Well, I did agree that giving birth to children is imposing on 'em (your aggressive paternalism).

Nonetheless, antinatalism is also an imposition.

Think of it in terms of possible persons. This isn't far out, it's perfectly reasonable to do so, as (an) actual (person) implies (a) possible (person).

Different strains of logic (argumentation)

1. Deductive (certainty) [philosophers' favorite]

2. Inductive (probability) [comes in handy]

3. Abductive (falsifiable only) [science, explanations in general]

Each has its very own specific Achilles' heel. Google for details.

Yep, the smartest person in the room is the one who is least dumbest! There are no sages, only lesser fools!

But how can we logically prove there are other minds? — GLEN willows

We can't! That's the nub of the issue.

At best we could say that we all have a lot of behavioral elements, those associated with minds (intentionality, speech, motion, etc.), in common with other people. Not a proof, but definitely suggestive, of the existence of other minds. In any case, the illusion, if it is one, is top notch! It has us fooled, oui (re Turing Test)!

How rather disheartening it is that on such an all-important matter, our benchmark is how easily and how thoroughly we're made fools of!

What kind of nonsense is this? Wage slavery has only gotten worse. Why do you think minimum wage has been stagnant for over a decade? Because of exploitation. — Benkei

It looks like our standards have gone up since (real) slavery - the kind where we used to work people to death - was practiced all over the so-called civilized world. It's a good thing though and I for one recommend even more stringent criteria for what is and isn't exploitation. For instance, not given days off is in my humble opinion is gross inhumanity. This is the 21^st century for Chrissakes!

That means reducing uncertainty or error. — apokrisis

That's it! :up:

the brain's function is as an optimally effective predictor of future events. — T Clark

Awesome! Prognostication subsumed under pattern-recognition I suppose. A complex web of a multitude of patterns interacting with/informing each other to produce even more complex + interesting daughter patterns, these then doing the same, so on and so forth. I digress. Pardon, monsieur, pardon. Nothing I said is new though! :sad:

:pray:

Philosophy, it just dawned on me, is an homage to and an attempt to tackle ignorance.

I neither know, nor think I know. — Socrates (the father of Western philosophy)

No one is wiser than Socrates. — Oracle of Delphi

Our struggle...with darkness...has been a long and hard one.

On target! It isn't that we have the luxury of maximizing gains, it's that we're tasked with minimizing losses. Like some might want to share - there are no sages, there are only different kinds of fools.

If a person is constrained by logic — Bartricks

Can it be said that logic frees rather than constrains? To be perfectly logical then is a divine attribute, oui? If so, the stone paradox is both a positive (god doesn't do irrational stuff) and a negative (god can't do irrational stuff).

Too, suicide, an exclusively human phenomenon (recall your previous coupla-months-old post) simply won't make sense to animals. Is our relationship with god of a similar character? Clearly, there's something inanimate about life - a stone, a plane full of screaming passengers, both follow the laws of gravity. How often do we stop and examine a worm, a bug? Do we feel any compassion for microbes (jains excepted)?

Now for the philosophical point (remembering that I don't care what Catholics think, I only care about what makes sense - which seems very different). — Bartricks

:fire: You're on a roll amigo!

optimistic extremist — DA671

We need 'em like a chimney sweep needs a shower.

everything does not revolve around the negatives. — DA671

I wanted to pick schopenhauer1's brain on how, given the givens, a minimum amount of suffering is necessary (leprotic/diabetic neuropathy related maladies) for survival or, in more colloquial terms, to stay outta trouble. Transhumanists disagree of course and I feel there's merit in such a position - we could, if we work in earnest, find ways of decoupling danger from pain. It's just that in my humble opinion, nature (evolution) has already experimented with that and it was a disastrous failure - those who didn't feel pain were genetic dead ends and failed to pass down their superpower superweakness to the next generation. In a sense, life rejected happiness or, inversely, life welcomed, with open arms I might add, pain.

 Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost[...] — Agent Smith :cool:

Nice!

It seems that we are in full control of only movement vis-à-vis our bodies - walking/grasping/etc (we can move + modulate the speed of our movements).. The rest of our bodily functions are usually in autopilot mode unless you're a yogi with decades of training under your belt!

To cut to the chase, we, the part of the brain we identify as us is, well, motion-oriented. Solvitur ambulando. :snicker: Make your move!

Humans are both strongly individualistic and also highly collectivistic. The point to this is rather simple - amplify the pros and dilute the cons of both. Like some lucky folks routinely manage, we gotta aim for the best of both worlds.

A pro tip: Any ideology that fails to take into account human (evolutionary) psychology & biology is going end up a magnificent failure!

The OP makes a good point! The infinite regress that inheres to the issue of explaining (things) proves his/her point in a succinct and powerful manner. It's turtles all the way down! :snicker:

Let's not do that, ok? — Tate

Roger!

