Ok. Muchas gracias.

When face to face with uncertainty and the future of children are precisely that, we must/usually assume the worst (outcome). Hence, antinatalism. This is a rule-of-thumb we employ every day in our lives.

There are roses and thorns. There are gifts and impositions. I think that the good matters, but I completely agree that people should not be forced to do things that will ultimately lead to more harm than good — DA671

:ok:

What exactly are we talking about here?

1. Suffering, its excessiveness (even from a stoic perspective).

2. Happiness, hard to come by and fleeting.

3. Life.

4. Uncertainty/the veil of ignorance (not knowing what life will be like, happy/sad/bit of both/more of one, less of the other).

What's the best course of action given the above? Natalism/Antinatalism? Not a one-size-fits-all scenario? Customization, tailoring one's beliefs, acting in the way appropriate to one's circumstances?

Of course, it isn't. :ok: — DA671

How about we look up some statistics? Are people rational? Look around and, well, smell the roses shit we're neck deep in. One requirement for being able to think rationally is a certain minimum level of comfort/happiness.

Let's go Aristotle and find the aurea mediocritas betwixt faith (belief sans evidence) & reason (belief only on evidence).

Have a little faith, mon ami. — Logician

Be a little logical, mon chéri. — Fideist

I see reason extending a hand, but faith, no, it's pouting and in the corner, sulking!

universal — DA671

Yep! That's the key word! It's not meant for everybody but the same goes for natalism, not everybody's cuppa tea.

Answer the question, mon ami.

But the examined one is ;)

Intellectual natalism—subtle as always! — DA671

How many of us actually examine our lives? It's paradoxical that antinatalism proceeds from examination (of our lives).

So, you mean to say you would still have kids even when you knew they would be tortured all their lives?

The rather disheartening realization that nonexistence is better in some cases is as old as the mountains (vide infra).

An unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

In other words, antinatalism can trace its roots right back to the father of philosophy, the Athenian gadfly, no less!

Saved for later! Danke!

We would never know that empirically for to observe for existence one has to be conscious.

Can we deduce the answer i.e. can we formulate an a priori argument to prove whether or not existence requires consciousness?

We can try something smaller: There are many deaths daily (google) but existence doesn't seem to be affected by these deaths in any way at all. They should, if existence depended on consciousness, oui (concomitant variation, vide Mill's Methods).

Then there's evolution: Consciousness is the new kid on the block and if existence depended on it, evolution would be false. There's strong evidence that evolution happened!

1. If the perceived present should be the true present, idealism is true.
2. The perceived present should be the true present.
Ergo,
3. Idealism is true. (1, 2 MP)

Refutation: Premise 2 is begging for a supporting argument. Why should the perceived present be the true present i.e. what's the issue with perceptual time lag?

Because the satisfaction of simply being would be better than taking pointless risks ;) — DA671

You missed the point then! Even when the die is fair (50/50 chances), given the severity of the loss (torturesome life), no one will, given the option, play the game of chance that life is.

Renormalizations — jgill

Whazzat?

I think "ego" is the drive (i.e. megalomania) to be bigger than everything and everyone else and not "to lose oneself in something greater". — 180 Proof

Apart of something bigger then negates itself? What examples are there? — TiredThinker

True, true, but I was referring to how those lower down in the pecking order tend to feed their egos by associating themselves with the upper echelons of society (vide name-dropping).

Apologies TiredThinker, I get the impression that what you had in my mind by ego is not what 180 Proof and I are discussing. To be honest the word "ego" comes with negative connotations which I latched onto almost without thinking.

@Tzeentch

Hi, sorry for buttin' in like this, but have a dekko at the list below - destinations (for souls) in order of preference:

1. Jannat (Paradise)
2. Duniya (Earth)
3. Jahanam (Hell)

We're right smack in the middle - there's room for improvement (1, ergo antinatalism) but things could be worse (3, ergo natalism). Earth's not great, but it's not that bad either!

Anyway, you're right about us not knowing what lies in the future of children, yours, mine, anyone's. We can't offer any guarantees regarding their well-being.

Now imagine if someone were to tell me that visiting a country x could be loads of fun OR you could end up hanged, drawn and quartered, the chances being, to be fair, 50/50. Would you plan a family holiday in country x? You wouldn't! Hence antinatalism

@Yohan

Nice angle, the psychologist's view on $\infty$. Speaking for myself, I find the expression "I love you infinity" very thought-provoking and awe-inspirng. Also in the same category is the answer "11" to the question "how's the pain on a scale of 1 to 10?"

@Alkis Piskas

:ok: It's just that I wanted to know if scientific calculations invovling infinities could be tamed in a manner of speaking.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). — Novacula Occami

:snicker: An ol' gem of wisdom! Who listens though, eh?

Bona fortuna! :up:

Yep, on the right track, the OP is. — Master Yoda

The idea is to deconstruct package deals which momma nature, for reasons I can't fathom, is very fond of - it's a good business model but becomes a royal pain in the arse!

