my decisions on such an uncertainty. — Pinprick

Every decision involves a certain degree of uncertainty.

Having a child involves both the certainty that the person will suffer, and the uncertainty of how much so.

Not having a child involves the certainty that the person will not suffer, and the uncertainty that...?

That the person may enjoy life is not relevant; it is wrong to gamble with another person's well-being. Those who never existed are doing fine.

It is a concept more horrifying, even than death itself, as it contradicts evolution and leads to existential questioning. — JacobPhilosophy

On this point, extinction does not contradict evolution, as evolution has no direction or purpose. If a species goes extinct, its members were no longer fit for their environment. They are unable - or unwilling - to continue the game.

Could it be argued that extinction isn't only not unethical, but the only way to guarantee the removal of unethical practices? — JacobPhilosophy

Yes, it can, and it has been.

I see it this way: if it is a guaranteed way to eliminate suffering, without consequence, why aren't we partaking in it? — JacobPhilosophy

Anti-natalism will likely always be a fringe belief. It contradicts the natural instinct to replicate.

I’m just pointing out that the statement “If we continue to procreate ethical actions will also continue” is factually true, as is its inverse. Therefore, both fail to establish much persuasive ability. — Pinprick

If we continue to procreate, unethical behavior will continue. The inverse is not true and establishes its persuasive ability.

Why should I be more concerned about the potential suffering an unborn person could experience by being born more than the potential suffering those already born could experience by not procreating? — Pinprick

Presumably because the potential sufferings of an unborn person can and often do exceed (in great proportion) the potential sufferings of those who do not procreate (because they do not procreate).

That is the question: What is the use of reading something that the author himself has made illegible? — David Mo

So you can score brownie points with your peers by coming up with a new interpretation of the text, duh. :roll:

Colorado made masks mandatory in public spaces, thanks Polis. Late is better than never I guess.