So is your point that camouflage is not a perfect solution? Prior to your comment no one had mentioned the reguirement that the solution would have to be final or perfect, so why are you bringing it up?

Could you explain your claim of camouflage not being a solution to being seen by predators, which from the view point of the prey might appear problematic?

So, you can't show my statement was unclear. — Thanatos Sand

I just did in that comment.

Only clueless people think people making statements have a responsibility to prove their clarity. Smart people know it is on the onus of the critic to show how the statement is not unclear. — Thanatos Sand

Ok, somewhere in this thread I have flawlessly proved that the bread you ate was actually God in the form of dinosaur. Is it now your responsibility to go through all my comments word by word, and then quote them and your thoughts to prove I didn't prove that? Of course not.

That nothing comment you made didn't counter my correct statement in any way. So, "yes." — Thanatos Sand

That comment was not a counter, it was an analyzing of your comment to prove it's not the one comment explaining which one of my options is your opinion, because you didn't even explain which one of your comments was supposed to contain your opinion on the question.

This is incoherent nonsense made even moreso by its lack of sufficient syntax. — Thanatos Sand

Ok, it's complex because of long sentences and formatting but you earlier said it's the critic's responsibility to prove the flaws.

I said I didn't want to talk religion, ghosts, and spirits in this discussion. — Thanatos Sand

Funny, considering they're essential to the subject.

The human mind is not the same as A.I.s. It's cute you think they are. — Thanatos Sand

I don't, and that was the key point of my comment. And then you claim I'm the one who should improve my reading :D

I didn't respond because it was goofy nonsense like the goofy nonsense you repeated about it. Eyes are part of the body, binoculars are not. It's very odd you don't get that. — Thanatos Sand

They're both merely means of delivering information to your brain, which then interprets the information ignoring its source. One is created biologically by your body while other is not which is irrelevant. It's very odd you don't get that.

So, Ciao, as I said above, I have no interest in addressing your nonsense any further, so I won't be reading or responding to your posts on this thread. — Thanatos Sand

We'll see about that, if you really were as tired of arguing with people you disagree with so strongly you consider their opinions to be nonsense as you sound, you'd have finished this discussion much earlier.

Back to the body being external and other subjects:

If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else. — Thanatos Sand

If you don't want to discuss with people you disagree with, why use internet forums?

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body. — Thanatos Sand

Similarly to how consciousness (strong AI) can't be created by algorithms, it can't be created by matter and energy.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it. — Thanatos Sand

You didn't respond to my binocular argument. Information is either brought to brain from outside it, so that the information is external to the brain, and there's no difference between it being brought via the nerves or a binocular or wires in your head, or it's created within your mind/brain so it's internal.

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time. — Thanatos Sand

Or you could quote the part where you so clearly point that out. Not only that, you could even give a one word reply that'd clarify everything. But nah, I'm the one who needs to analyze your comments to show you haven't unequivocally made it clear. Fine.

one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves. — Thanatos Sand

Neither option is incompatible with that statement so no.

You perceive something externally when it is external to you. — Thanatos Sand

Same as the other one.

The rest of the comments are outside the timeframe where you've claimed to have made the question clear or are not directly related. If you disagree, reply with the quotation where you state your view. Your comments also include general disagreement with me, which I think you think implies either option, but it doesn't.

Either you by perceiving externally refer to perceiving external information regardless of whether it is perceived internally or externally, or you're claiming that there's no difference in how internal and external pieces of information are experienced by the human mind. You've made it clear that you think external things are always perceived externally and internal ones internally, but that doesn't imply either one.

So there you go, can I now get the one word answer: former or latter?

Believe God = heaven and Not believe God = hell are not essential features of religion???!!! — TheMadFool

That's not what I said at all. I said that's not the definition.

Well, your version of God is in stark opposition to what people think of when they hear ''God''. My argument is about the latter. — TheMadFool

Well your definition isn't how people generally define God either. It's what people generally think but not what is generally used as a definition.

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue. — TheMadFool

How do you define God? God could be defined by his/her/its actions as well for example. We call the being whose son Jesus is God.

You did not make it clear at all. Am I to assume the former?

Did you really have to ask that. You perceive something externally when it is external to you. — Thanatos Sand

"perceiving something" + adverb refers to how you perceive the information, not to the source of information, so by "perceiving externally" do you refer to perceiving external information, or are you making the assumption that the human mind is capable of with certainty to know the source of information by the perception, assuming there was a hypothetical difference?

And of course the human body perceives; the human eye sees, the human ear hears and so on. — Thanatos Sand

You could as well say that when you use binoculars, they're the ones perceiving the light. No, they're only transmitting the information, and similarly the eyes then transmit the information to your brain etc. Human body does not perceive information, human mind does.

