EnFormAction is an attempt to scientize the almost universal intuition, as evidenced by creation stories in all cultures, of a primum movens (first cause). I appreciate the effort and the key ideas present and active therein, but only veteran philosophers will be able to judge the quality of the output!

I think we can all agree that they are at least. — Hello Human

I see. :up:

Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat? — Tzeentch

If happiness & sorrow are wholly subjective then true, we can't/shouldn't decide for/think for others. Howevr, if there's some objectively measurable sense in which we can be certain if a child will be happy/sad with life, we should be able to deduce whether a person would wish never to have been born or thank their lucky stars to be alive and having a blast.

The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly.

The antinatalism vs. natalism debate can be resolved if we can actually calculate the probability of someone being happy/sad with life. The math will speak for itself I believe.

I'm not sure if this solves it.

Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth? — Tzeentch

Many games we play at casinos and gambling dens have odds of a win less than 90%. The stakes may not be as high as one's very life though.

And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?

The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui?

I'm sure Google can help you out in searching for instances of life's self-correcting feature.

Nevertheless, you're right on the money that this ability of the biosphere to right itself after being knocked over (roly-poly toy like) has limits - beyond a certain point, the point of no return, the system collapses into a death spiral.

In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well.

You beg to differ with a direct citation of the Tao while attempting to claim its cachée and mystique for yourself? — boethius

Have you seen climate records, as read from Antarctic ice cores? They tell a story of not one but many CO₂ crises that resolved themselves without any intervention at all.

I beg to differ.

As long as there's an epistemic gap between a description of eating ice cream and actually chowing down on one, I believe gnosis won't go away.

Readers might wanna look up the Mary's room gedanken experiment.

Has anybody looked at the climate change issue from a taijitu (yin-yang) perspective? As per Laozi, the founder of Taoism, the solution to a problem is present within the problem itself. Let's wait for the problem to solve itself, oui mes amies?

My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. — Gnomon

The horror! Sounds like a blockbuster movie plot themed on/around cybercrime.

The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child.

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house. — Tzeentch

:rofl:

That matches a description of me!

Can you suss what Gnomon's onto and succintly clue me in? I've asked quite a few times, the last being this ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Well, it's just a feeling, an intuition you could call it. Can't name any particular idea that looks promising except for these two:

1. BothAnd (Yin-Yang). This paradigm makes sense even now, about 2.5k years since it was birthed in the Chinese heartland.

2. His variable-based thesis. Gnomon hits the bullseye when he leaves the notion of a primum movens undefined - by doing this he makes room for both theistic and atheistic explanations for why the universe exists at all (vide supra BothAnd)

False trichotomy. Jesus was also either misquoted or a fictional character. :halo: — 180 Proof

Yeah, these are some of the other possibilities which Lewis (conveniently) fails to take measures against. It's just how the game is played I suppose.

The image that comes to mind is of 'a dope rope-a-doping himself' which is kind of funny (ridiculous, not ha-ha). :smirk: — 180 Proof

I still say Gnomon is onto something. I hope he takes your criticisms positively and responds appropriately.

A quick question:

Did we evolve from bacteria/viruses (complexification/bottom-up) or did bacteria/viruses evolve from us (simplification/top-down)?

Political fatalism: Even if Russian hackers hadn't leaked sensitive Hillary Clinton emails, Trump would've won the elections.

Well, if you're lookin' to boost yer ego, you came to the wrong place! It even feels like we were sent here, to this universe, to be put in our place: If you listen carefully, you can hear the cosmos yellin' at you/us "You're nuthin'! You hear, nuthin'!"

Nevertheless, a book on Raja yoga (royal yoga) I read thousands of years ago asks the practitioner to meditate on being, get this, the center of the universe - it makes sense, this, in a solipsistic kinda way, oui? I gave it my best shot but as fate would have it I was unable to complete the training. I had such high hopes that I could do it!

For objectivity, 'whether or not there is consensus' is N/A. — 180 Proof

I thought objectivity doesn't tolerate dissent! We all havta agree (consensus) or else it's the loony bin!

Lewis's trilemma

Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic or Lord!

Feynman's dilemma

Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying (Liar) or crazy (Lunatic), — Richard Feynman

:snicker:

Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk: — 180 Proof

What Gnomon wrote was funny. Right? I dunno.

:up:

:lol:

Yep, I concur!

It would be a better comparison if we were given orders and were being shot at, like what might happen to an actual, low-ranking soldier — ToothyMaw

True.

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport. — Gloucester (King Lear)

We're all pawns in this game between Phanes and Thanatos.

There's this video on so-called great ideas - its a tirade against politicians who the content creator claims should be required to pass a licensing exam/test just like any other profession, doctors to lawyers to plumbers. This then makes politicians accountable and suable in a court of law. A PhD is simply a license that attests the person who has a PhD is qualified in the field in question i.e. can, sensu amplo, practice, à la physicians, a profession legally. :snicker:

personal integrity. — Alkis Piskas

:up: The good man enjoys sound sleep but the bad man doesn't. It boils down to that, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

Unfortunately, it seems this is more fiction than fact - to be found only/mostly in novels/plays/movies that aren't, as they say, based on a true story. I'd love to be proven wrong about this though.

X: Yes, yes, that's it! Do it again! Do it again! Quick! Quick!

Y: Well, I first I turned it off, then I banged the damn thing with a hammer here and here, then I spilled my coffee on the circuit board then...you know what I don't think I can do this again, it's a one-off deal! No repeats!

X: F**k! F**k! F**k!

Y: Indeed! Indeed!

In many cases the PhD is just a certificate awarded to survivors of abuse. — sime

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Star Trek Beyond
Commander Spock: [opening his eyes] I am entirely conscious, Doctor. I'm simply contemplating the nature of mortality.

Doctor 'Bones' McCoy: Feeling philosophical, huh? Massive blood loss will do that to you.

Emotional distress damagss

As the linked article suggests, calculating emotional distress damages is, at present, just approximating the "pain & suffering" the injured party had to go through. I'd advise utilitarian ethicists to keep an eye out for fresh developments in this particular area of law.

:up:

It looks like the two of you have to fight (with each other) tooth and nail, to the finish. BothAnd or Yin-Yang requires you two do so! We'll have medics stationed on site to render emergency care if one/both of you sustain(s) life-threatening injuries! :grin:

:grin:

I have no idea as to why the concept of intersubjectivity was invented, but it might be so as to refine the notion of objectivity as more than just consensus among members of a group.

Subjectivity: Beliefs unjustified; No consensus.
Objectivity: Beliefs justified; Yes/no consensus.
Intersubjectivity: Beliefs unjustified; Yes consensus.

Bonam Fortunam!

All I'm saying is 180 Proof's opposition completes your thesis (re BothAnd/yin-yang). You shouldn't reject him because if you do, you're contradicting yourself.

I'm waiting for someone to go "I signed up just to reply to this post." :snicker:

I have no military experience and so won't be able to offer anything substantive except this: The word "grunt" is derogatory last I checked, used to refer to foot soldiers who do the real fighting - killing & being prepared to be (mis)treated in the same way is seen as something only blockheads would be willing to do!

Socrates, I was told, fought in the Peloponnesian war (431 - 404 BC) and was, in the modern sense, a decorated soldier.

I dunno how courts calculates damages that have to be paid to the wronged party.

Nietzsche's übermenschen goal is meant for everybody! It doesn't defend slavery; how can something meant for all be applied only to some?