• Trouble with Impositions
    ↪schopenhauer1
    I get where you're coming from - we already exchanged a few posts on the matter of the nonexistence-existence asymmetry.

    To pick up where we left off, I agree I would do everything possible to prevent a mother from birthing a child who is going to end up in a boiling lava pit.

    However, in the same vein as it were, would you prevent a child being born in heaven? No, you wouldn't, oui? In other word, if you're consistent and you should be, a possible person whose birth you prevented is, for certain, deprived of the happiness s/he would've experienced.

    View it from the perspective of potential for enjoyment/suffering.
  • Trouble with Impositions
    ↪180 Proof
    :lol:

    ↪schopenhauer1


    Look at it from the angle of potential - once you recommend antinatalism for reasons such as the possibility of suffering, you'll also have to advise natalism for children who'll be happy. It's only fair to do so.

    If you insist that with respect to antinatalism no one exists to be deprived of joy and hence my objection fails to pass muster, I'd be forced to respond likewise - no one exists to benefit from not being born into a life of pain. You can't have your cake and eat it too is what I mean. Be consistent and antinatalism has no leg go stsnd on, oui monsieur?

    If existence can be imposed, so can nonexistence. A little gedanken experiment is in order. Imagine you know for certain that a child about to be bern will live an enchanted life, perfectly happy in every possible way. Would you not do your utmost to ensure the birth of this child? This demonstrates, in my humble opinion, that antinatalism too can be immoral.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪180 Proof


    Computable universe, yeah, that's what Gnomon seems to be referring to. As far as I can tell that's what creation boils down to. Consider the simulation hypothesis - I find Nick Bostrom's argument quite compelling - is still in the game, Gnomon's thesis can't be ignored/dismissed so easily, oui?
  • Trouble with Impositions
    You aren't forced onto a sports team though. How is this not a violation if you were? Even if it was seen as a benefit if you joined the team. Not only is it a violation of the individual by overlooking the very agent who this is affecting, but it is exactly the kind of aggressive paternalistic assumption I am talking about where another gets to decide for an individual what the conditions are for them (whether for a cause or otherwise). — schopenhauer1

    Yup, giving birth to someone is to force that someone to play a/the game (of life). To that extent it (life) is an imposition.

    Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that not giving birth to someone who could've enjoyed life to the fullest (suppose his/her parents are super-rich) is also a privation. This too is an imposition of sorts.

    Another point I want your views on is there's a likeness between antinatalism and abortion and we all know the latter has been equated to murder. Is antinatalism murder? At the very least it is a kind of preemptive euthanasia.
  • The unexplainable
    Hence, I believe, ancient Iranians, Zoroaster at the helm, had to posit two, Ahura Mazda & Angra Mainyu, instead of, as the Hebrews did, one (YHWH). The logic is rather simple - one hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate for the rich mix of patterns nature seems to possess. Either we propose multiple explanatory models à la scientists or go Zeno (of Elea) and declare that some of what we observe are illusions.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon
    So you don't want to disturb the peace so to speak. You're happy with existing paradigms such as materialism, spiritualism, etc. and would like to preserve instead of discard/replace 'em. However, doesn't that mean your thesis makes no practical difference whether it's true/false?
  • Trouble with Impositions
    ↪baker
    The confusion is understandable. Mea culpa.
  • Trouble with Impositions
    If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself
    — Agent Smith

    This is what is so dismal about the pronatalists.

    If life is so great, why can't they give a good reason for it? Why the exhortation to kill yourself if you don't like it? Why the implying that you're mentally ill if you have second thoughts about having children?     — baker

    Indeed! Pronatalists can't formulate an argument for their position based on how things are (rampant suffering).

    However, to play the devil's advocate, they can ask us to treat humanity as an individual that makes sacrifices now for rewards in the future; a logic very similar to that of athletes - pain now for glory later.
  • Does solidness exist?
    From what I can gather from the OP,

    1. Solidness is some kinda physical-defining property.

    2. Fundamental particles aren't solid.

    Ergo,

    3. Fundamental particles aren't physical.

    4. The mind is, if physical, something that hasta do with fundamental particles.

    Ergo,

    5. The interaction problem?, what interaction problem?
  • Is this even a good use of the term logic?
    ↪musicpianoaccordion
    All that I can say is that a logician's moves are those that make victory necessary while a non-logician's moves are those that make victory possible.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon
    Would I be correct if I were to say that your metaphysics (ontology, etc.) is grounded in epistemology (information/knowledge)?

