Sam Harris podcas — WaterLungs

I never heard about him until this moment. The podcasts look so interesting. Also I see he has books with striking titles. I will check it out deeper in the following days.

I think this question goes far than mathematical criteria. Probably we should focus in terms of luck.
Probabilities and chances depend about of how we want to assume if the goals/recognition we get depends somehow of “luck”
How many luck do I have in terms of passing the next exam? It depends in how increases our probabilities while we study more or less.
Conceptually, when we check the definition of probability in Oxford dictionary, it redirects you synonym that is called “likelihood” which says the chance of something happening; how likely something is to happen

It is interesting how literally says “chance”. This is why I guess the significance of probability depends a lot of “opportunities to do something”

For example, during hallucinations we feel colors more vividly, the same colors of our day-to-day experience, but in a more intense way.
those same colors of everyday life are experienced with more intensity, giving a "metaphysical tone" the experience like something magical? Or making us realize there's no difference between the common and the metaphysical? But a spectrum of experiences with a continuity? — WaterLungs

Well I think this happens because we are making our brain to work/act faster than actually it does. If we see the colours more vividly is due to a distorted perception of reality. I even think taking drugs or whatever stimulation don’t provide us the fact of living metaphysical experiences. Keep in mind that there are people who take a lot of drugs but do not perceive this dilemma we are talking about.
This context depends in every human knowledge and their development. If we say there is a metaphysical world we previously think about it. It is an effort to go farther than tangible reality.
Colours are there and will be there. The different spectrums of experience will depend about our behaviour.

Novel with cocaine. by M. Aguéiev.

- To make a coffee you have to act as someone who believes that coffee is real, not real in the ultimate metaphysical/epistemological sense, but real ENOUGH in the sense that: — WaterLungs

I understand your point and what are you trying to explain. I guess when I am making a coffee I believe in it in a tangible aspect. The colour, the smell, the taste, etc... of the coffee. Nevertheless, despite it could be so twisted, that coffee and all of the characteristics can drive to me to a metaphysical behaviour. For example: While I am drinking this coffee it gives me memories of when I was in Chicago summer holidays. Nostalgia. so they are sometimes so connected.
I guess the important fact here is try to put a division between the reality as it is (enough believe) and then all the metaphysical/epistemological experience.

but a common sense acceptance that we need to suspend disbelief temporarily, to continue living life without questioning everything. Otherwise we couldn't leave our beds, because we would be trying to rationally justify/find a reason or a purpose to every single action we take. Here nature is important, were alive because breathing is automatic and doesn't depend on rational deliberations: a radical skeptic would die if breathing depended on his epistemological certainties.
- I think Hume describes this much better than me: — WaterLungs

Interesting point of view. So you think basically that common and custom things we do all day shouldn’t be questioned because they are already accepted. Yes. It is true that David Hume explained this situation better but I guess his intention was literally the opposite. When Hume wrote the next example: if I put my hand in a hot pot I will burn my hand all the times I do so but this is reason is something the custom of doing it gave to me I guess he was still questioning everything despite can be mad as you say.
Not questioning everything around us could make us being simple

Why do I live?
Why do I dream?
Why do some people die younger than others?
Why do I debate?

Etc...

We lose the ability to take the world for granted and stop believing in those common sense truisms we all agree on NOT QUESTIONING, for discussion sake - to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs

Examples of which common sense we (supposedly) all are agree?

to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs

I think you will like check this article in relation of your questions and debate: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

I have another Anscombe article! Inevitability both a joy and a frustration. This one is Causality and Determination. — Banno

It seems so interesting. Thank you for refreshing and sharing it again months later. I will give it a read :up:

why do many philosophers think that desires give people reasons to act and not other phenomena like pleasure or suffering for example? Finally, why think that our current desires give us reason to act but not our future desires? — TheHedoMinimalist

True. I guess there are some philosophers here that are misunderstood. They try to put explain desire with reason when probably in the initial phase they aren’t even connected. However, I think it depends which philosophy we are speaking about.
Plato was the most important philosopher in terms of spreading idealism. It is interesting how he developed the art of having ideas (desire) for other ideas in the future. But I guess this is very complex in practical terms because when I say: I wish I am happier! literally I am having a desire of another desire, but... somehow I will end up using praxis to get this goal. It is abstract but I think humans only act pursued by desires. As you perfectly explained here.

.