Actually the OP doesn't say that at all. — Tate

I read between the lines! Perhaps an overactive imagination. Apologies, I'm into conspiracy theories! :blush:

Ethics is also about doing good. Happiness cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unremitting pessimism. — DA671

Let's hope that the sacrifice is worth it!

clowns — Tom Storm

Perhaps the choices are clowns or a-holes! In other words, the people's decision in the elections was sagacious and not foolish! C'est la vie!

Zeleneskyy (the comedian)?

The gist of the OP seems to be that global warming maybe just what the doctor ordered for the coming ice age. Hot + Cold = Just right (re Goldilocks & the 3 bears).

Of course this makes sense only if the rising CO₂ levels don't cause a paradoxical reaction and hasten/sustain/intensify/prolong an ice age.

Actual people do have rights. But that doesn't mean that there is any value in trying to preserve these rights when the person who would have those rights does not exist. However, if there is a right to not suffer, there definitely should be one to be happy (and the truth is that both of them are intimately connected). — DA671

Ok!

You fail to see the point then or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Lemme explain: You, as an antinatalist, want to prevent suffering but this suffering exists only as a potential for a possible person. It is only fair/consistent that you also concede that a possible person has the potential for happiness, oui?

There is no right for the unborn to be happy. But there seems to be a prohibition to creating harms/choices for others "just because you want to". — schopenhauer1

Nonexistence has no rights, I'm with you on that. However, a possible person does have rights even if not to the same degree/level as actual persons. At the very least, if a good life can be assured, possible persons should be allowed to become actual ones.

@schopenhauer1 & @DA671

Nonexistence is not just nonexistence in re life (the supposedly highest form of existence). Nonexistence has the potential for existence if you concede the notion of possible persons and with the potential for life, a possible person has, in my humble opinion, some basic rights - the right not to suffer (antinatalism) and the right to be happy (natalism).

What sayest thou?

From what I gather, the model of the mind as offered for critique and/or endorsement seems (too) machine-like for my taste. True that our brain probably is the mind and neuroscience has proven to some extent that our brains are basically (bio)electrochemical devices; nonetheless, the model is, in my humble opinion, too simplistic. Of course I could be seeing/imagining things - the alleged complexity of the mind being merely an illusion, one of many ways ignorance manifests itself.

My two cents...for what it's worth.

I'm not sure but the days of making big money through exploitation are over i.e. the rich-poor gap is increasing alright but by other, more benign, more honorable, methods. What these are is currently beyond me, but the bottom line is the rich have nothing to be ashamed of, conversely the poor have nothing to complain about! :snicker:

Negative numbers, as some members have already realized, are simply extensions of numerical patterns, not forwards like how we're so habituated to doing but backwards.

They're widely accepted for the simple reason that they're useful in solving equations like 5 - 6 = x and they don't cause catastrophic contradictions, at least none that I'm aware of.

Good one! :cool:

Eating just one billionaire would do more for climate change than going vegan or never driving a car for the rest of your life. — Meme

:snicker:

They seem a compatible, even complementary, quartet. — 180 Proof

Obviously, Aristotle (the author) was no fool!

Yes, only that one presumption creates harms and presumes set of choices that’s supposed to be good for another with its other intention. This matters. Not creating goods creates no negative situation for no one. I can do this all day. — schopenhauer1

Does the following make sense to you?

Imagine a couple who had it all in a manner of speaking. They decide not to have children. A person, a stranger, hears of them and remarks "If only they had children! How lucky it would be to be born to such a wonderful human beings!"

Choices and harms are presumed for another. That’s all that matters ethically. You’re imposing on others. — schopenhauer1

My point is simply this: either way (natalism/antinatalism) we're imposing (on a possible person). Damned if you do, damned if you don't! We gotta choose the lesser of the two evils. Can you give it a shot? I'm all ears.

philosophers only look backward. — jgill

and they supposedly puts everything before us!

:snicker:

True!

I get that - except isn't idealism a la berkeley predicated on the idea that all things disappear when we're not experiencing them first hand.

The tree in the forest - and me - and you?

In other words, the entire sense-excperience I'm having is in my head. Only my head. That's solipsism no? — GLEN willows

As far as I can tell, idealism is either difficult or impossible to disprove. The same goes for solipsism. These philosophical positions rest on, as I said, possibilities that, as for now, can't be ruled out.

If you were a figment of my imagination I would know more about you then you do. Do you think that I know more about you then you do? I don’t know the color of the shirt you’re currently wearing, assuming you’re wearing one. You most likely do. — praxis

I could counter your point but only with another that's rather far out! I concede your point! It's an interesting argument! Kudos.

Nothing is stable at L2, so nothing accumulates there. — noAxioms

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

So Lagrange points aren't like regions in a stream for example where the flow of water (gravity) "slows down", allowing sediments to settle down/accumulate?

They are representations. My mind models a representation of you, for instance. — praxis

And...does that somehow disprove the claim that it's possible the external world/other minds are mind-generated/mind- sustained?

Did we jinx the JWST mission? :snicker:

Prove it. — praxis

Idealism & Solipsism are possibilities and ergo all that needs to be proven is that they are...possibilities and that's as easy as ABC. Try it for yourself. Couldn't it be that the external world/other minds are mental projections?