Salient points:

1. To physicalists/nonphysicalists, to make your case prove p-zombies are impossible/possible (respectively).

2. The catch: P-zombies and normal people are indistinguishable.

Possible/impossible, to make the distinction, we must resort to a reductio ad absurdum i.e. the premises must entail a contradiction. Does this contradiction require an observation? If it does then such a proof is ~◇ (vide 2). In other words, the proof hasta be a priori (independent of experience). What's the nature of a priori proofs? Definitions? Play around with definitions? Pathetic!?

It's quite clear that we lack the info necessary to come to a definitive conclusion in re natalism/antinatalism - it requires us to accurately foretell the future and that simply can't be done as chance plays a huge role in people's lives.

I wasn't sure. I agree with you but I'm arguing that there isn't any morsl concern warranted by inexistent persons. — 180 Proof

The potential for an awesome life has been extinguished, nipped in the bud?

Antinatalism is, at the end of the day, about the potential/possibility for/of a disastrous life.

The unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

The Lorentz factor is unbounded. — jgill

I'll havta take your word for it.

Self-preservation is hardwired - there's little you can do about it except like in the movie where the guy manning a nuclear power station is :meh: at the multiple alarms going off all around him.

Ego considers itself to be priority #1. Please put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to be the goody-two-shoes on the doomed plane! Medici, cura te ipsum, first set your own house in order! I'm looking for a sick doctor! I'm in search of a bad cop! I'm dying to meet the sinner saint! :snicker:

And I know vastly more about the school of intuitionism compared with your lack of knowledge about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:ok: Please edify me then. How does intuition work in math? How is it related to so-called mathematical/logical rigor? Talking to you is like conversing with a computer. DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE! From start to finish, that's all you say! I should call tech support! :snicker:

And your emoticon doubly seals it! Who could ever defeat an emoticon? — TonesInDeepFreeze

You must free yourself (of mathematics).

If ~(A = A) then, mathematically, A > A. This implies A + x = A where x > 0. However, from A + x = A, x = 0. This is contradiction [x > 0 & x = 0]! Hence, A = A. Did I just use the law of noncontradiction to prove the law of identity à la @180 Proof?

Well that truly settles the question! — TonesInDeepFreeze

:ok:

:brow:

If fatalism is justified... — Agent Smith

:ok:

What is the size of the set of possible states of the universe? I suspect this is the true nmax. Would this be a number best expressed as x^y^z? — hypericin

I dunno! That's what I'm trying to find out.

Empty generalization and bluster. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Henri Poincaré!

Forgiveness should be sought for inflicting harms. However, it can also be sought for removing/preventing all positives. — DA671

:ok:

I haven't, not I'm inclined to read, the "argument" you mention. I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwater. — 180 Proof

:ok:

Yep!

You're, how shall I say this?, forgetting the role of intuition in math. Vide Henri Poincaré.

You might be interested in Capgras Delusion. A = A but ~A = A.

As I see it, the so-called interaction problem for dualism hasta do with the fact that from a physicalist point of view, the brain's functions are all accounted for physically. Ergo, there's no necessity to posit something extra viz. the alleged mind substance is superfluous/redundant. It's like nabbing the lone wolf and then looking for accomplices. :snicker:

I see what ya did there Josh Alfred!

Fantabulous!

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance. — Philosophim

My bad, I dunno what came over me!

I have great respect for Roger Penrose and I'm sure his bad ideas are better than my good ones. Yet, his microtuble theory gives me the impression of a man fast running outta options.

Merci for keeping track of what passed between us; I would've loved to reciprocate in the same way, but alas, my life is too chaotic to permit me this honor. That's precisely your point, oui monsieur?

True, all philosophy, what's being sold as, feels like a giant gedanken experiment, too idealized and thus, to that extent impractical. Nonetheless, philosohy isn't completely useless as by providing us with vignettes of perfection, it calls to our attention what we could do to make our world better; this despite Nietzsche's amor fati.

As for antinatalism, I've decided that it isn't my place to tell what others who're fully capable of making their own decisions should/shouldn't do. I have a particular fondness for the idea for the simple reason that it, at the very least, sheds light on the problem of suffering. Suffering ain't a joke is the message I want antinatalists to get across to people. We need to take action ASAP. If not, natalists will eventually lose the battle - Algos can make life choose death and that's a shocker any way you slice this cake! It's as if a philosopher decided to become a sophist. That's how paradoxical it is.

Au revoir.

Poor writing, (intellectual) laziness, don't-give-a-rat's-ass attitude, and a lot more as possible explanations for the confusion apparent in the discussion so far.

Yep, if I'm not grooming one person for greater and greater responsibilities in my company but instead swapping people with better other people, how could we call that progress? A doesn't become B, and B, C; this would be progress. Au contraire, B replaces A, just as C replaces B. Not progress! :snicker:

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there.