Many philosophers such as myself don’t see how our own desires give us any more reason to act than say the desires of others — TheHedoMinimalist

Probably this happens because somehow we are also practical humans so we are forced to put those desires in tangible life through the reason.

The kid on the island can figure out that (for instance) he can get the fruit of a tree by shaking the tree, instead of climbing up on it. — god must be atheist

Agree. The brain can help us to make the right action when we have to reasoning. Nevertheless, I think the experience is also important here. Most of humans learn because previously they failed doing something. Probably the brain of the kid interpreted the good choice was shaking the tree because previously climbing the tree was dangerous and then he was hurt in the floor.
What I want to say is that sounds difficult (not impossible) that the brain quickly gives to you the most reasonable action instead of exploring all circumstances previously.

Consider Nagel’s assumption that “we all believe that bats have experience”. Am I wrong to object and argue bats have nothing of the sort? that his famous essay is a round-about way of saying humans do not have bat bodies? Or should I forgive him this, and say “Well, it’s the limitations of language”? — NOS4A2

I understand your point. No, of course you are not wrong. Probably I am even the wrong here. I guess we have the right of object and debate about everything about around us. The core situation here is not doubt about others theories because this is somehow inner in all philosophical works. But at the same time we don’t have to find the language as guilty because how complex could be.
People, themselves, are complex by nature. I don’t know how exactly explain it but I think humans love to do this. Complexity over complexity because we all always want to improve ourselves.
Maybe... ¿?

Is the sacrifice of pleasure worth becoming able to try to answer such questions? — Nikolas

Interesting question. Really. I think in this point we have to consider how far the pleasure goes in our lives. Some would consider that pleasure is selfish while others maybe think it is good because it drives us to human satisfaction.
Trying to answer your question I would say yes. Specifically in this one

What must I do?

When the word or verb must appears we need somehow sacrifice something. Probably our own pleasure to confront others. I guess this could be one of the steps to promote a community.

would be subterfuges as well, such as Nihilism. Would you agree with this statement? — Georgios Bakalis

Not necessarily. The point here is not searching subterfuges at all. It is just the act of living a life but without the hope of something extraordinary. When someone dies it doesn’t come to my mind if he or she goes to hell or haven. The human just dies. This what I apply in the the other complexity as destiny or values, etc...

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis

No.

is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? — Georgios Bakalis

I am atheists because I don’t believe in any subterfuge. I don’t think the world is predetermined by a powerful entity or divinity which somehow rules what is going on in earth.
Also, complex situations in our lives as “good or bad actions” “justice” “poverty” “wars” should be consider as it is not trying to look at answers from a subterfuge again and over again...
So, I just don’t believe but my intention is not wanting it or avoiding it the belief itself.

but should philosophers try to avoid nominalizing verbs and adjectives lest they risk leading others astray? — NOS4A2

I think not. Nominalising verbs or adjectives have the goal of creating complex words and then introduced it in our vocabulary. When we are speaking about consciousness, darkness, happiness etc... we are debating about something that happens in our lives. I guess it is not as simply as say “the body experiences” because somehow goes farther than it.
Maybe this is the beauty of our vocabulary. This exactly happens when we see a paint in a museum. Aren’t we do the same as nominalization? We create words which drives us in another world bigger than the tangible.
Consciousness is complex. Yes. But not only due to our vocabulary but all the information, doubts, theories and debates we can extract from it.

It appears that the reason we fight, the reason for the arms race, is rights to resource. The world's population is growing exponentially and the per capita slice of the pie is shrinking rapidly and no prizes for guessing what lies at the end of that road. — TheMadFool

Yes. Exactly. Some decades about when we saw it in movies it looked like sci fi but we will be witnesses about this big problem. I mean, States could commit world wars due to water or food. Back in the day was about power/nationality. Nevertheless, these topics will have zero value in the future.
It is clearly how we are losing all the natural resources and only the strongest will get or at least hold larger quantities.
I would sound conspiracy but imagine more wars about the domination on Mars. Countries are literally putting millions and millions of money trying to get power over there.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god. — RogueAI

My best is on cosmos beyond physical world or god

real problem which is mutual animosity among the tribes of men. — TheMadFool

True! One of the biggest fails a State ever created was the point of start creating conflicts with the purpose of surpassing others. A good example we can bring in this topic is the Gulf War back in the 90’s. Firstly, it looked like that everything started because Sadam Hussein dropped some gas bombs in the north of Irak killing an ethnic between 1988/1989. This was clearly an act of racism and execution for minorities. But, surprisingly, most of the countries in the world randomly started a war near Irak and Kuwait. Politicians back in the day lied to us. They say many stupid things as “nuclear bombs in Irak” or “trying to implant the peace there”. The reality was different.
We all know the huge profit some developers of weapons got back in the day. It is even scary how while some anonymous rich people were plumping their pockets, Irak and some other Middle East countries were fading away into ashes.