You many not see the point in making that distinction, but many people do and have. It's a key distinction in phenomenology from Hume to Kant to Husserl. And you may personally define external thought any way you like, but you can't expect others to use or accept that definition. — Thanatos Sand

Then explain how does one perceive anything externally. I see the point in making the distinction between internal and external thought, not between perceiving anything internally or externally.

And the human body is not external to the human; it is the human itself. — Thanatos Sand

Human body is external to human mind. Human body perceives nothing, human mind is always the one to do perceptions. Thus human body is external to the perceiving entity.

I don't see the point in making the distinction between perceiving a thought internally or externally as the perception is internal and thought is the same thing as perception of thought. Whose thought it is is defined by in whose mind its origin is in. By external thought I refer to a thought of someone else but the thought itself is of course internal.

As for the stomach pain, human body is external to the human and imo there's no difference as to how it's perceived and how the world outside human is perceived.

Now that I have your attention, you can't have external thoughts of someone else because you're not aware of thoughts separately from them, thoughts are (part of consciousness) which is conscious of itself. I think anyone could see the difference ("see" there is a part of an expression, not as in literally see) between being conscious of their own consciousness and that continuum of consciousness being broken by external thought or feeling of which one would then be conscious of.

*Steps into a bar*
*Sees a fight*
*whispers* Stomach pain is perceived via senses -
*Terrapin throws a chair at me*
*continues* ... but it's an external feeling
*Agustino slips on the table shocked and gets thrown out of the window*

Anyone who voted yes, I bet that I can reply to your replies to this comment. €50, have we got a deal?

Objective to us humans doesn't mean the same as objective.

As I said pain is defined by is unpleasantness. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and unpleasantness's negativity is subjective.

It is not that pain is negative or bad, but that it is defined by its unpleasantness. — Andrew4Handel

And unpleasantness as a word itself implies you consider that to be negative.

Lack of consent and pain are real things not opinions. — Andrew4Handel

Of course, but their negativity (or rather its negativity, but this is off-topic) is an opinion.

So the only option is moral nihilism — Andrew4Handel

No, because nihilism is different from pure and absolute subjectivism. Besides, nihilism (and maybe subjectivism that only rejects moral theories, not morals) is the only stance on morals that is fully supported by logic and facts and you don't have any argument that disproves it as a valid theory, just that I'm making moral decisions which you can't prove.

Well who am I to be blamed when the discussion seems to take a direction entirely different from what I had expected? With people making comments that are both intelligent and have a scientific basis, all there is left is to make a religion on memes.

Now that I think of it, there is one point of view I could evince which is that maybe we should instead be studying other fields of science with memetics. The problem is the fundamental error in memetics, which is the assumption that humans are the ones to create memes, when it's quite the opposite.

Ok, let's talk within the assumption that generally pain is a negative thing. Then why is avoiding negative things and harming others objectively bad thing? Even doing something because one has motive to is rational only subjectively.

By that reasoning infamous serial killers would be, shockingly, moral! This you won't concede. — TheMadFool

What if I do? I think they are immoral but that's my opinion, I won't accept that as a fact. Some of those serial killers think they're moral. Societies have opinions on morals but they're not objectively true.

Pain is defined by being an unpleasant sensation. — Andrew4Handel

Actually it is not, and there are people who like pain although they are a minority.

Because "God" is the word used to refer to the creator, not "god", it's just a matter of proper English. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, god can mean either the creator or a god that did not create the world. God with G refers to the Abrahamic God, not any god that created the world.

The sense of morality is based on reason. For example, rape is wrong because it causes pain and deprives the victim of basic human dignity. — TheMadFool

And why is pain a negative thing? That's a subjective opinion.

I don't see your point — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must there be God, instead of god, that created the world?

you are a Banana! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

*gasp* How did they find out?

So that is a fancier way to say "This statement is false"?

Let's say a+b=5, where a=2 and b=3. Did a+b=5 because a=2?

Eating is overrated.

Why is it not possible to subscribe to threads here?

as I said before — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sorry, I have bad memory.

Hard to say anything to that.

Is it possible to subscribe to a thread in these forums? If not, why?

But take at a look at now. All the above are now considered immoral universally. — TheMadFool

Um, just no?

God is logically necessary, as the creator of material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, god is logically necessary, as the creator of material existence. What a big difference capitalizing one letter can make.

If you want to make a claim that is a logically correct conclusion of OP's thoughts out of that, you have to rephrase it so that the potential person might, in future, be happy that they exist, in which case you accidentally have an actual working argument.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? You took the opposite premise of what the OP has, trying to make an opposite claim that would be non-sense, but your argument ends up working, thus proving OP to be right. Therefore your attempts to refute antinatalism without attacking the premise itself have failed.

Are you serious with that argument?

I don't think so 8-) 8-)

No, they describe a contradictory situation.

Excuse me, what is this thread?