:ok:

If you ignore :point: :sad: then, all you have are guilty pleasures - the proverbial fly in the ointment, oui monsieur? The flags in the US & India of all places are flying at half-mast to mourn Shinzo Abe's death.

Let's use antinatalism, it's existence, as some kind indicator/sign/marker that all is not right with the world. Just like how a sad face at a party should warn the host & other revellers that something's not quite right.

On point!

It hasta make sense and (rigorous) logic is all about that - hats off to @TonesInDeepFreeze - making sense (of the cosmos).

Like I said, let's not think/speak for someone who could well be smarter than us. People ain't dumb, at least not as dumb as presupposed by our exchange. I only offer a point of view for couples out there. Life isn't a bed of roses. The opposite perspective is for the natalist to provide.

I have a question on causality.

Ghosts don't exist. Yet, when all alone in an empty house on a dark, stormy night we experience fear, cold sweats, palpitations, dry mouths, a lump in the throat, trembling, weak knees, and even pant-wetting. Is this causation? How can something that doesn't exist cause anything? Perhaps we assume ghosts exist, but then an assumption is many steps removed from truth/reality/fact!

:up: Danke!

Nature prepared itself to do battle with silicon-based AI then! :snicker:

positron — Benj96

Positronic brains, stuff of sci-fi!

Ol' Sparky, Dr. Frankenstein's monster, Luigi Galvani & amputated frog legs experiment, Cardioversion (defibrillators).

I wonder why EMP doesn't fry our brains like they do electronics. Lunacy, lycans, etc.? :chin:

What's necessary for consciousness? Since we know of only one universe, the one we inhabit, we'd better restrict ourselves to carbon-based consciousness or thereabouts.

Consciousness is basically electricity or electrons in motion (brains are - bottomline - electrochemistry). Can another kinda particle take the place of the humble electron?

The problem as I see it is that to answer this question one has to take into account both the potential (to be human) and the actual (is human). To compound our woes, the difference between so-called humans and non-humans is, in addition to being type-based, is also degree-based. The long and short of it - if you take a family picture of the animal kingdom, you get a hazy/blurry photograph and it's quite impossible to identify human/animal/even non-living. :snicker:

The idea, as Athena said, is to stimulate discussion. :snicker:

The law of identity: A = A

It feels odd that, unlike the other two laws of thought, there's an awkwardness to constructing a truth table for the law of identity.

A = A probably means A $\leftrightarrow$ A but then now we're talking about propositions and logic is about propositions. So, the law should be the law of identity (of propositions).

P-zombies, for obvious reasons, remind me of thespians! Laughing but not actually amused, crying but not actually sad, angry but not, reasoning but no, not, so and so forth! We, as we are, can be p-zombies i.e. p-zombies are actual/real to the extent such an inference is allowed by superb acting.

"Where the words come from" can be computed. Did you forget logic? Computers and hence AI are masters of deduction and also induction. The universe is computable. If not, the AI would know that too.

self preservation — TiredThinker

First order of business: Help yourself.

self identity — TiredThinker

The I is not easy to pin down! It seems to be more a matter of convenience than substance i.e. it just makes life simpler to assume there's a unique self. I've heard people say "I've changed my mind!". Never "I've changed my body!"

ego — TiredThinker

Like I said, for every individual, the ego comes first - it's the tip of the pyramid of important stuff.

Intriguingly, the ego has this burning desire to be part of something bigger, but the catch is it must negate itself for this. It's not about me anymore!

Your "14 year old daughter" is an existent person who warrants (your) moral concern. Inexistent persons (e.g. Samwise Gamgee, the not-yet-conceived / unborn) do not warrant moral concern. Your example is a category error, Smith. — 180 Proof

:ok:

:rofl: Trying (hard) to reason!

:ok:

However, look at the potential for pain/unpleasantness/sorrow. If my 14 year old daughter wished to go out alone in a cougar/grizzly-infested woods, I'd object with every fiber of my being. You would too, oui monsieur?

Antinatalism argues along those lines - there's the potential for (great) harm if someone is brought into existence and it would be immoral to then, still, bring that someone into existence. The person is born just to suffer! Such a person would prefer never to have been born! Hence, antinatalism.

Too, it's not that we don't reason this way - the expressions "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "nip something in the bud", etc. offer ample proof.

The fallacy of equivocation, a consequence of polysemy, will wreak havoc if not for the law of identity.

1. This pen is good.
Ergo,
2. This pen will go to heaven.

Is the law of identity about consistency in the meaning of symbols or does it also extend over metaphysical identity? In other words, does the law of identity state something about things themselves and not just the words used to refer to them?

We can do whatever we want to our property. For instance, my watch - I can hammer it to pieces, gift it to someone, wear it, throw it into the lake, so on and so forth! Nobody will say a thing...or will they???!!!

"Our" life, in religion, isn't ours and/or it isn't a property.

Simple!