    Lest I forget, :up: for your sense of humor.
  • Is refusing to vote a viable political position?
    Those whose answer to the OP's query is no! are under the (false?) impression that abstaining (from voting) implies/is tantamount to undermining/rejecting the democratic process. There's a grain of truth in there for refusal to participate in a system, any system, sometimes means that the system has failed to deliver if you catch my drift.
  • A way to put existential ethics
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Maledictionem bonitatis: Having to be immoral to survive (re ought implies can) and never being able to forgive yourself for that (re conscience).
  • Trouble with Impositions
    I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?). — Tzeentch

    One of the many puzzles I haven't been able to solve. Do we (really) need to know sorrow in order to understand joy and vice versa? In a sense knowing how unpleasant the sensation of pain is, I value painlessness that much more. Similarly, having experienced pain-free times, my dread (of pain) is aggravated.
  • Trouble with Impositions
    I'll give you that. :up: — Tzeentch

    Danke!

    What do you have to say about the following?

    If life is hell, even hardcore natalists will support antinatalism.

    If life is heaven, even dyed-in-the-wool antinatalists will advocate for natalism.

    Life on earth, this universe, is neither hell nor heaven and ergo, both natalism and antinatalism are wrong.

    In other words, those who can guarantee at the very least a pain-free (aponia) life for their children should procreate and those of us who can't should remain childless.

    There's no way a one-size-fits-all recommendation can be formulated given the disparities in well-being in the global population - some are happy, others not!

    In the long-term, if happiness can be...er...redistributed equitably/equally such that in transhumanist terms all suffering has been abolished, antinatalism would die. It would be a glorious end to an illustrious career in the ideaverse. Antinatalists would embrace their extinction; it would mean the problem of suffering has (finally) been solved (for good/once and for all). :snicker:
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    Actually, philosophy should seek help wherever it can be found. :meh: — jgill

    :up: Yep, and math has proven itself as the master key of sorts, unlocking doors to rooms in the house of wisdom that were previously out of bounds.
  • Venerate the Grunt
    Joining the military is a HUGE gamble — Bitter Crank

    And the conscription officer goes "just the kinda person we wuz lookin'for! Welcome to the army."

    Wanting to be a soldier is exactly the kinda mindset one needs to be a good soldier! Oui?
  • Is this even a good use of the term logic?
    Any studies to back up the claim that being good at Connect 4 implies proficiency in logic?

    Speaking for myself, there's more to logic/rationality than just being able to think in step-wise fashion from one point to another.

    Nevertheless, someone who's a logician will perform consistently better (in games like Connect 4) than someone who's never studied logic in their life. The converse may not be true. Nowadays, computers can beat human champions in games like these using one of the most primitive of problem solvimg techniques viz. brute force/search.

    The long and short of it, there's either no or only a weak correlation betwixt proficiency in the game Connect 4 and logical prowess. :snicker:
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    Google definitions

    Mathematize

    /ˈmaθ(ə)mətʌɪz/

    verb

    regard or treat (a subject or problem) in mathematical terms.

    "Keynes resisted attempts to be overprecise and mathematize his insights"
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    which is heavier denser -- a kilo of cotton balls or a kilo of rocks! — L'éléphant
  • Venerate the Grunt
    ↪Bitter Crank
    So, being a grunt (expendable) is the price some young men & women are willing to pay in order to see their dreams, some of which you listed in your post, come true! Quite a gamble wouldn't you say?

    It's like becoming a doctor while hoping no one falls ill.
  • Beating the odds to exist.
    It completely slipped my mind that Buddhism has an interesting story to tell about the probability of sentient life (being born aa a human).

    The Turtle.

    There's a blind turtle who dwells at the bottom of an infinite ocean. Every 5 billion years it surfaces to take a breath of air. There's floating on this ocean a yoke that's being blown hither and thither, randomly, by a raging storm. Your odds of being born as a human are far, far less than that of the turtle's head going through the yoke!!!

    Human beings are special but with population explosion, we're becoming more and more ordinary, commonplace, mediocre!

    This rarity of human life should motivate us to lead more fulfilling lives, and not to miss seizing the opportunity for nirvana.

    On the flip side though, gravity doesn't care whether you're a buddha or a serial killer, both (will) die from a fall off the Eiffel tower.
  • A way to put existential ethics
    ↪Alkis Piskas


    Yeah, on target! One has to care for conscience to do its damage to the psyche, but it's precisely because one doesn't care that one is unethical/immoral.

    Conscience is there to make the lives of good people more miserable than it already is with how the world works: without some evil survival is impossible!
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon


    I sympathize with your views if only for the reason that coders have been creating virtual worlds (e.g. video games) since the 1990s and, in line with your thesis, they do so with information.