So... which was the profit of those anonymous for killing literally thousands of lives? We will never know it. It is a secret.

I guess it is even a circus that pantomime of “nuclear proliferation”. Just political stuff.

It is time to respect each other. We can do it. If we are somehow disagree in whatever reason we can debate with words and diplomacy.

Can you use math to describe philosophy? — Huh

Philosophy = ∞

I think here the weapons are not the problem at all to preserve or destroy the worldwide peace. It is about the military service or how some countries develop their military infrastructure. They put millions and millions in their revenue. So it depends a lot of how conflictive that country could be.
For example, Switzerland has the military service and also the right of having a weapon with themselves but this country is not known as violent or having controversies along the world. There are other countries that don't even have military system as Iceland.

So... I guess one objective should be remove all the weapons from all of those countries which are obsessed with military development because in the long run could be dangerous.

As @Pfhorrest explained to you is necessary logical to the the function of the world. Aristotle explained in his writings that "one object cannot be a different object at the same time"
Well this premise fits here. There is something because this is the world we live in and then, we can't say there is nothing at the same time.

What are the reasons of them being good and bad?
How do we distinguish one from other? — RBS

I guess to try to answer this complex question it depends a lot of your knowledge in ethics. "good" and "bad" are terms which fluctuate a lot along the decades. For example: in 1900 the women didn't have right to vote in the elections. Now, this is consider "bad" but back in those days were "good" and accepted. But not necessarily, there were always been a lot of people who despite the circumstances they tried to redifine the concepts of good/bad with the objective of establishing an equilibrium.

If it is related to each individual then not all goods are good and not all bads are bad. — RBS

You perfectly nailed it here. Nevertheless I guess there are general terms that are consider bad for the normal people. For example, killing each other, making wars and animal abuse. I think if someone interpret these actions actions as good they are just illness.
But the complexity comes when we are speaking about more abstract/dilemma terms. Is it good steal money from a corrupt politician? Or is it bad because I would act the same way as the corrupt one? Hmm...
Sometimes the narrow line between good and bad is free to interpret.

Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ? — 3017amen

I think yes. Probably out here there is only one truth in the end of the day. We can call it tangible world (for example) that show us to how truly is, without any kind of interpretation. Nevertheless, humans tend to be so abstract because we are capable of living in two worlds: tangible and abstract (or ideas) because our amazing knowledge provides us this skill. Using the ideas we were creating a lot of important things along our existence. But these are free interpretation. Every person, itself, will has their own language but the same reality. Some would agree in a same point, others probably don't but it is still good because there is nothing bad about seeing and speaking the same reality with different language.

I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... . — 3017amen

Interesting thesis. I guess with this implication everything would be easier because we would be capable of using vocabulary in the most objective way and then avoiding all interference. This, our subjective vocabulary. But this would be hard because humans love to have ideas and be abstract along their lives.

Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. — Athena

But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.

So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa.

If not, could our search for what we think of as the "soul" be somehow related to a connection between dimensions. — Steve Leard

Interesting hypothesis. But I would like say "Supreme" figure (or God to the religious ones) instead of soul because this soul has to exist necessarily in all the connected worlds in our human bodies. Then, I guess we have to find out who or which is the ruler or host in this context.

Cogito ergo sum... If I am aware (or think as you say) that I am in a phone/computer screen, then I am literally doing it. This mechanism helps us (more or less) to understand what we are doing right now.
Also, when you say

. It is possible that you are dreaming the very same experiences that you are now having. — Aoife Jones

Not necessarily. I think this is why with our vocabulary we identify as "dreams" because somehow apart us from reality.
If randomly I dream something that I will experience in the next 4 days I would call it dejavou. Then, reality tend to be previously of the dreams we have

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth? — 3017amen

Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing.
Also, I don't know if we are able to express truth just with language. I guess here is important the art of evidence and theorizing. For example: I can tell to you is impossible go to the Sun because their high temperature would kill us. Here you can say it is just words despite it is true we cannot travel to the Sun. Then, I decide create a robot which can at least take photo near of the Sun orbit. Later on, I show you the evidence why the Sun could kill us.
It is true that here I use a lot of evidences but it started with just words. What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered?