I'm sorry, that didn't compute!

:ok:

Which means $\infty$ is impossible, squaring with Aristotle's decision to make the distinction potential vs. actual (infinity).

The OP argues that for present to be true present, idealism hasta be true for it's not limited by the temporality of materialism.

Why does the present havta be true present?

At least p-zombie Jesus wouldn't feel pain on the cross. — Marchesk

Why? He wasn't a p-zombie!, Post-crucifixion, all bets are off. I recall reading someone calling Jesus a zombie! :snicker:

Well, what if the only universe that existed was the p-zombie one? Then physicalism would have to be true! I swear that sometimes Dennett and friends come awful close to arguing for that universe. — Marchesk

That possibility is moot as even in a world where p-zombies are ~◇, we would be mere stones, not even p-zombies, relative to divine consciousness.

He's the real question. Would Jesus die for p-zombies? — Marchesk

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

If p-zombies exist, physicalism would be false. Quite a riddle, this!

God is to humans as humans are to stones! And yet...

Romance scams!

Honey traps!

Despite all the outwardly expressions of love, there is no love!

That said, speaking for myself, I would fall in love with a p-zombie despite the fact that in movies you shoot zombies in the head; even children kill zombies without raising eyebrows! :chin:

Speak for yourself. :smirk:

Philosophers: folk that use language like its a game or art
Ordinary folk: folk that use language to communicate — Harry Hindu

:grin: This is why scientists have a dim view of philosophy - despite its claims to be a fact-finding mission, it's largely an exchange of opinions. Anekantavada (many-sidedness or no one-sidedness).

Ok. What do you suppose is going on with how the devil (vide ArielAssante's post) on how the devil seems to be conducting what is in essence an experiment to determine whether Jesus has faith in God? The message is clear - God is wholly or largely a question of faith and reason is either irrelevant or secondary to religion.

temptation — ArielAssante

Temptation, yes, but to what end if not to test Jesus' beliefs (in God) for which he had no solid proof and hence, the whole story is about the devil experimenting on Jesus' convictions sans the necessary proofs i.e. Satan wishes to check whether Jesus' faith is great enough for the task at hand which is to be thoroughly abandoned (torture + crucifixion, a tautology that isn't a tautology) and still believe in God.

So, a little bit of craziness and a little bit of reason. That's how we work, oui monsieur? An interesting paradigm that needs dissemination among the peoples of the world: look, you're not cuckoo alright, but you aren't exactly sane either! :snicker:

And what you call "fatalism" I call futilitariansm. — 180 Proof

I see. :up:

If fatalism is justified, what adjustments would you make to your weltanschauung? Wouldn't it be better to just lie in bed and relax all your life? After all, nothing you can/will do affects what happens. We're, in essence, helpless (we're not in charge) and also liberated (we may do whatever we want).

No one chooses the historical moment or the place or family or culture-language/s or social class in which one is born. No one chooses their ancestry, ethnicity, color, sex(uality), talents, limitations, handicaps. No one chooses their desires or disgusts or cognitive biases. No one chooses the natural disasters they suffer or diseases that afflict them. No one chooses psychopathy or mental illness or to become suicidal. No one chooses accidents or black/white swans that happen to them. No one chooses never-decreasing entropy (e.g. "the arrow of time") or aging or forgetting. So much of what one is and becomes one cannot choose – this is fate – the hand one is dealt (in a game, and with rules, one does not choose) played with sorrow or with joy: choose! Futility (what you call "fatalism") or amor fati? No one chooses even to face this choice — 180 Proof

Danke for the reply. In my view fatalism isn't the same as determinism.

1. Fatalism: If there's a choice A or B, both A and B lead to C. What you choose has no bearing on the outcome.

2. Determinism: If A or B are the options, A leads to C and B leads to D as consequences. You'll make a choice but this choice is determined by events prior to and outside your sphere of influence.

The devil says, hey Jesus if what you say is true throw yourself off this cliff and God will save you. This is not about experimentation. — ArielAssante

:chin: This challenge by the devil seems to be a test of faith! The devil is seeking proof of fides. Odd! :brow:

test — Bylaw

So, it's not that we're being debarred from testing for God's existence/nonexistence; we're only being asked not test our trust in Him. :chin:

So I can conduct an experiment to falsify the god hypothesis! The problem of evil is one such experiment and it disproves God's existence! How do I trust something that doesn't exist?

faith as in trust in. I am not denying epistemological issues, just that the massah quote is about having trust in God, not belief in God's existence. — Bylaw

You can't trust in something that doesn't exist.

Deus, sive natura — 180 Proof

Not a god one would want to worship, oui monsieur? Respect? An altogether different story!