    Imagine god (the theistic version of your enformer) wants to create a universe. The questions that s/he/it might ask her/him/itself are

    i) What do I want to create?
    ii) How should I create (what I want to create)?
    iii) Left to the reader as an exercise

    In other words god has to know before he can do. Everything begins with information.
  • Venerate the Grunt
    ↪ToothyMaw
    Well, I suggest that we google for articles that contain study results on motivations for joining the armed forces. That's what a nerd would do, oui monsieur?
  • Trouble with Impositions
    And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

    Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?     — Tzeentch

    Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark!
  • Trouble with Impositions
    The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty. — Tzeentch

    We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like @jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically.
  • Trouble with Impositions
    Existence over Nonexistence Asymmetry

    1. All suffering. Would prefer nonexistence.
    2. Suffering > Happiness. Ditto.
    ---
    3. Suffering = Happiness. Would prefer existence
    4. Suffering < Happiness. Ditto.
    5. All happiness. Ditto.

    I feel that most if not everyone would want to exist if scenario 3 were the case. The other options are clear-cut and uncontroversial. This means existence, in and of itself, has value; after all there are no hedonic reasons to choose existence as suffering = happiness (vide 3).
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    An attempt at explainin' how math can help make the case for antinatalism.

    On average, poor people have larger families than rich folks. Suppose the ratio is 9 poor babies : 1 rich baby.

    The probability that anyone will be born poor = = 90%.

    The probability that you'll be born rich = = 10%.

    Once we have concrete numbers like 90% and 10%, we can use 'em to make rational choices/decisions.
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    Uncertainty refers to something that is not certain, i.e. not known or definite and not to be relied on. Where does Math come in this? Even if we attach numbers to uncertainly, e.g; 1/3, 50%, etc., this would not be enough for qualifying a subject as a mathematical one. Probability, chances, certaintly, uncertainty, and so forth may be terms used in Math of probabilities, but also in all kinds of fields or areas, including everyday language. — Alkis Piskas

    Well, uncertainty can be quantified and that's mathematical probability. So we begin with doubt/uncertainty; e.g. it's possible that the world is a simulation. We then bring math to bear on the issue and, after the relevant calculations, we arrive at a better answer viz. the probability that the world is a simulation is x%.
  • Venerate the Grunt
    The tragedy of infantrymen (grunts) is that everybody, including they themselves, knows they're basically expendable cannon fodder and yet people by the hundreds of thousands join the army. Maybe the pay is good, eh mon ami? Not really grunts then, oui?
  • Beating the odds to exist.
    Bacteria & viruses inhabit us, we don't inhabit bacteria & viruses. :mask: — 180 Proof

    :ok:
  • The unexplainable
    it can't explain Everything. — Tate

    That's incorrect. I thought I'd never say that in my entire life! Danke for the opportunity, danke Herr Tate.
  • Is refusing to vote a viable political position?
    compulsory — NOS4A2

    You have no choice in the matter, you havta a choose! :snicker: A contradictio in terminis.
  • Beating the odds to exist.
    Maybe both, but I assume simple to complex happened first. — TiredThinker

    Breaking down (simplification) seems simpler than building up (complexification). It's easier if we look at it as losing qualities rather than gaining them (less magical).
  • Trouble with Impositions
    Nope – just as satellite images and red-shifting sunsets do not help flat-earthers discern that the Earth is not flat — 180 Proof

    :ok:
  • Is refusing to vote a viable political position?
    Voter turnouts, even in the most democratic of countries, is never 100%. I don't see an issue here.

    In the UN general assembly and security council, abstention is a valid stance to adopt. What am I missing?
  • Trouble with Impositions
    The math may speak for itself but antinatalists are not oblige to listen while they are (fallaciously) moralizing on a moot point. Good luck with that, Señor Quixote. — 180 Proof

    I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. If I can show that the probability of a child's life being miserable is 90%, does this info not help the would-be parents to make a decision whether to have this child/not?
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪180 Proof
    :lol:
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    ↪180 Proof
    Pardon?

    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Continuing with the example of antinatalism, why would you not mathematize the problem? The issue is by and large about uncertainty, just what the mathematics of probability was invented to deal with.

    ↪L'éléphant
    For antinatalists, all that needs to be done is prove/demonstrate that any random child has a high likelihood of a miserable existence. The exact same thing is required of natalists as well - show that a happy life is more probable than a sad one.

    ↪Manuel
    :chin: If uncertainty is key to an issue as it is in antinatalism vs. natalism, probability is just what the doctor ordered, oui monsieur?

    the idea is dreadful. — jgill

    Why? See my replies to other posters .
Home » Agent Smith