2. The experience of going to a museum with a friend and see the same paint. For example, Saturn eating his own sons by Goya (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo)

As you explained previously, language is very important for not only communicate with others but for understanding all the stimulus perceive for us.
When we are experiencing some ineffable feelings as a paint it is important our background in terms of culture vocabulary. Probably for someone, when they see Saturn eating his own sons would think is scary or even horrendous so the vocabulary and then language could be "basic". But if we are someone who loves art and general culture we would give it another perception explained it with different words.
I do not want say here one is better than other. I want to explain that the own criteria in culture will affect the language and its vocabulary.
Then, and it is just my guess, only those who wants to improve their knowledge could have in the long run more chances to avoid "ineffable" but beautiful things as paint, art, music, sculptures, etc... Isn't it the beauty of language?

Freedom is the answer - not oppression. — counterpunch

Sure freedom is the answer but with some limits too.

Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that: — counterpunch

It is not the same when someone is already pregnant than other does not. We are speaking here about preventing it not sacrifice all of those who are already pregnant.

If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids? — counterpunch

It is an utopia because despite of irresponsible of some parents they will end up having kids. It is like a natural decision. We don't have and not improve the scenario where the people should consider more about having kids because it isn't a simple issue. That's why is an utopia. I trying to put arguments in something that won't work at all.

With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse. — counterpunch

I am agree with you in this point. I also said it previously. I think the key is all about a good sex education system. This would prevent not only unnecessary borns but sexual illnesses.
What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. If someone has already a dangerous background or life all this stimulus will affect their kids too. This is the reality.
Imagine a child born in a broken family with a lot of violence, drugs, bankruptcy, etc... Around him all the days. These stimulus will only make him a delinquent or probably a killer because their parents are not responsible enough to make the child a normal person because the life of the parents are not even normal.
Also you can say here that this literally could happens in rich or wealthy families too. Sure yes, but the ratio is lower we have to be honest.

If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Yes. The past still be there. It doesn't matter the new circumstances. With this premise you are literally saving that those lives taken are not worth enough if now the serial killer is a renovated man?
I guess no. He should be prosecuted.

It is a free open answer. Also, it depends of which philosopher are we influenced of. I guess when they explain

right reason

it refers to all of these thoughts that wouldn't make me feel like I am

mistaken

. I mean, the purest dorm of reason.
For example, Descartes said that right reason is equivalent to reality and then he estated that reality is something that despite your are dreaming you are not wrong (Descartes put as example in this context, geometry).
In the other hand, John Locke, as empiricist, thought the right reason comes from primary attributes then we are taught what is a right reason.

So, in this point, it is so open define what we should consider as a right reason and everyone can even make their own answer.

The story has a lot of symbolism about Japan in the 60's (if I remember it properly) but the most interesting fact is a group of friends who appear in the book and have a deeply conversation about anti-natalism in Japan. I remember even a quote when a friend of Naboru Kuroda (main character) told to him: having children in nowadays is something we cannot allow. This is why this debate remembered me about Mishima book.

I am going to recommend to you, if you don't mind, a book which is about this topic and the story is pure brilliant. The book is called The Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea by Yukio Mishima.

[img]http://

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

Hello! Yes I understand your point now. It is interesting this point because somehow remembers me an utopianism because it is impossible here preventing now having kids in the long run (we have some countries that literally promote this actions due to religious beliefs...) I accept the fact that not accepting all births is quite totalitarian and impossitive.
Also the fact of non-existence person before birth. it is similar to random probabilities. We only can argue here that probably only win those who will never experience in their consciousness that they ever existed/born.

I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility

How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?

Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids.

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so.
Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this

I guess sustenance. Absolute antinatalist is quite impossible because there will be always Kids (even more in so religious countries) but I would consider give a chance ti selective antinatalism as you explained previously.

we need at least two people for morality to make sense.

Interesting! Because you defend morality is an act which necessarily needs a reciprocity. I never thought it that way because I always feel that morality is something that abstract which is inside the inner thoughts of each person. There are even people who don't even believe in morality at all so probably those don't want to share it with others.
Also agree with you in this point:

To my knowledge, no moral theory has a good enough explanation why suicide is immoral despite insisting to no end that it is.